The Adam Mockler Show - Pam Leaks Epstein Bomb… Runs From CHARGES

Episode Date: April 17, 2026

Adam Mockler and Dina Doll break down Pam Bondi's potential contempt charges. Follow Dina:  @AskDinaDoll  https://www.instagram.com/askdinadoll/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=8be217c9-b7cd-4f98-b476-de8e00bde871 https://x.com/askDinaDoll Click below for premium Adam Mockler content 👉 https://www.youtube.com/@adammockler/join 👉 https://adammockler.com/subscribe JOIN THE COMMUNITY: Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdamMockler/ Discord: https://discord.gg/y9yzMU3Gff Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adammockler/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/adammockler.com/ Twitter: https://x.com/adammocklerr/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@adammockler Contact: [e-mail] Business inquiries: [e-mail] Adam Mockler - Mockler Media LLC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. We're talking about Pam Bondi. and accountability. Pam Bondi has been escaping accountability or trying to. Democrats are not okay with that. We have Congressman Robert Garcia, who is leading the way, along with Congresswoman Ayanna Presley, to make sure that contempt charges are pushed forward. And today I'm joined by the wonderful Dina Dahl, an experienced attorney, the host of the podcast mistrial, a legal analyst. We're going to break all of this down and the accountability that we want to see coming from this administration. So

before we jump in, let me just read you all some quick updates. Congressman Robert Garcia posted early this morning. There has been no indication that Pam Bondi is actually going to comply with our subpoena, which legally requires her to testify before the committee. In that case, we have no other choice but to move forward with the contempt charges. Congressman Iana Presley says, our subpoena requires Pam Bondi to appear before House oversight, regardless of her title. That's an important point.

For my understanding, they didn't say that we're subpoenaing the current Attorney General or the person who is the attorney general, it was specifically for Pam Bondi. She was a no show today and is complicit in the White House cover-up of the Epstein file, Sousa Anna Presley. If she continues to ignore the law,

we will hold her in contempt, and Robert Garcia is continuing to double down and push on all of this. So I think accountability is important, Bondi, but for people like Christyneauem, people like the ICE agents who shot Renee Good and Alex Bredie,

the ICE slash border patrol agents who shot them, then were back on the streets as the investigation was getting spiked down. It is despicable how this administration signals a lack of accountability. If you're watching this on YouTube, make sure you drop a like. Make sure you subscribe to the Adam McClure feed

and check out all of Dina Dahl's socials below. Dina, you want to hop in and give me your broad overview. Well, I'm so glad you brought this up because I've been talking about a little bit. I think there's something much bigger going on with Pam Bondi. The fact, okay, when She first was issued a subpoena. I was talking about how this is big for her, much different than

Cash Patel, let's say, because she's a licensed attorney. And we have seen, in Trump 1.0, pretty much the only people who face real consequences were the attorneys. John Eastman was just officially disbarred in the state of California. The California Supreme Court just officially disbarred him over his 2020 election lies. The lawyers lose the law. their livelihood. Lindsay Halligan already being investigated in Florida. Pam Bondi knew that she couldn't do what she did in that public hearing, which was scream about the stock market. The reason why she did that, not just because she wanted to be obnoxious, was because she knew she could not answer truthfully and please Trump. Now she was going to be under oath. And that was going to be very

difficult for her in a setting like the House oversight where the Clinton sat and answered seriously. You know, you can have your own opinions about what they answered and if they gave enough or didn't give enough, but there was a serious element to it, right? They didn't just scream over the questioners, et cetera. So she was going to have to at least answer the question seriously. And there was no way she could be truthful and still please Trump. She was in a box. And Trump and the people around him knew that too. The fact that he fired her, when nobody was talking about the DOJ, At that moment in time, all eyes were focused on Iran. In fact, it pivoted the attention away from Iran back to the DOG, the DOJ's failures and Epstein files.

The timing of that just prior to the fact that she was supposed to appear, I think they were very worried about what Pam Bondi was going to say. I think they are very worried about it. I think she was fired because he did not want her to testify under oath. And then you had the Melania statement coming out and saying, we should hear from the survivors. And initially I thought, oh, okay, transparency. But then when I started to hear from the survivors themselves, and they were like, wait a second, we have spoken enough over the years. You have all of our stories. We've given FBI interviews.

We've been deposed in depositions. you have everything and you still haven't released it. Why don't you do your job first instead of trotting us out yet again? And I thought, wow, that's a distraction, isn't it? She's saying Pam Bondi's testimony, although she doesn't actually say Pam Bondi, but she's saying the real evidence, right? If you're a lawyer, she's saying the real evidence is from the survivors. And so then you saw Trump mimic that yesterday on that little white,

the White House long, where he said, well, the survivors haven't testified under oath. He's saying that the same day as Garcia and Presley are saying, we need to hold Pambati and contempt, a distraction. Oh, no, no, Pambani's not here. Why are you hear from the survivors themselves? I think they are petrified over what Pambani is going to say. I think this is all calculated to not have her testify, perhaps because she herself. may not be willing to lie and lose her livelihood. And whatever she knows is going to be very bad for them. And so I think that's why they're pushing that forward.

And I'm going to put this back to you, but just to tie in this whole thing, because I have been thinking about this a lot. You know, and we all know Trump lies, but the reason why it's just so audacious for him to say, oh, the survivors haven't even testified under oath. Like he was disparaging them. You know, giving those statements to the FBI agents or any law enforcement and they have, so many times of the years. I mean, that's criminal. If you lie to law enforcement, that is a felony, you know, as well as in their lawsuits, testifying, they are testifying under oath in those depositions. They have been more than happy to give their stories under subjective criminal

liability. It is Pam Bondi that has not said one word under oath. That is a very, very fascinating framework. Thank you for laying that all out. that is very, very illuminating. I think to build on top of that, something that I find interesting, the optics of Pam Bondi's career a decade ago compared to today, Donald Trump essentially nuked it.

So I want to read this quick summary. As Florida Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, Bondi promoted initiatives called Zero Tolerance for Human Trafficking. She announced a new operation, a new website for confidential tips in child sex trafficking. She ran on this. She had campaign ads that you can see online. she was known in Florida, in political circles,

the person who was strongly against this before she entered the Trump sphere. Then she entered the Trump sphere. She was the attorney general and she got pushed into this position. I'm not trying to say that she's like, I'm not trying to advocate her for responsibility here. I'm just trying to say her entire PR as a Florida attorney general got hijacked into this now mainstream pedophile cover up. So now what is Attorney General Pam Bondi or former Attorney General Pam Bondi's legacy

going to be the Epstein files. That clip on Fox News where she says, I have the Epstein file. So there is a very real chance she was going to come out and she was going to say something while she was under oath that maybe would go back to 2013 Pam Bondi. In 2013, Pam Bondi announced Operation

E Guardian arresting 15th child sex trafficker. So just the change when people enter the MAGA universe and lose all of their morals is absurd. Same thing with Jady Vance. In 2016, he was a never-Trump guy. All of these people around Trump lose their morals, and now the reporting is they're expecting some form of a pardon, or he's promising some form of a pardon jokingly in passing. I don't think it's a joke.

I think it's dead serious. I also want to point out that Donald Trump firing the women around him while the men continue to make mistakes over and over. So we have Pam Bondi gone. We have him firing Christenome. The reporting was Tulsi Gabbard is on thin ice. But I guess the problem is Pete Hegsap just yesterday Motifu did Pulp Fiction instead of a Bible verse.

Cash Patel basically probably lied under oath in front of Congress. There are so many people you can hold accountable, but in his apprentice-ass show that he's trying to put on, he's firing the women around him. So yeah, definitely not a mistake in that respect at all. And I think that it's important for us as Democrats to kind of notice that like you are, because it's easy to kind of,

they're all caricatures, really. And so it's easy to treat them as such. But we can't also feed into the misogyny that exists in their party as well by only pointing out the ridiculousness of the females kind of in his cabinet. I mean, to his point of saying he's going to have a blanket pardon, I mean, what is it?

The Pope, I don't know if you saw the Pope's tweet back to Trump yesterday, something like, woe is the person who uses religion for military and politics. I was like, go Pope. Like we, it's like this good versus evil, literal spiritual fight playing out right now, which I'm all for, even though I'm not Catholic, but I'm like, we need somebody like that. But also I'm like, woe is the person who believes in loyalty for Trump and is willing to commit crimes based on a promise. of a pardon because Trump only does what is good for Trump. And possibly the pardon may be good for Trump at the time. But I wouldn't count on it. You know, Christy Nome, I'm sure she assumed she was going to get a pardon. Well, he doesn't seem that happy with her right now. I would not think she would get a pardon

unless there were some sort of like blanket pardon right now. But look, to your point, when you were laying out the killing of the American citizens, I mean, she could have real liability about her failure and her directions with the department. And also to point that out, we still do not know the name of the killer of Alex Prattie. And I will not stop bringing that up because in a democracy, the fact that that person or people, I think there was just one person actually fired the guns, but the fact that we don't know, a law enforcement officer who held a gun because of the power we gave that person and they murdered somebody live in the streets. And we don't know that name.

That is frankly shocking in our criminal justice system. Shocking that we don't even know his name. And so all of their, they don't actually even apologize, but any platitudes, any apology, until they name names, it's nothing. Yeah, this might become, this might be a little bit of a radical take under this Trump administration. But I think state actors who abuse their power and, yes, use it against the American people should be held accountable. It's radical under Trump, I know, but ICE agents who abuse their power and their mask and badge and gun and their veil of impenetrability

on the streets to kill U.S. citizens and strangle migrants in detention centers, we need accountability for this or else we break down the very fundamental axioms of what makes America great in the first place, which is a separate of these different institutions so that the minority are protected from the majority rule, so that no matter who is the majority, there are still people who are being protected. But now we're in a space where Donald Trump is trying to tear down all of those walls and guardrails. He's trying to bully the Fed Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, which, you know, like when I look at countries where the president controls monetary policy and can bully the Fed chair into controlling monetary policy, it's honestly some of the highest inflation countries in the world. Countries

that experience hyperinflation have no separation of balances. So we have all these separations. And again, if you abuse your power as a state actor, you should be held accountable, whether you're Pam Bondi, Cash Patel, a faceless ICE agent, or a doge teen who stole data to give to some voter conspiracy group because you thought you'd get a part in. Accountability is important. And we're losing that in politics. And we were talking about the very, very beginning. I can't remember.

Was it before we were on? I don't know. I just, something that I yearn for in politics is moral clarity and moral leadership. And Donald Trump creates an environment top down. where corruption is incentivized because you can get a pardon, you can get away with it. Christy Noam can do a $200 million no-bid, non-competitive contract deal and thinks she can get away with it because, you know, Trump is on her side or was,

as you pointed out very perfectly, what happens when Christy Noam isn't on Trump's side? What happens when they split apart and the pardon a possibility then goes away? I don't know. Yeah, and the other thing, too, is he's old. I mean, do people really count on nature not happening before he issues a pardon? I mean, I wouldn't want my entire future dependent on whether or not that guy decides to give a pardon. And then also, if he starts really out abusing the pardon power, it probably will get contested and go up to the Supreme Court. So, you know, it's, yeah, and also there's a lot of state laws that can get implicated in addition to federal laws.

I do think that the state of Minnesota could go after the agents involved with the murders of Renee Good and Alex Prady more than they are. I understand. We're suing, right? It's just not criminal. Just a lawsuit? I think they could actually even file criminal charges. I mean, there's, you know, it's maybe, there is some precedent for this and there is some case law that would show that it could move forward. a federal agent has to still comply with murder laws.

There's no complete blanket immunity, regardless of what Stephen Miller and Trump says. So to some, okay, to fight authoritarianism, it's okay for us to push the boundaries within the law. Like, I don't want us to go out and do what Trump does and literally break the law. But you could file charges and then have that probably go up to the Supreme. Court, and fine, if the Supreme Court decides that you can't do it, you can't do it. But this is not a time to restrain ourselves within the tools that we have because of this really unprecedented nature. If they're truly obstructing justice, then, you know, I understand also there's no statutory limit to murder, and perhaps they're trying to wait out Trump. But I don't think they should.

I think that they should be moving forward with actual murder charges and let the chips fall. what if they may. And maybe this is something we need to sort out a little bit. And if for some reason, the Supreme Court says, oh, no, a federal agent can go ahead and murder somebody and there's no state liability, well, maybe Congress should then pass some sort of a law. You know, I mean, we have to figure out where our weaknesses in our laws. That's what Trump is good at, figuring out our weaknesses. It's okay to test them and find the weaknesses and then fix them. You are speaking my language, Dina. I love the idea of an affirmatively strong Democratic Party that can hold people accountable. I always use this analogy that norms in a democracy work a lot like consent. In order to have any consensual relationship, you need two meaningful. In order to have any meaningful consent, you need two parties both working in the same way. In order to have meaningful norms in a democracy, you need both parties abiding by those norms. What happens when one party repeatedly breaks those norms? is by not appointing a Supreme Court justice

when Obama's the president, but then appointing a Supreme Court justice when Trump is, one party breaks norms by repeatedly stalling in Congress saying they're going to make Obama a one-term president saying that the election was stolen, trying to overturn the election. They break all these norms. We can't just let them do that while we stay at the same.

We need to be meeting them where they are. And I like how you said it, we shouldn't be going wild and running a muck like Donald Trump does need to be pushing for this. And we've actually, been developing a Project North Star or Project 89, something like this. We don't know what to name it, but it's about stooping the government in creating accountability. So imagine if we were able to, for example, put a binding code of ethics on the Supreme Court that is only strengthened

from what it currently is. We pass a law explicitly prohibiting politically motivated firings to prevent future Jimmy Kimmel type situations, right? We have anti-voter suppression laws. We remove all laws on the books that are about tariffs that Trump is abusing, and we limit presidential tariff authority. We make sure that there are criminal penalties for anybody in power who is trying to subvert elections, even by AI videos on social media. There are certain laws that haven't been fully fleshed out

due to new technology that Trump is currently taking advantage of, posting these AI videos. Sam Bondi posts these random AI ads or whatever the hell. We need to make sure we trump-proof the government, then rewire it to ban gerrymandering, to hold people accountable. And I liked what you said about kind of, finding the path forward even if we don't see it.

If we press and they just don't go through for some reason, then we pass through law and we say, listen, maybe state actors shouldn't be able to do this. Maybe Pambani shouldn't be able to lie in this manner. So I think this all is very energizing. And about a year ago, things were grim. Things are still, I think as we get closer to the midterms, I'm feeling more hopeful and excited that Democrats will be able to execute when needed.

Well, this, okay, I love your project because, yes, We can't just expect Trump to lose, although he will in November, because then we will just lose the next time. We have to start winning. And we do that by coming up with new proposals. I'll add to that. We should make it illegal for the president and perhaps every government official to lie to the public. It's shocking to me that that man or anybody who sits in that office can sit in that Oval Office and that. power that we gave them and lied to us without consequence. And evidently, after I was speaking out

with it, somebody pointed out, Wales just passed a law like that. And, you know, if a newspaper can be liable for lying about the public official, that public official should have consequences for lying to the American people. And somebody in your comments said, why don't we have a national class action? And the reason why we don't, and one tenet of this law would be there's something called a generalized harm. The Supreme Court says if your harm is generalized, so like I as a taxpayer am harmed by, or let's say I as an American am harmed by the law taking away my health care premium. It's a generalized harm because millions of us are all harmed in the same way. I cannot sue for that. So that's why it's harder to say, I, you sue, like, you defamed the American people.

You can't, like, sue for that. Perhaps we changed that law. You don't, you know, but there is a way to change it. But to me, that law, like, we shouldn't, it should not be legal for president to lie to the American people. That really, and here's the thing, too, is Nixon. You know, Nixon is, Trump is Nixon a thousand times. But Nick's, but he is a version of that, right? Nixon cheated his way to winning his re-election.

He obstructed justice. He was corrupt. And probably the reason why we have Trump is because Ford pardoned Nixon. If he had stood trial, I don't think we would have Trump. But interestingly, they did in Congress try to fix a lot of the holes they saw created in Nixon. That's why that emergency economic empowers the IEP even was passed because Nixon was. because Nixon was abusing the tariffs. That was why the Administrative Procedures Act passed,

the one law that was cited for literally every lawsuit against Trump when he tried to do things against the executive. We have been here before in a much, I mean, my gosh, it was so different then, like even the Republicans were wanting to push him out then. But we have been here before, and we just have to fix the holes. And I'm not quite sure why we didn't do that under Biden, And because I think that there was a lot that Trump revealed in his first. And honestly, Biden did a ton. I mean, he passed more legislation than probably any president, at least in modern history. Very, you know, that so many acts, right, between the CHIP Act and the Inflation Reduction Act and a lot of really good work. But for whatever reason, they were not as focused on strengthening our laws in a way that even Trump in the beginning really showed us to do that, that he was willing to size.

So Biden misread the moment as a return to the status quo in the steady-handedness, which was good. And a lot of people did appreciate that. I like the steady-handedness. But in some places, it wasn't time for a return to the status quo. And people were ready for, you know, accountability and progress, especially after J-6 and all of that, it's absurd. But to build on your Nixon analogy, my friend Joshua Dawes has this quote. He always says, like, you know, Nixon never went to jail. But Nixon's attorney general jail, John Mitchell became the same. the first U.S. Attorney General to serve prison time. Nixon did not go to jail, but his chief of staff did. People throughout his administration did, his special counsel, his appointment secretary, his deputy

assistant. All of these people were held accountable. And I guess the one difference is, I actually, I've learned this as I've done more reading. Nixon was actually well respected regarding foreign policy and some of his policies while he was in office. This might have this corruption. Trump doesn't even have that. Trump has all of the corruption without any of the actual policy substance. I was, when I grew up, I've always known as Nixon as this hugely corrupt president, though, the dude to step down, right? Right. But I guess it's interesting to know that he at least had some policy pros. Donald Trump seems to have absolutely nothing, no redeeming qualities other than like, you know, the ability to message MAGA. But MAGA is just a sophisticated PR scheme for the same old Republican policies, which is cutting taxes for the rich, cutting benefits for the vulnerable, going to war with the starts with IRA ballooning the debt and then not holding people accountable who are in power. It's absolutely despicable. One more quick call to action. If you appreciate the work that Dina and I do,

make sure you subscribe both of us on Substack and on YouTube. You can find all of our socials in the description below. Dina, do you want to wrap up with any final words as we're hitting the 30 minute mark? You know, well, it's like to your point about it being hopeful. It's definitely hopeful to talk to you. I'm so glad because it's completely on a side note. I don't want it to get as we're wrapping up to you down gentle. But I don't know if you heard it kind of made news that Erica Kirk, a club in a high school in Phoenix had invited Erica Kirk to come speak. And it created a huge backlash among the parents because she just evidently supposedly pulled out of her event with vans because of security, but she was showing up at a public high school. And so many parents spoke out that

they ended up taking this event off campus. But the whole idea that she was going into high schools made me worried that we're not doing as much grassroots efforts among high school students. You know, who are we sending in into these high school? So I'm so hopeful for you and your generation and this project you're doing because we need to meet people at the age and the location they are and help combat a lot of the effort that the turning point is still doing. And the groups like them, they realize that the battle is among the young people. And so it makes me hopeful how invested you are in that. That means more than you know. I mean, I could talk about this all day.

But we need to be doing clipping. And that is the new canvassing, essentially. The ability to clip things up and distributed across the Internet is how we reach millions, billions of people. Like billions of people are being reached per month through this clipping infrastructure. And the right-wingers have a head start. I always get people in my comment section that are like, why do you debate MAGA? Why do you give them the air? Why do you give, they used to say, why do you give Charlie Kirk the air of the time of day?

And I would say, listen, guys, Charlie Kirk is the air. This is like a year ago before he'd be held traffic. Obviously, he says, Charlie Kirk is the air. Charlie Kirk is the person who ran the campaign for Trump on the ground, got a bunch of young people to vote, swung the election a bit, and Trump won the full Congress. He won the House, he won the Senate, presidency, and they have the Supreme Court. So the idea that we need to recede from the conversational stage and not have this to mess is dumb in my opinion.

So Moscow Media, we're building a team, and I know Midas touches and everybody around. We're building this environment where we can punch back and break through all the BS that happens with clipping with on the ground action, going to these events, having these conversations. And when I do these debates, when I have these conversations with young Trump supporters

or people on TV, it serves as a clipping mechanism to spread our message. It serves as a vehicle to make sure that we're getting our points across in a very punchy way. And it's so incredibly important for young people to receive news where they're at. I mean, you brought up a great example. And now I'm going down this whole rabbit. It's great. It's a great example.

I'm reading this right now. Phoenix High School moves Erica Kirk event off campus. Charlotte Kirk has thousand chapters. Erica Kirk has thousands of chapters under her belt, and she's going and putting in the work. So the idea that we should not have conversations, not push back, that's the wrong message. Let's push our liberal values. Let's push our ideals. Let's push for a better democratic, liberal society where there's human dignity and equality as a fundamental foundation. I don't know. There's just so much we could talk about. We should do another live stream soon and just talk all about this.