The Most Transparent DOJ in History

Megan Rupino here. This week on a touchmore we've got two insiders to help us understand. The WMBA's new CBA, three-time champion and WMBPA Vice President Alicia Clark, aka C and ESPN basketball analyst Andrea Carter. We're also gonna take a look at our NCAA brackets and check out what's next in March Madness. Check out the latest episode of A Touch More wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube.

Hey everyone, Ellie here, wishing you a happy Friday. Well, before we get to this week's piece, I want to talk briefly about Robert Mueller, who of course passed away. I haven't had a chance to talk with you all. About this because Muller passed away on Saturday. Now, luckily, I was able to go on CNN and talk about it and Sirius XM as well during the week.

I'm not gonna dignify the president's commentary. I think it's a shame that the president's ridiculous comments have sort of swamped coverage of Mother himself. When I look back at Robert Mueller's career and legacy, and I did a lot of research and for my book, I spoke with many people around him. I spoke with three or four members of his

team that investigated Trump. I spoke with White House lawyers who were opposing him. I spoke to Garrett Graff, the historian who has covered him. I spoke to Andy McCabe who worked with him at the FBI. So I have a good sense of who he was. Part of Robert Mueller's legacy is uncomplicated. He's an American hero. He was a combat veteran, wounded in combat in Vietnam, received the Purple Heart.

the Vietnamese cross of gallantry, the bronze star. He got shot. He chose to return to combat. He could have come home. Hero in every sense. Then he becomes a DOJ prosecutor and eventually head of the FBI. I've said this before and it's in my book, but Robert Muller is the only person in American history, and I'm sure he will remain so.

Who was nominated to high positions in DOJ and the FBI by four consecutive presidents, two Republicans and two Democrats, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and confirmed unanimously by the Senate every time. We will never See that again. He served as the FBI director with distinction. George W. Bush made him director in 01. It happened to be just a few days before 911. And then when his tenure term expired in 2011, Barack Obama

Wanted so badly to keep him that he went to Congress and got permission to extend him for two years. Barack Obama said that Mueller is, quote, the gold standard of law enforcement, and he's right. In the broader sense, the way I look, Muller was FBI director most or all of my time when I was with DOJ. I never met him face to face. He came to address our office. I went and watched him speak. But the way I would put it is.

The people who I looked up to and was shaped by that generation looked up to and was shaped by Robert Mueller. In other words, Robert Mueller influenced the people who influenced me. And I think his passing, I know I heard from a lot of people who knew him personally and who didn't. that they felt like his passing marked the end of an era, the end of a certain type of selfless, non-partisan, non-political public servant.

The part of Mueller's legacy that's more complicated, and I know Pre discussed this a bit, Joyce discussed this a bit. Is his handling of the investigation of Donald Trump in 2017, 18, and 19? And the real controversy it comes down to should Mueller have said straight up? Donald Trump committed a crime. He could not have indicted him. Please don't don't waste your time with that. He was not allowed, could not have indicted.

Donald Trump. You may hate that policy, but you can't blame Mueller for that. But there is a fair debate about should Mueller have been more explicit in saying I find Trump committed a crime. My view for a long time was that he absolutely should have, and it was a massive mistake not to. And I think I still lean that direction. I heard Rachel Maddow say something similar on her air, but I do think that

It's a little more complicated. And the members of Mueller's team, if you read their various books, if you read my book where I spoke with some of them. They defend him. They say he did the right thing out of prosecutorial principle, which is you don't go accusing people of a crime who you've not indicted. Now, again, I can hear some of your heads exploding. I'm with you by and large. But there is a reasonable argument in favor of what Robert Mueller did.

I don't think that that investigation should ultimately taint Robert Mueller's legacy. I think he was the only person who could have done that job. I talked to Rod Rosenstein for my book. Rod Rosenstein chose Mueller for that job, and I asked Rosenstein, would you have

Who would you have chosen if Muller couldn't do the job if he had said no? And Rosenstein basically said, I probably wouldn't, he said, maybe. I might not have chosen special counsel at all. In other words, it might well have been Muller or nobody at all. And I think that speaks a lot about who Robert Muller was. So there's a lot we can learn from Robert Muller. There's certainly a lot we can honor. And I wish him peaceful rest and I wish his family condolence.

Okay, on with this week's piece. As always, love to hear thoughts, questions, comments. Keep in coming, letters atcafe.com.

This is the most transparent Justice Department in the history of the United States and maybe all of human existence. Just ask them. When pressed in November 2025 about DOJ's handling of the Epstein files, Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to quote, follow the law with maximum transparency, end quote. In a December 2025 letter, Deputy A. G. Todd Blanche Cavelled. That is a word. That's a Yiddish word, folks.

Cavelled, quote, never in American history has a president or the Department of Justice been this transparent with the American people about such a sensitive law enforcement matter. End quote. Bondy gushed last month about serving under Trump, quote, the most transparent president in the nation's history. Indeed, DOJ's current leadership loves little more than to congratulate themselves on their world historic, crystal clear, nothing to hide, transparency.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's ignore the fact that the Justice Department complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act over a month late. with millions of pages improperly withheld, with victim identities inexcusably revealed, and with the names of various apparent wrongdoers improperly redacted. Let's take as true, for the sake of argument, Bondi's claim that she wants nothing more than for the American public to see behind the curtain.

What then would we expect of this most transparent DOJ ever when the Attorney General receives a subpoena issued with bipartisan support from a Republican-led congressional committee? Maybe something like the Attorney General, who prizes transparency above all, looks forward to the opportunity to testify to Congress and the American people. Instead, within moments of the subpoena's issuance, DOJ's actual response, and I quote, completely unnecessary.

In that initial statement, the Justice Department offered a glimpse at its strategic game plan. Quote, the Attorney General has always made herself available to speak directly with members of Congress. She continues to have calls and meetings with members of Congress on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which is why the department offered to brief the committee tomorrow, meaning tomorrow from when the statement was issued, which was last week.

Now let's pause here to draw a vital distinction. On the one hand. There's Bondi's formal testimony required by the House Oversight Committee subpoena, which is scheduled for April 14th. That testimony would be given under oath. It would be visible to the American public, recorded verbatim by video and by stenographer, and it would proceed according to a set of established rules allowing committee members to question the AG directly.

Now Bondi doesn't exactly shine in these settings, of course. Recall her disastrous testimony last month, the hackish personal insults, the bizarre non-sequitors about the Dow being over 50,000. It's not anymore, by the way. The overall tone of shouty defensiveness, which made her the subject of a series of derisive, viral memes.

On the other hand, there's this informal briefing that Bondi offered, together with her human heat shield, Blanche, last week, the day after the subpoena's issuance. Predictably, it became a pointless free-for-all. Bondi was not under oath. There were no specific procedural rules and there was no video recording or transcription, leaving it to partisan lawmakers to offer their after-the-fact, often contradictory and self-serving recollections of what happened behind closed doors.

Democrats objected, all heck broke loose, and everyone stormed out, unsatisfied.

Now the Justice Department plainly hoped. that by sliding in for this quick informal chat or briefing with the committee, they could obviate the need for Bondi's formal testimony on April 14th. Republican Representative Lauren Boebert, who had voted for the Bondi subpoena, announced after the chaotic debriefing that she was reconsidering her support for the subpoena because quote,

It is absolutely shameful to have her, Bondy, come in there willingly to answer anything that we want to ask and to be treated that way. It just shows what's to come. End quote. Republican Representative Tim Berchett. Who also had supported the Bondi subpoena said after the briefing, quote, she was there, they had an opportunity, and they blew it.

Committee Democrats weren't having it. Ranking member Robert Garcia called out the ruse, quote, we're not going to participate in fake hearings and briefings like the one they tried to set up yesterday to get out of sworn under oath testimony. Bondy, for her part, hedged on whether she'd comply with the subpoena. On her way out of the briefing, when asked by a reporter if she would still testify on April 14th, the AG proclaimed that she, quote, made it crystal clear, I will follow the law.

End quote. Which means absolutely nothing. Bondi might mean, of course, I will testify in compliance with a lawful congressional subpoena, or more likely, she could mean I think the subpoena is unlawful, so I will defy it. If Bondi in fact refuses to testify on April 14th, the next move will belong to the committee, which holds the power to recommend a formal contempt resolution. The oversight committee includes 25 Republicans and 21 Democrats.

So the votes of all Democrats plus three Republicans would constitute a majority. Now, five Republicans voted for the Bondi subpoena in the first place, though Boeber and Burchette have since wavered publicly. If the committee votes by a majority for contempt, then the matter goes to the full House, 217 Republicans, 214 Democrats, and one independent plus three vacancies.

Again, Democrats can hold a majority if they all vote in favor of contempt and if they peel away three other votes. Although they need three to get out of committee in the first place, so you'd presume they would have those three votes. And here's where it all comes full circle. If the House votes for contempt, then the matter gets sent for potential prosecution to who? The United States Department of Justice.

which is currently helmed by who? Attorney General Pam Bondi. I'll go out on a limb here and predict the odds of Bondi approving an indictment captioned United States v. Pamela Joe Bondi are slim. Now we've seen recently that attorney generals, as a rule, aren't exactly eager to indict themselves. We somehow managed to go 230 plus years as a nation without holding any AG in contempt. But lately it's become a ritual. In 2012, the Republican-controlled House with some Democratic support.

Held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to provide documents relating to the fast and furious firearms sting operation. In 2019, the Democratic-controlled House held A.G. Bill Barr in contempt when he declined to provide documents relating to the administration's plan to add a citizenship question to the census. People think Bill Barr was held in contempt over something with the Mueller report. No, it was this issue with the census.

And in 2024, the Republican-controlled House held A.G. Merrick Garland in contempt for his refusal to release audio of an interview between special counsel Robert Herr and then President Joe Biden. Of course, that audio eventually came out. In all three cases, the AGs shocked precisely nobody by declining to charge themselves with criminal contempt. Still, beyond the privileged world of attorneys general, contempt of Congress charges can have tea.

Trump advisors Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were held in contempt for defying subpoenas from the January 6th committee. Both were indicted in 2022 by the DOJ under Garland. Both were tried, convicted, and imprisoned for four months each.

More recently, the House Oversight Committee with bipartisan support approved a contempt resolution against Bill and Hillary Clinton after they defied subpoenas relating to the Epstein investigation. After the vote, the Clintons decided to testify rather than risk prosecution.

So while Bondi surely has no fear of an indictment, it's tough to square a formal finding of contempt, especially one that would require bipartisan support, with her constant, self-congratulatory claims of unprecedented transparency. But that bit of overt hypocrisy might be a small price to pay for Bondy to avoid another round of humiliating testimony like she gave last month on Capitol Hill. Circle April fourteenth on your calendar, but only in pencil.

Thanks for listening everyone. Stay safe and stay informed. Drömmer du om en nymålad fasad eller kanske bara en nyåljad terras. Sluta drömma! Med butiker i hela Sverige hjälper vi dig med allt från val av färg och kulör till terrassåja för altan omöbler. Välkommen in till Alckros.