Prosecutor reveals consequnces for Epstein file violation by Trump, Bondi - Brian Tyler Cohen

[TexasTowelie]

Last edited Sat Dec 20, 2025, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Legal Breakdown episode 642: Former prosecutor on remedy for DOJ failing to release Epstein files.

Raw transcript from YouTube:

You're watching the legal breakdown,
Glenn. We all know that the Epstein
files were supposed to be released in
full by Friday. Of course, that didn't
happen. The DOJ itself came out and said
that they would only be doing a partial
release of those files and the rest of
the files would slowly trickle in. So,
first and foremost, recognizing that
this DOJ violated the law, what are the
implications of the fact that we only
got a partial release of these files?
Yeah, Pam Bondi's DOJ, including Todd
Blanch, the number two at the Department
of Justice, the deputy attorney general,
you know, they seem to think that the
federal law is perhaps a mere suggestion
that maybe it doesn't pli apply to DOJ
or its high officials. The reality is it
does. Let's start with the obvious
question. What is the remedy for Pam
Bondi's Department of Justice violating
federal law? Not a whole heck of a lot.
You know why? This is one of the many
federal laws on the books that has no
teeth. Brian, when you read the the
Epstein Transparency Act, there is no
punishment for violating the law. People
may find it surprising that there are I
don't know if it would be thousands, but
I'm guessing it is thousands of federal
laws on the books. um when if violated
carry absolutely no punishment
whatsoever. Let me give our viewers an
example of one that I dealt with many
times in my years as a prosecutor. the
Crime Victim's Rights Act, the CV, the
Victim's Bill of Rights, which actually
does come into play because of some of
the abuses of, you know, prior US
attorneys, most directly, Alex Aosta,
who violated the victim's rights the
first time around when he was involved
in investigating Epstein's crimes. If
the federal government, if federal
officials, including prosecutors,
violate the uh Crime Victim's Rights
Act, no punishment, you know, which is
something that I think really needs to
be addressed. The same is true of the
Epstein Transparency Act. The violation
has no direct sanctions, punishments, or
penalties in the law itself. Now, we can
talk about how maybe the Department of
Justice could either be held accountable
for violating the law, which it looks
like they will do at the end of Friday,
or how they can perhaps be compelled to
comply. There are at least three things
that come to mind. First of all, when
you violate a federal law, even if that
law has no punishment in the statute
itself, if you violate a federal law by,
for example, wrongfully withholding
evidence, information that is supposed
to be disclosed under the law, that
could constitute obstruction of justice.
That's one way that there could be at
least the prospect of a penalty for the
Department of Justice. Two, there could
be aggressive congressional action,
oversight by Congress for DOJ's apparent
violation of federal law. And third, and
I'm going to I'm going to suggest this
is perhaps the most viable and the most
important possible sanction. Civil
lawsuits could be brought by anybody
with standing in, in other words,
anybody who has a stake in DOJ violating
this law, anybody who has a dog in the
fight. so to speak, like the victims of
Epstein's crimes. Those people could
potentially bring lawsuits to compel
compliance with the law. And that might
result in a judge ordering the
Department of Justice to give me the
judge all of the files and then I will
decide if you are withholding some for
appropriate reasons or if you're doing
it for I don't know um to to to protect
dear leader in the Oval Office. So those
are the three possible ways to either
sanction or compel compliance with the
Epstein uh Transparency Act. But you
know, we can talk about the viability of
the first two and why I land on the
third civil lawsuits by the victims as
being the most likely one to produce any
kind of results.
So let's talk about that third one for a
moment because let's say that the judge
compels those files. Aren't we in the
exact same situation where instead of
we're wait instead of waiting for the
DOJ to release the files to the public,
now we're waiting for the DOJ to hand
the files over to the judge, don't we
ultimately come back to the same
question of if they refuse to comply,
who is there to hold them accountable? I
mean, it's the DOJ itself, who's there
to enforce the law? And so if the DOJ is
the one uh defying the law, whether it's
releasing these files to the public or
releasing these files to a judge who
would then be responsible for uh
releasing them recognizing that the DOJ
isn't going to do it, we ultimately fall
into the same into the same issue where
we're just waiting for a non-compliant
DOJ to comply with the law, knowing full
well that if they don't do it, there's
really nobody to stop them. Brian, you
bring the problem into full focus. Pam
Bondi's dirty DOJ leadership has justice
by the shorthairs, as they say. Um,
there really is little viable
enforcement mechanism when
the enforce when the enforcers
themselves are the ones who are defying
the law.
Exactly. you know, when the agency
that's responsible for um addressing
violations of federal law are the ones
violating the federal law. You know,
this is this highlights the folly and
there's nothing funny about it. The
danger of having an illegitimate
department of justice in Pam Bondi and
Todd Blanch. Now, I always hasten to add
there are stillund 100,000 good,
hardworking public servants in the
Department of Justice, although the
ranks are dwindling every day, literally
every day, with people being unlawfully
fired for doing their job. Or they're
opting out because they can no longer
labor under the corrupt leadership of
Pam Bondi and Donald Trump. But this
highlights the danger, the dangerous
times in which we're living. And you
know, I I think the courts are trying to
stand up. I think if the courts get
involved because victims bring a lawsuit
to try to force compliance with the
Epstein Transparency Act, it will be a
slow, long, and painful process with DOJ
sort of, you know, nefariously pushing
back every step of the way. But as we
have seen, the courts have been holding
strong. Eventually, I do believe that if
a court orders the Department of Justice
to turn over all of the Epstein files,
they will comply with a caveat. Brian, I
can't say I will ever be confident that
Pam Bondi will allow for the complete
release of the Epstein files in the
event there are things in there that are
deeply damaging to Donald Trump. I would
fully expect her, and I'm sorry to say
this, to obstruct justice to try to
protect dear leader.
Glenn, it's worth asking here. Do any of
the people at top the DOJ shoulder any
personal liability for refusing to
comply with the law? And in the event
that a Democrat takes over the
presidency, takes over the executive
branch, do those people carry any legal
risk as they become private citizens for
their actions right now?
Yeah, it's a great question. So first of
all, the answer is if the high DOJ
officials are involved in intentional
violations of federal law, even a law
that doesn't carry any penalty, um if
they commit a crime, like obstructing
justice by intentionally violating the
law, they can certainly be criminally
prosecuted if there's enough evidence to
launch an investigation, obtain an
indictment, and prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. They could be
prosecuted by a future administration
once the rule of law comes back into the
light of day. Of course, that begs the
question, if they're doing Donald
Trump's dirty bidding presently,
wouldn't we expect them to get a pardon
when Donald Trump has one foot out the
presidential door? I suspect they will.
But then let's go to the civil piece of
that. Could they successfully be sued?
Ordinarily, and we've talked about this
a lot, Brian, government officials enjoy
a healthy dose of what we call sovereign
immunity. Immunity against being sued by
the American people. And generally, I
think that serves an important purpose.
We don't want every government official
to spend all day, every day in court
defending against civil suits for
conduct that they engage in that is
within the scope of their official
duties. That is the bubble of
protection,
right? But that raises the question, is
refusing to comply with the law within
the scope of their official duties?
You're one step ahead of me because
violating a federal law, whether it is a
federal law with or without penalties
written into the statute, is beyond the
scope of the official duties of an
attorney general and a deputy attorney
general. So that could open them up to
civil lawsuits being brought by the
victims or anybody else who might have
standing to bring suit. And the good
news is uh a presidential pardon has
absolutely no applicability to civil
lawsuits.
It's worth asking here too. Uh the DOJ's
had plenty of time, plenty of advanced
notice recognizing that this day was
coming. And so what does it say that we
still won't have the full breadth of the
Epstein files, but there were apparently
enough resources for a thousand FBI
agents to step in so that they can
redact any mention of dear leader Donald
Trump because, god forbid he was even 1%
embarrassed by virtue of his presence in
the Epstein files. You know, Brian, that
bothers this old prosecutor for at least
two reasons. First of all, what a gross
misuse of our FBI special agents because
the reporting was 1,000 of them were
detailed to scour the Epstein files for
references to Donald Trump. those
thousand agents were taken away from the
actual law enforcement work they were
doing on behalf of the American people
to devote their time to, you know,
making sure Donald Trump, as you say,
isn't even embarrassed, never mind
criminally implicated in those files.
And yet now when DOJ has the opportunity
to make sure they put enough, you know,
energy and effort and man and women
hours into scouring the files to prepare
them to be released in accordance with
the law. Why? To vindicate the rights of
victims, not protect Donald Trump. They
are just not up to the task. We're too
darn busy. we can't devote enough time,
people or resources to complying with
the law. You know, that is offensive
for, you know, both misusing FBI
resources in the first instance and
second, not giving a damn about
vindicating the rights of victims when
the law directly obligates them to
disclose these files.
Finally, Glenn, let's finish off with
this. There is a 15-day reporting
requirement by Congress. Uh what are the
implications of that recognizing that
the DOJ has already missed this
deadline?
Yeah, Brian, there is a requirement in
the law that you know 15 days after the
disclosure deadline, uh DOJ has to
report to Congress anything that they
have withheld, failed to disclose,
aren't yet prepared to release. And so,
at least in theory, if they comply with
the 15-day deadline, we will learn more
about precisely what they have not yet
disclosed. And I have a feeling um it's
going to be quite a bit of the Epstein
files.
All right. Well, obviously more to come
on this issue. For those who are
watching, if you'd like to follow along
on this and all other legal news, the
best way to do that is to subscribe to
our channels. I'm going to put the links
to both of our channels right here on
the screen. It's a great way to support
our work, great way to support
independent media. Uh a great holiday
gift for us and it is and always will be
100% free. So again, those links are
right here on the screen. I'm Brian
Teller Cohen
and I'm Glenn Kersner.
You're watching the Legal Breakdown.