Brian Tyler Cohen was joined by Congressman Jamie Raskin for an extended discussion following Pam Bondi’s high-profile testimony — a hearing that has continued to generate national attention.

One moment in particular went viral.

During questioning, Bondi defended the administration’s handling of the Epstein files by emphasizing that over three million pages of documents had been released. She declared Donald Trump “the most transparent president in the nation’s history” and then pivoted — unexpectedly — to the stock market.

“The Dow is over $50,000 right now,” she said, chastising lawmakers for pressing her about Epstein while markets were soaring.

Raskin, who was visibly laughing during the exchange, explained why.

He said he had warned Bondi beforehand not to waste members’ limited five-minute questioning windows with deflections, personal attacks, or filibustering. Lawmakers, he said, had hours’ worth of questions regarding what he described as corruption and lawlessness within the Department of Justice.

Instead of answering directly, he argued, Bondi repeatedly changed the subject — even citing stock market performance when pressed about alleged privacy violations involving Epstein victims whose identifying information had reportedly been released without proper redactions.

“She’s the attorney general,” Raskin noted. “She’s not the chair of the Federal Reserve.”

He also said Bondi appeared to come prepared with personal insults, at one point allegedly referring to him dismissively. Raskin brushed that aside, framing it as distraction rather than substance.

But the conversation then shifted to a more serious matter: the treatment of Epstein survivors.

During the hearing, Bondi publicly encouraged survivors to come forward with information and contact the Department of Justice.

However, lawmakers asked survivors seated behind her whether the DOJ had reached out to them — or responded when they reached out themselves.

According to Raskin, none had been contacted. All had attempted outreach. And all said they were ignored.

Raskin described that contradiction as central to the controversy.

He then broadened the discussion historically, referencing the original plea deal negotiated by former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta in Florida. That deal reduced what had reportedly been a sweeping federal indictment into a single state charge, accompanied by what critics have long called an unusually lenient plea agreement.

Raskin argued that this marked the beginning of what he described as a two-tiered justice system involving powerful figures connected to Epstein.

He emphasized that accountability should apply across party lines — Democrats and Republicans alike — and insisted that anyone involved in trafficking or abuse should face prosecution regardless of political affiliation.

When asked about reviewing the Epstein files personally, Raskin said he had spent several hours examining available materials.

He described multiple layers of opacity:

• Documents that may have been destroyed or disappeared.

• Millions of files that exist but have not been released.

• Millions that have been released but heavily redacted.

• Survivor names allegedly exposed despite instructions to redact identifying information.

• Meanwhile, names of potential co-conspirators and enablers remain blacked out.

He said he searched for references to Trump within the database and found extensive mentions. One document he referenced involved a memo summarizing a 2019 interview with Trump regarding Epstein’s access to Mar-a-Lago — which he said appeared to contradict Trump’s current public statements about having expelled Epstein from the property.

Raskin stopped short of alleging criminal proof, stating he does not expect direct evidence to remain easily accessible if it ever existed. But he argued that inconsistencies and redactions warrant continued scrutiny.

He also criticized claims from some administration officials suggesting Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell acted alone, calling that theory implausible given the scale of the trafficking network described in court records.

The conversation then turned to historical comparisons with Watergate.

Raskin argued that while Nixon’s attorney general ultimately faced prison for participating in a cover-up, today’s legal environment is different. He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States regarding presidential immunity as significantly altering accountability dynamics compared to the 1970s.

Still, he noted that public opinion and political momentum remain powerful forces, suggesting that institutional pressure could eventually produce consequences.

The interview then shifted to immigration enforcement.

Raskin described an unannounced visit to an ICE detention facility in Baltimore after winning a lawsuit affirming members of Congress’ right to conduct oversight inspections.

What he described was deeply troubling:

• Dozens of detainees packed into rooms shoulder-to-shoulder.

• One toilet for approximately 60 men.

• No showers.

• Aluminum blankets on the floor.

• Some detainees held for nearly a week under those conditions.

He said he was not permitted to speak directly with detainees but observed them gesturing toward the lack of sanitation and overcrowding.

The conversation concluded with discussion of DHS funding negotiations and proposed reforms — including removing masks from ICE agents, requiring visible identification, mandating body-worn cameras, and reconsidering qualified immunity protections.

Raskin argued that federal agents must be legally accountable for misconduct, both criminally and civilly, just like local law enforcement.

Throughout the interview, the overarching theme was institutional accountability — whether regarding the Epstein files or immigration enforcement.

Raskin framed the current political climate as a struggle over constitutional norms, separation of powers, and equal justice under law.

And according to him, that struggle is far from over.