What What do I have to show to get a the phone records of a sitting United States Senator? Yes, Senator. There were actually eight sitting United States Senators. And you would have to have cause. I’m sure. what do I have to show what do we >> have to have cause to get this subpoena. >> or probable cause? Probable cause. Okay.
Um and and uh Probable probable cause or or if it’s a subpoena duces tecum, good cause to show what? You would need good cause for a subpoena duces tecum. And what you would have to show is that you believed a crime had been committed or that there was a possibility of a crime or that it could lead to other crimes.
We frequently in criminal enterprises subpoena cell phone >> the sitting United States Senator. Senator, they would have to have believed you were part of a criminal conspiracy is my understanding. Would would a judge have to sign off on it? On the on the subpoena? Yes, Senator. Well, for a subpoena duces tecum, Jack Smith probably took it straight to the judge.
Now, the the phone companies particularly their general counsel, if they’re worried about civil liability, even with a subpoena to get the phone records of a sitting United States Senator. Did Did I mention it was a sitting United States Senator? Yes, Senator. The general counsel of that phone company, I’d say AT&T, they have the right to seek to quash that subpoena, don’t they? Phone companies frequently do that.
Yeah. And and a smart general counsel for that phone company is going to call the sitting United States Senator and say, “Would you like to weigh in on this? Would you like me to quash the subpoena? Uh we’re we’re we’re we’re we’re talking about invading someone’s privacy here by a sitting United States Senator.
Could could the general counsel for the phone company do that? Well, Senator, if they believed that a crime could have been committed, they could not tip off the person who committed the crime. Um again, I can’t comment on details of this >> Yeah, I’m not asking you to >> particular case. >> I’m just asking you theoretically.
I’ve I’ve never seen you commit a crime, Senator. >> But but but let’s suppose, okay, they couldn’t they didn’t want to tip off the sitting United States Senator. But the phone company and the general counsel for the phone company or companies, if there were more than one involved, could say, you know, this is this is serious as an aneurysm.
This is serious as four heart attacks and a stroke. This is a United sitting United States Senator. So, general counsel would likely advise the CEO, you need to file a motion to quash. The telephone companies could have contested those subpoenas, could they not? Hypothetically, yes. I can’t talk about the facts of this particular case. >> we’re talking hypothetically.
Senator, subpoenas are issued all the time through phone companies working with the general counsel. >> But they can file a motion to quash. They could, yes. Yeah. In any case. >> >> And and if they should have filed a motion to quash, and a reasonable person would have filed a motion to quash, because this is a sitting United States Senator, and they didn’t file a motion to quash, they would incur civil liability, wouldn’t they? Senator, typically phone companies follow a subpoena from a United States Senator.
>> but they don’t have to. They could challenge it, Senator. Yeah. And if they don’t challenge it, they had better have a damn good reason. Right? Right? Senator, I can’t talk about the facts of this particular case. >> a hypothetical. >> In general, hypothetically, Senator, maybe they didn’t recognize any of the names of the eight sitting United States Senators.
Uh-huh, hypothetically. That was a joke. Or maybe they should have gone to Amazon and buy some testicles online. Instead of just saying, “Sure, I’ll just show you the phone records of a sitting United States Senator on the basis of an administrative subpoena.” Now, do you have Do you have copies of the subpoena applications? Yes, Senator.
>> Senator, I can’t discuss anything regarding this case. >> even tell me if you have copies? >> I can’t discuss any of this case. >> when are you going to General, when are you going to be able to discuss it? I can’t discuss whether there is or is not a pending investigation, sir. >> But let’s assume if there is a pending investigation, I don’t want this to get swept under the rug.
Okay? Cuz I think you’re going to get pushed back from all quarters. I think the telecommunication companies are going to be all over you like a bad rash. Cuz they’ve got liability here. For just turning over these records. When they knew what was going on. I think some FBI agents may have some liability here.
I think a special counsel might have some liability here. If I were your special counsel and you had appointed me and I wanted to get the these the records of a sitting United States Senator. Is that something you would expect me to tell you as Attorney General of the United States? They better have. Yeah.
And yeah Do we know in this instance of the eight sitting United States Senators if they told Attorney General Garland? Senator, I just learned about this um very recently as did Director Patel. And we cannot discuss the details. I don’t know many of the details. >> we ought to get Attorney General Garland here. Do you Do you know if the uh Mr.
the the the special counsel told FBI Director Director Wray? Is that something Let me put it in another If I were your special counsel and you were the Director of the FBI and I’m I’m trying to get the phone records of a sitting United States Senator. Did I mention it was a sitting United States Senator? Is that something that that you would expect me to tell you as Director of the FBI? In general, I would believe the FBI would help execute the subpoenas. Yeah.
To the Does that >> Okay, I want to switch to another subject in the in the in the 12 minutes that I have left since everybody else got to go over. Um I’ve got to ask you about this, General. >> Secretary Howard Lutnick on October 1 gave an interview to the New York Post about Mr. Epstein.
And he described Mr. Epstein as {quote} the greatest blackmailer ever. {close quote} Have you reviewed that transcript of that interview? I have not reviewed the transcript, but I saw the clip of it. Okay. It appears that that uh Secretary Lutnick uh was was Mr. Epstein’s next door neighbor.
In fact, their their their town homes um shared a wall. Um and and the the reporter that was asking talking to Mr. Mnuchin uh she asked, “How how other prominent men could have been associated with Epstein when Mr. Mnuchin could immediately sense that he was a quote pervert?” And then Secretary Mnuchin said or rather the reporter said, “Did they see it and ignore it?” Do you remember that from the interview? I do.
And Commerce Secretary Mnuchin said, “No. They participated.” And then Commerce Secretary Mnuchin goes on to say quote, “That’s what his MO was. You know, get a massage, get a massage. And what happened in that massage room, I assume was a video. This guy was the greatest back blackmailer ever. Blackmailed people.
That’s how he had money.” In quote. Is that true? Senator, as our July memo said, we did not uncover evidence. This case has gone through three administrations as well as former US Attorney Alex Acosta. >> Pam. But have you Have you interviewed Secretary Mnuchin? No, Senator. Do you plan to? A claim that, if true, could completely change how people understand Epstein’s power.
Because according to one prominent figure, Epstein wasn’t just running a trafficking operation. He may have been running one of the biggest blackmail operations in modern history. And what Bondi admitted during that hearing immediately set off alarm bells. But to understand why this moment hits so hard, we have to start with a statement that stunned people when it first surfaced.
Point one of the most shocking comments about Epstein came from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick during an interview with the New York Post. In that interview, Lutnick described Epstein in a way that immediately grabbed headlines that he called Epstein the greatest blackmailer ever. That’s not a casual accusation. It’s a massive claim.
During the interview, the reporter asked Lutnick something many people have wondered for years. If Epstein’s behavior was so obvious, how did so many powerful men continue associating with him? According to the interview, Lutnick suggested the situation was darker than people realized. The reporter asked whether prominent figures simply ignored Epstein’s behavior.
The Lutnick’s alleged response was chilling that he said they didn’t ignore it. He said they participated. Then he went even further, reportedly describing Epstein’s method. According to the interview, Epstein would invite people for massages. What happened in those rooms, Lutnick suggested, may have been secretly recorded.
And if those recordings existed, they could potentially be used as leverage to I In other words, Epstein may have been gathering compromising material on powerful people. Now to be clear, these claims remain unverified speculation and have not been proven in court. But the mere possibility has fueled years of debate. And that’s exactly why Senator Kennedy decided to bring it up during the hearing.
Because if someone publicly made a claim like that, wouldn’t investigators want to talk to him? But when Kennedy asked Bondi about it, the answer stunned the room. Kennedy started with a simple question. Had Bondi reviewed the interview transcript where Lutnick described Epstein as a blackmailer? Bondi responded that she had seen a clip of the interview, but she hadn’t actually reviewed the full transcript.
That alone raised eyebrows. But Kennedy wasn’t finished. He asked the next obvious question. Had the Justice Department interviewed Lutnick about those claims? Bondi answered no. Kennedy pressed again. Did the DOJ plan to interview him? And that’s where the response became even more controversial. Bondi said if Lutnick wanted to talk to the FBI, or if the FBI wanted to speak with him, they could.
That might sound reasonable at first glance, but critics immediately pointed out something troubling that I n a case involving one of the most notorious criminal networks in recent history. The DOJ appeared to be waiting for potential witnesses to come forward voluntarily instead of aggressively pursuing leads. And that’s the moment where the frustration in the room started to grow because this wasn’t just about one interview anymore.
Kennedy was about to shift the conversation towards something even bigger. And what he brought up next raised serious questions about how power and accountability work in Washington. Kennedy pivoted the conversation towards subpoenas and investigative powers. He laid out a hypothetical scenario for Bondi.
Suppose a special counsel wanted to obtain the phone records of a sitting United States Senator. What would they need to show? Bondi explained that investigators would need probable cause or good cause depending on the legal process used it. That’s standard legal procedure, but Kennedy’s point wasn’t really about the legal definitions that I t.
Was about the balance of power because according to reports he referenced, phone records from multiple sitting senators had been obtained during a separate investigation. And that’s an extraordinary step. Obtaining those records requires serious justification and oversight. Kennedy argued that phone companies could challenge subpoenas if they believed the request was improper.
And if they didn’t challenge them, they better have a very good reason. His broader point was clear. The Justice Department has enormous investigative authority, but when it comes to the Epstein case, many people feel that same level of aggressive investigation hasn’t happened. And that contrast is exactly what keeps the controversy alive because while officials say the Epstein case has been thoroughly examined, a lot of people simply aren’t convinced.
And the recent file releases only made that skepticism stronger. Over the past few years, the Department of Justice has released several batches of documents related to Epstein. Each release was supposed to bring more transparency, but the reaction has often been the opposite. Instead of calming the public, the releases triggered new waves of outrage.
Critics argue that many documents remain heavily redacted. Others believe important records may still be sealed or withheld. Watchdog groups, journalists, and some lawmakers have claimed that millions of pages of evidence could still exist within government archives. And while those claims remain debated, the perception problem is very real because every time the DOJ says the files are complete, someone else points out gaps, missing names, missing timelines, or unexplained redactions.
For survivors and advocates, that uncertainty is deeply frustrating. They argue that the truth about Epstein’s network may still be incomplete. And that’s why the conversation refuses to go away. But the Epstein scandal isn’t just about documents, it’s about something even bigger. Trust point, one of the most damaging perceptions surrounding the Epstein case is the idea of a two-tier justice system.
For years, critics have argued that powerful people often face fewer consequences than ordinary citizens. Whether that perception is accurate or not, the Epstein scandal has become one of the most powerful symbols of that concern because despite the scale of Epstein’s crimes, very few people connected to his network have faced charges.
That’s why Kennedy’s comments during the hearing carried so much weight. He referenced the promise that the era of a two-tier system of justice should be over. But when the Epstein case still feels unresolved, many people question whether that promise has actually been fulfilled.
The unanswered questions keep piling up. Who else was involved? Did anyone benefit from Epstein’s operations? Were there crimes that investigators never fully uncovered? And if so, why? These questions cross political lines. They aren’t limited to one party or ideology. They strike at something deeper. The public’s belief that the justice system should apply equally to everyone.
And until those questions are answered, the Epstein scandal will continue hanging over the system like a shadow. The reason this story won’t fade away is simple that it represents one of the most disturbing criminal cases of the modern era. Epstein built a network that spanned powerful social circles, global travel, and elite institutions.
For years, he managed to operate in plain sight. And even after his arrest and death in custody, the ripple effects never stopped. Every new document release, every court filing, and every hearing seems to reopen the same conversation. Was the full truth ever uncovered? Or are there still pieces of the story hidden somewhere in government archives? Again, there is no confirmed evidence proving the existence of a global blackmail operation.
But the speculation persists because so many details remain unclear. And when uncertainty meets secrecy, people start asking harder questions. That’s exactly what happened during this Senate exchange. Because Kennedy’s questions weren’t just about one interview or one witness. They were about whether investigators are truly willing to follow every lead.
And no matter how uncomfortable those leads might be. E at A T the. End of the day, the Epstein scandal isn’t just about one man, that it’s about accountability, that it’s about transparency, and it’s about whether the public will ever feel like the full story has been told. The Senate hearing showed something important.
Even years later, lawmakers are still demanding answers, survivors are still demanding justice, and the public is still demanding transparency. Until those demands are fully addressed, the Epstein case will remain unfinished in the eyes of millions, and the biggest question of all still lingers. If Epstein really did hold secrets about powerful people, how much of that story has the world actually seen? And how much of it is still waiting to be revealed?
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
