Trump Oil & Energy Problems Are Worse Than People Think & Tucker Carlson and Joe Kent Drop Bombs
PDS Published 03/19/2026
-
There was zero U.S. intelligence that showed Iran posed an imminent threat, Iran wasn’t planning on developing a nuclear weapon, the U.S. strikes will only strengthen the regime, and everyone knew that striking Iran would endanger U.S. allies in the region and shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
Those are just some of the explosive allegations made by former US National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent in his first interview since resigning earlier this week.
Right, in his now-viral resignation letter, Kent said he couldn’t continue in his post because he disagreed with the war, arguing that it was unjustified and there was never any imminent threat from Iran.
And yesterday, he sat down for a lengthy interview with Tucker Carlson.
But before we dive, there are a few quick things you need to know about Kent.
Right, first of all, he isn’t an institutional bureaucrat who is standing up to Trump after years of service — he is a Trump appointee who is (or at least was) MAGA through-and-through.
And while that makes it arguably more notable that he’s spoken out against Dear Leader, it also comes with its own baggage.
Right, for one, Kent has ties to multiple antisemitic right-wing figures.
During his failed congressional campaign in 2021, Kent had a call with well-known white nationalist Nick Fuentes.
He also hired a member of the Proud Boys as a campaign consultant, worked closely with the founder of a Christian nationalist group, and did an interview with a neo-Nazi blogger — though he has tried to distance himself from the Nazi sympathizers of the group.[][]
He’s also embraced numerous conspiracy theories, including that the COVID vaccine was “an experimental gene therapy,” that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, and that the insurrection was instigated by federal agents.
And many people on both the left and right have criticized his resignation letter for similar conspiratorial language.
Right, while there certainly is some truth in the claim that Israel dragged the U.S. into this war, Kent painted the situation as a widespread conspiracy.
Saying Israel conducted a sweeping misinformation campaign that Trump was helpless against, and arguing that modern U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is part of this broader Israeli conspiracy, even claiming that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the result of an Israeli “lie.”
Which is why you have many people across the political spectrum accusing Kent of going beyond criticisms of Israel and veering into explicit antisemitism.
Which, of course, is an allegation Tucker Carlson has also faced repeatedly with his coverage of the war.
Right, and I’m not telling you all of this because I want you to immediately disavow everything Kent says — regardless of his beliefs, he was very high up in the administration and very close to the operations of this war.
But it’s important for you to know about his character and background so that you can decide for yourselves how to evaluate his claims.
So, diving in, throughout the interview, Kent actively contradicted many of the moving targets that Trump and his administration have tried to use to justify this war.
Right, a main claim top officials have made is that Iran posed an imminent threat, and there are two reasons for this that the administration waffles between —
1) that Iran was planning to launch strikes on U.S. assets and 2) that it was building a nuclear weapon.
And regarding the first claim, when Carlson asked Kent how he came to the conclusion that there was no imminent threat, he responded:
“I think this is this is key. I mean this would be more challenging to explain had the secretary of state, the president and the speaker of house the house not ome out and said that we conducted this attack at this time because the Israelis were about to do so. So that takes away the argument that there was an imminent threat as in Iran was planning to attack us immediately. That just simply did not exist.” 19:48 - 20:10
Kent also claimed that Trump essentially created a self-fulfilling prophecy, saying that he never saw any intelligence that Iran posed an imminent threat UNLESS the U.S. went after them FIRST in a way that threatened the regime.
So by doing exactly that, Trump basically created the imminent threat that didn’t exist before, with Kent adding:
“But there was no intelligence that said, ‘Hey, on whatever day it was, March 1st, the Iranians are going to launch this big sneak attack. They're going to do some kind of a 911 Pearl Harbor, etc. They're going to attack one of our bases.’ There was none of that intelligence.” 37:51 - 38:04
Right, and regarding the nuclear threat, Kent also told Carlson that the U.S. didn’t have any intelligence that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon — a claim that has also been backed up by many others:
CARLSON: “Was Iran on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon?”
KENT: “No, they they weren't, you know, 3 weeks ago when this this started and they weren't in June either. I mean, the the Iranians have had a religious ruling, fatwa against actually developing a nuclear weapon since 2004. That's been in place since 2004. That's available in the public sphere. But then also we had no intelligence to indicate that that FATWA was being disobeyed or it was on the cusp of being lifted.” 30:29 - 30:55
KENT: “So the the Iranians position when viewed from the lens of the region was actually fairly pragmatic. They were preventing, you know, themselves from developing a bomb, but they still wanted the ability they wanted the ability to to enrich. They wanted the ability to have some components so that they weren't completely stripped of it.” 31:54 - 32:10
And, in addition to the claims of an imminent threat, Kent also took aim at the Trump administration’s argument that their end goal with this war is regime change.
Saying that by killing the country's supreme leader, the U.S. actively undermined that goal, arguing that it just empowers more extremist members of the regime and implying that it may have also exacerbated the nuclear threat:
“If we struck the regime, it would only strengthen it. And that's not I think that's just basic common sense.” 28:47 - 28:53
“So if we do want a real regime change and we want the people to rise up we want it to happen fairly organically going aggressively after the Ayatollah was the last thing that we ever should have done. Again like I'm no fan of the former supreme leader you know like I however um he was moderating their nuclear program he he was preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon if you take him out if you kill him aggressively people are going to rally around that regime and the next ayatollah that you get and I think this is the case by data that we have with his son, the next Ayatollah that you get is going to be more radical.” 50:34 - 51:07
You also had Kent claiming that, in the lead-up to the war, “a good deal of key decision makers were not allowed to come and express their opinion” to Trump.
Saying there had been a “robust debate” before the U.S. struck Iran this summer, but that wasn’t the case this time around.
And noting that when key security officials aren’t involved, the kind of intelligence that gets passed up to the president very different depending on who delivers it, adding:
“And without a level set from the intelligence community, someone like DNI Gabbard coming in and saying, ‘Mr. President, like here's the full scope of the intelligence um and what it means,’ you're kind of lacking that that sanity check.” 42:18 - 42:29
Right, and on that note, Kent also contradicted Trump’s repeated claim that none of the intelligence officials knew how an escalating war with Iran would threaten U.S. allies in the region and block the Strait of Hormuz:
“Because it's well known what the Iranians plans were. We knew that they were going to hit our potentially our bases in the region, potentially our allies. We knew about the Straits of Hormuz. All of these things I think were fairly well known.” 24:01 - 24:10
But as for the real reasons Kent believes this war was started, that gets a little stickier.
Right, throughout the interview, both Kent and Carlson talked at length about how Israel and its American lobbies are behind this whole operation.
With Kent expanding on the claims made in his resignation, arguing that Israel had pulled the US into the war and that it is heavily influencing American policy in the Middle East, adding:
“The Israelis drove the decision to take this action, which we knew would set off a series of events, meaning the Iranians would retaliate.” 21:50 - 21:59
“And I think this speaks to to the broader issue. Uh who is in charge of our policy in the Middle East? Who is in charge of when we decide to go to war or not?” 21:36 - 21:42
Now, again, there is some truth to the claim that the U.S. has gotten wrapped up in this war in part because of Israel, but throughout the interview, both Kent and Carlson repeatedly veered into conspiracy theory territory.
With one of the more notable points being when Kent appeared to imply that Israel was somehow involved in Charlie Kirk’s murder or may have been involved in blocking the investigation into his assassination:
“President Trump's closest advisers who is vocally advocating for us to not go to war with Iran and for us to rethink at least our relationship with the Israelis um and then he suddenly publicly assassinated and we're not allowed to ask any questions about that.” 1:27:19 - 1:27- 37
Though you also had Kent trying to walk that back a bit, saying there were just a lot of unanswered questions and he was trying to draw conclusions or say explicitly that Israel was responsible.
Right, now, with all this, Trump and other members of his administration have tried to dismiss Kent’s claims, downplay the significance, and cast him as disloyal and untrustworthy.
With Trump himself also criticizing Kent after he released his resignation letter:
“I always thought he was weak on security. Very weak on security. I didn’t know him well. But I thought he seemed like a pretty nice guy. But when I read his statement, I realized that it’s a good thing he’s out because he said Iran was not a threat.” 00:01 - 00:18
And now, we’re seeing reports that Trump’s FBI is investigating Kent for a possible intelligence leak.
Though, very notably, sources said that the investigation was launched before Kent’s resignation.
But you still have many experts speculating that regardless of when and why the probe was started, there’s a solid chance Trump will try to use it to target Kent — just like he’s done with so many of his other perceived political enemies.
Kickstart your passion project with a free trial today: Squarespace & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase!
-
But while the White House is calling Joe Kent a liar, Donald Trump may have lied about American knowledge of an Israel attack on the world’s largest natural gas field—an attack that may be bringing the war into a new phase of the war in which oil and gas facilities are prime targets.
And despite claims that the war is on track the Pentagon is now asking for another $200 billion to fight it—while thousands more troops may soon be on their way to the Middle East.
But with all that, let’s start by talking about what this war has already cost.
A week after the US and Israel attacked Iran, Pentagon officials told lawmakers in a closed-door briefing that the cost of the war had exceeded $11.3 billion in its first six days.
But the estimate reportedly appeared largely limited to munitions expenditures and not the full cost of the opening days of the conflict—which could include forces deployed to the region, medical expenses, and the replacement of military aircraft lost in combat. []
The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that the true cost would’ve been around $12.7 billion.[]
With the Guardian reporting that the first six days of the war therefore cost the same as one year of paying 9 percent of the country’s elementary school teachers, medical care for 693,000 veterans, 1.5 million public housing units, or medicaid for 3.6 million children. []
And, of course, now? We’re on day twenty.
And the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates the total amount is now likely to have exceeded $18 billion—with the bill growing by roughly half a billion dollars every day.
And so it is actually going up slower than the first days of the war—largely because many of those strikes were carried out with some of the most expensive weapons in the country’s arsenal.
A single Tomahawk cruise missile, for example, like the one believed to have hit an elementary school and killed 175 people (BROLL)—costs around $3.5 million.
And the US is believed to have fired over 300 of them in the first six days of the war.
With the Pentagon having since moved mostly over to cheaper, shorter-range weapons—although, of course, the damage is already done.
And that’s apparently why it’s now asking the White House to approve a more than $200 billion request to Congress to fund the war in Iran.
Right, because the request is reportedly aimed at urgently increasing production of critical weaponry expended as US and Israeli forces have struck thousands of targets in Iran over the past three weeks. []
It remains unclear exactly how much the White House will ultimately ask Congress to approve—but Trump confirmed it will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars range.
And that appears to be on top of the $1.5 trillion defense budget he said he’d be asking for at the beginning of this year—a more than 50 percent increase from the previous year.
And getting all that will obviously be an uphill battle in Congress.
But whatever amount is ultimately approved, it will take time for the defense industry to increase production—with how long depending on the availability of the workers, production facilities, and materials needed to build the military’s most advanced weaponry. []
With the Pentagon’s former acting comptroller—who now analyzes the defense budget at the American Enterprise Institute—telling the Washington Post:
“Just throwing lots of money into the industrial base doesn’t necessarily get you things sooner, but you’re definitely not going to get it sooner if you don’t.” []
Although, Defense Secretary Pete Hegesth, apparently sees it more simply—saying in a press briefing this morning:
“As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move obviously. It takes money to kill bad guys.” (35:00-35:10)
Hegesth also accused Joe Biden of depleting US weapons stockpiles by providing equipment to Ukraine following Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country in 2022.
Although, notably, Biden mainly gave ground-based armaments and vehicles to Ukraine, not Tomahawk missiles, which are far more expensive. []
And overall, as of December, Congress has reportedly approved roughly $188 billion in spending for the war in Ukraine over the four-plus years that it’s been going on. []
Although Trump claimed today that the number was actually $350 billion—also blaming Biden, saying he gave away that money “so stupidly.” []
But back to Hegseth, he also claimed today there the US would be delivering the "largest strike package yet" in the war and he continued to claim this wouldn’t be another forever war:
"Hear it from me, one of hundreds of thousands who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, who watched previous foolish politicians like Bush, Obama and Biden squander credibility,.”
“This is not those wars. President Trump knows better" (3:16-3:35)
But, of course, he declined to say when or how the war with Iran could end, other than saying the US was “very much on track” and that it’s pretty much just up to Trump:
“The president’s choosing, ultimately, where we say, ‘Hey, we’ve achieved what we need to on behalf of the American people to ensure our security. So no time set on that but we’re very much on track.” (21:15-21:25)
But with that, despite things apparently being on track, Trump is reportedly considering deploying thousands of troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East.
And this is apparently in addition to reinforcements already on their way, including more than 2,000 marines, who are expected to arrive next week.
And these new troops would apparently be meant to give him additional options as he weighs expanding American operations in the region.
With one option being that they would take part in a mission to secure safe passage for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.
Which sources told Reuters would be accomplished mainly through air and naval forces but could also mean deploying troops to Iran's shoreline. []
The administration has also talked about sending ground forces to seize Kharg Island—the hub for 90 percent of Iran's oil exports.
And it has also discussed the possibility of putting boots on the ground to secure Iran's stocks of highly enriched uranium.
And Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Congress more than a week ago that at some point “people are going to have to go and get it.”
But this would apparently be one of the riskiest military operations in modern American history—not least because:
1) no one knows for sure where it is;
2) if the canisters holding it are pierced, the escaping gas would be both toxic and radioactive;
And 3) if they come too close together, there is the risk of an accelerating nuclear reaction.[]
Now, with all that, Trump told reporters on Tuesday that ground operations didn’t worry him—saying:
“I’m really not afraid of that.”
“I’m really not afraid of anything.”
But, of course, that’s very easy to say when you’re not actually the one risking your life.
That said, for now, this is very much still an air war—and some of the latest strikes are threatening to bring this war into a new phase that could have an even bigger impact on energy prices and everything connected to that.
Right, because as we talked about yesterday, airstrikes hit Iran's South Pars gas field—which is by the world’s largest natural gas field and contributes to as much as 70 percent of Iran’s total gas production.
Iran and Qatar accused Israel of the attack—with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards warning people to stay away from oil and gas facilities in countries including Qatar as well as Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
And over the next several hours apparent Iranian attacks damaged the world’s largest liquefied natural gas facility in Qatar—which processes about a fifth of the world's liquefied natural gas.
You also had strikes causing fires at two state-owned refineries in Kuwait and hitting a key energy export terminal in Saudi Arabia.
With officials in the UAE reporting that it had also responded to incidents at gas facilities and an oil field caused by debris from intercepted missiles.
And so in response you had the Qatari foreign ministry ordering Iran’s military and security attachés, along with their staff, to leave the country within 24 hours,
With the Saudi foreign minister also warning Iran that his country, as well as others in the region, “have very significant capacities and capabilities that they could bring to bear should they choose to do so.” []
On the US side, you had Trump seemingly trying to deescalate with a post on social media yesterday—specifically in response to the strike on the Qatari LNG facility—writing:
“Israel, out of anger for what has taken place in the Middle East, has violently lashed out at a major facility known as South Pars Gas Field in Iran”—and adding:
“The United States knew nothing about this particular attack, and the country of Qatar was in no way, shape, or form, involved with it, nor did it have any idea that it was going to happen.”
Although, notably, with that, you had Axios reporting earlier that while the strike on the gas field was carried out by the Israeli air force it was coordinated with and approved by the Trump administration—with this being based on conversations with both US and Israeli officials.
And afterward, you also had Reuters reporting the same—speaking to three Israeli officials who said the US knew all about it.
Which would make sense because the administration previously objected to Israel's earlier strikes on oil depots in Tehran and demanded that Israel not hit energy infrastructure again without US approval.
And with that, in his post, you also had Trump promising that “NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL” against the South Pars Field “unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case, Qatar.”
With him threatening that if that happened he would “massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field at an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before” —adding:
“I do not want to authorize this level of violence and destruction because of the long term implications that it will have on the future of Iran, but if Qatar’s LNG is again attacked, I will not hesitate to do so.”
But with that, speaking of long-term implications? There’s no avoiding them at this point.
Right, the strikes that hit the gas field yesterday reportedly did damage to areas that make up nearly 12 percent of Iran’s total gas production.
And even without that damage, Iran has dealt with crippling gas and electricity shortages for decades.
Over the past few months power plants across the country have increasingly turned to burning something called mazut (mah-ZOOT).
Which has been described as a “bottom of the barrel” crude oil residue and is actually banned in much of the world because of how toxic it is. []
And this had created an air pollution emergency even before the US and Israel attacked—with a severe drought not helping matters and of course the war just making the situation even worse.
And actually, on that note, the Climate Action Network, which is an umbrella group for more than 1,900 civil society organisations in over 130 countries? It claimed today that the US-Israeli attack on Iran “meets the criteria for ecocide” — saying in a statement:
“The attacks on Iran’s oil storage facilities have unleashed massive health and environmental harm. Burning fuel depots poison air, land, water and lungs that will linger in the atmosphere long after the bombing stops.”
“Corporations, financial institutions and the arms industry form part of the same fossil-fuelled war economy that profits from destruction while also accelerating climate breakdown.” []
And with that, of course, there are people making money here—even if most of us are losing out.
Right, these latest attacks sent the price of oil jumping by nearly 10 percent to $119 a barrel this morning—with European natural gas prices surging by about 25%. .
And that was before we started to get an idea of the extent of the damage at that Qatari LNG facility.
Right, Iran’s attacks reportedly knocked out 17 percent of the country’s LNG export capacity for up to five years—causing an estimated $20 billion in lost annual revenue
And just like Trump, you had Iran’s foreign minister threatening to do more damage if it's own facilities were attacked again—saying:
“Our response to Israel’s attack on our infrastructure employed FRACTION of our power. The ONLY reason for restraint was respect for requested de-escalation,” he said in a post on X.
“ZERO restraint if our infrastructures are struck again.”
On the flip side, you had the UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Japan issuing a joint statement calling for deescalation, although it was notably absent of any explicit condemnation of the US or Israel—saying:
“We condemn in the strongest terms recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas installations, and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces”—and adding:
“We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait. We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.” []
Although, to be clear, there’s still no sign these countries are on board with Trump’s idea to have them escort ships through the strait while there’s an active conflict.
Although, despite that, in contrast to his bashing of NATO allies, you had him taking a friendly tone with the Japanese prime minister at the White House today, despite her position being virtually the same as NATO’s:
“We’ve had tremendous support and relationship with Japan on everything. I believe that based on statements that were given to us yesterday, the day before yesterday, having to do with Japan, they are really stepping up to the plate.”
“Unlike NATO” (7:48-8:05, 8:16)
Although he then had this to say when asked about why he didn’t inform allies ahead of the attack on Iran:
“We went in very hard and we didn't tell anybody about it because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan, OK? Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor? You believe in surprise much more than us.” (23:59-24:23)
And so yeah…that happened.
And that is the man that so much about what happens next depends on.
Use code “PHIL10” for 10% OFF your first SeatGeekorder & returning buyers use code “DEFRANCO” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! SeatGeek
-
And getting back to the news but staying on the topic of the war in Iran, security is ramping up as the threat of an Iranian attack here in the US or against US officials becomes very real.
Right, unidentified drones were spotted above Fort Lesley J. McNair, the Army base in Washington where both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth live. []
According to an anonymous senior administration official, the drones made an appearance on a single night sometime in the last 10 days.
Which, as you can imagine, prompted an increase in security measures as well as conversation about moving both Rubio and Hegseth.
They reportedly haven’t been moved as of now but I can’t imagine their whereabouts are going to be made as public as their move to McNair was in light of all of this.
Now, there’s not a lot we know about these drones specifically - with Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell declining to comment on the situation and also getting a dig in at the media at the same time.
Saying,
“The department cannot comment on the secretary’s movements for security reasons, and reporting on such movements is grossly irresponsible.” []
And we also didn’t get any comment from the State Department either.
But we do know that drone threats are straight out of the Iranian playbook - we saw something similar with Trump and other officials after a US strike killed a prominent Iranian general in 2020. []
And during the 2024 campaign, the Secret Service detail protecting Trump’s team repeatedly encountered unidentified drones - including during a news conference in LA and a motorcade ride through rural Pennsylvania. []
With officials telling Trump that September that Iran wanted to kill him. []
But these most recent drone appearances happened as threats to overseas diplomatic posts and domestic bases have escalated to the point of the government issuing a global security alert.
Right, just this week here at home, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey and MacDill Air Force Base in Florida raised their force protection level to the second-highest designation. []
Meaning the commander has intelligence indicating an attack or danger is possible.
We’ve seen MacDill go into lockdown twice this week - on Monday for a suspicious package that closed the base’s visitors center for hours and then again on Wednesday for an unspecified security incident that resulted in an hours-long shelter-in-place order. []
And the targeting of MacDill specifically is concerning because that’s the home of US Central Command - which is responsible for military operations against Iran.
Then there’s the issues abroad - with the State Department on Tuesday ordering all diplomatic posts worldwide to “immediately” undertake security evaluations.
Specifically citing, quote, “the ongoing and developing situation in the Middle East and the potential for spillover effects.” []
In fact, earlier this month, a suspected Iranian drone struck the parking lot of the US consulate in Dubai - causing a fire with massive plumes of black smoke.
Rubio said that all personnel were accounted for afterwards and added,
“So, we've been very fortunate, obviously, but our embassies and our diplomatic facilities are under direct attack from a terroristic regime.” []
There’s also the Saudi Defense Ministry saying that the American Embassy in Riyadh has been attacked by two drones - resulting in minor damage and the embassy closing. []
As well as Iranian missile and drone attacks leading to explosions in Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and other countries where we have military bases. []
Not to mention everything going on with the Straight of Hormuz that we’ve been covering recently.
And it’s not like this wasn’t a possibility - right, retaliation was on the radar for a while.
With the New York Times reporting Western security officials were concerned even before the initial strike happened that Iran could use proxies to conduct retaliatory terrorist attacks against American and European targets. []
Whether that’s a cyberattack or a more physical option.
With Colin Clarke, the executive director of the Soufan Center, an intelligence and consulting firm in New York, saying at the time,
“If the U.S. military campaign against Iran is existential for the supreme leader and the most senior members of the I.R.G.C., I would fully expect Tehran to order terror attacks abroad, including in Europe.” []
And considering we killed the supreme leader and Trump was recently talking about wiping out the rest of the regime, that is a very real concern.
In fact, you’ve got some people speculating that Trump may be trying to provoke a terrorist attack here.
With the Guardian highlighting that an attack on American soil could work to Trump’s advantage - giving him a pretext to declare a state of emergency or even cancel the midterms. []
Right, using a potential attack to keep him and his loyalists in power.
With Yale historian Timothy Snyder writing,
“Self-terrorism might not have been the initial aim; but as time goes by, and failures and atrocities mount, its appeal will grow. Trump could think that he has much to gain; the war itself makes terrorism more likely.” []
And that sentiment was echoed by Steven Cash, executive director of the Steady State, a group of retired national security officers, who added,
“Of course there’s going to be retaliation – it’s a rational response on their part. It may be that this is what Trump’s interested in. He has spent a year trying to convince Americans that we are facing a terrible domestic threat.”
“Suddenly this unprecedented and unprovoked attack on another country – probably in violation of the constitution and international law – is going to create the very conditions that he unsuccessfully tried to convince us would justify extraordinary powers of the presidency.” []
But I would love to know your thoughts about this and so I’ll pass the question off to you.
Let me know what you’re thinking in those comments down below.
-
Democrats are threatening Attorney General Pam Bondi with impeachment and contempt over the Epstein files, Congress members are accusing each other of “bitching” and whining, and we still have no actual answers or accountability when it comes to Epstein’s crimes.
That is where we are right now when it comes to this saga.
And we’ll start with Bondi, who just sat down with the House Oversight Committee for a closed-door briefing on the DOJ’s investigation into the files.
But Democrats believe that briefing was a sham and walked out of it furious that the Attorney General would not explicitly commit to appearing for a scheduled deposition.
“It was clear from the minute it started that the AG is trying to evade the mandated subpoena we have put in place.” (3:32-3:41)
Right, last month, the committee voted to subpoena Bondi over the Epstein investigation, and Republican Chairman James Comer just formally issued that subpoena this week.
It asks her to testify under oath on April 14,
But when Bondi was asked about her plans to appear for it, Democrats claim she only said that she would “follow the law,” which they did not take a real answer.
“She would not say yes. Filibuster filibuster filibuster, would not say yes.” (7:55-8:00)
“We want her under oath because we do not trust her! Why don’t we trust her? Because she’s a liar! Look at how that judiciary hearing went. She was spying on members of Congress when they were in the DOJ looking at the documents unredacted.” (8:06-8:21)
“We want her under oath because she has shown she is involved in a coverup.” (8:37-8:40)
Right, Democrats believe that Bondi held this “briefing” yesterday to try to get out of her subpoena, not to actually address any concerns.
Arguing they only learned of it at the last minute so they could not prepare.
And claiming it was staged as some kind of fake hearing, but minus the press or transcribers that would make it accessible to the public.[]
“We’re in the hearing room, we have all been given three minutes of time by the chairman to ask questions. There is no briefing. No opening statements by the AG or Deputy AG. She’s not under oath.” (1:07-1:22)
“We did not get to answer or ask questions. This has been completely set up in a way that is irresponsible.” (1:33-1:38)
And Democrats said they just did not want to play that game.
So they used their time to simply ask Bondi if she would appear for the actual deposition.
But what actually prompted them to storm out may not have been something Bondi did, but rather Chairman Comer.
With Rep. Yassamin Ansari (Yoss-uh-men, yoss like boss, En-sorry) claiming that he used vulgar language while addressing Rep. Summer Lee.
“My colleague, Congresswoman Lee, directed her question at Comer and said, Chairman Comer, are you going to ensure that AG Pam Bondi comes forward and if she doesn’t what actions are you willing to take? He decided to use that opportunity to say that she was ‘bitching’ and that is when we all just fucking had it and walked out.” (2:28-2:50)
And for his part, Comer actually confirmed that he used that language, writing:
“I said Democrats were bitching and wasting everyone’s time because Democrats were bitching and wasting everyone’s time.”[]
And Summer defended herself, arguing she was just doing her job and adding:[]
“If Comer wants to say I'm bitching, he can do it in a sworn deposition where it's recorded and transcribed.”[]
But Comer spoke to reporters to continue his criticism of Democrats, saying:
“It was very disappointing, what the Democrats have done. I believe that was premeditated. They came out clutching their pearls complaining that she was not answering questions, things like that. The first three to ask questions, all they did was complain.” (0:14-0:29)
“They said they wanted CSPAN there. They wanted cameras. Very typical behavior.” (0:35-0:41)
You also had other Republicans in the committee defending Bondi, saying she gave this briefing voluntarily to address any and all questions. []
With Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon claiming Bondi did in fact answer them.
Right, so once again, because all this happened behind closed doors, because Bondi was trying to get them in a room without press or transcribers, the public did not actually get to see what went down.
So we are getting two very different sides to the story and a bunch of political grandstanding before Bondi’s deposition even happens.
And Democrats are not happy, and just this week, Rep. Summer Lee introduced articles of impeachment against the Attorney General, saying yesterday:
“She has already been obstructing justice. She has already weaponized the DOJ.” (2:03-2:07)
“The DOJ does not have the right or privilege of withholding information from an active investigation, ignoring the laws of our land, which the Epstein Files Transparency Act is.” (2:18-2:30)
And this actually makes Lee the second Democrat to introduce articles of impeachment against Bondi just this month.[]
It is also not the only consequence Bondi could face here, as ranking member Robert Garcia has suggested the committee could hold her in contempt if she does not testify.
So we will have to see what comes from any of that.
But for now, the Epstein depositions are still ongoing, right, it is not just Pam Bondi who the committee wants to speak to.
And today, Epstein’s longtime lawyer is actually answering questions.
Before he testified, he wrote:
“I did not socialize with Mr Epstein, and I reject as categorically false any suggestion that I knowingly facilitated or assisted Mr Epstein in his sexual abuse or trafficking of women, or that I was aware of Mr Epstein’s actions while I provided legal services to him.”[]
But you already have some on the committee questioning this given how long he worked for Epstein.
And we will just have to see if this, or if any of the other upcoming depositions, actually lead to answers or accountability, or if we are just going to run in a circle over and over while survivors go without justice.
