Bondi Torches Dem Over Epstein Flight Log Release: ‘Did You Take Money?’
Attorney General Pam Bondi obliterated Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin over the Jeffrey Epstein files.
During a Senate Judiciary Hearing on Tuesday, Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn was brought up because she has pushed for the release of Epstein files in the past.
Bondi and Blackburn asserted that Durbin was impeding the effort, but Durbin refuted this, despite records indicating he had indeed blocked the release.
Blackburn and Bondi tag-teamed Durbin after he denied a subpoena for the flight logs and knowing Reid Hoffman, a known Epstein affiliate.
“I find it very interesting that you refused repeated Republican requests to release the Epstein flight log in 2023 and 2024, you fought that. Did you take money from Reid Hoffman campaign donations?” Bondi said.
Durbin denied taking donations from Hoffman, but Hoffman has given millions to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), which supports Durbin as a top Senate Democrat.
Bondi shot back: “Why did you fight to not disclose the flight logs, Senator Durbin?”
Durbin falsely claimed that he “did not” fight against” Blackburn’s subpoena, adding, “I asked you if you wanted any documents like flight logs to put it in writing. You never did.”
Blackburn shot back: “Yes, sir, I did. And your staff knows that I did. We’ll submit once again, the information to you. We’ve done that several times, but we’ll be happy to once again send it to you. I think your staff doesn’t show that to you.”
WATCH:
Bondi made it clear with her opening statement that she planned to correct many lies from Democrats in recent weeks.
“They are a critical reminder of our central mission here at the Department of Justice protecting the safety and security of the American people.
That is why, even when the government is otherwise shut down because of the Democrats, the department’s law enforcement officers and prosecutors are hard at work, fighting crime, keeping our streets safe and protecting you from the threats, foreign and domestic.
When I was confirmed as the 80 seventh attorney general of the United States, I took office with to mangles to in the weapon, is nation of justice and return the department to it’s core mission of fighting violent crime as to ending the weapon possession of justice.
We learn that former FBI secretly investigated you and your colleagues why they wanted to take president,” Bondi began.
“Trump off the playing field. They were playing politics with law enforcement powers and will go down as a historic. The trail of public trust, this is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in our law enforcement system. We will work to earn that back every single day,” she added.
“We are returning to our core mission of fighting real crime. While there is more work to do, I believe in eight short months we have made tremendous progress towards those ends.
Our federal surges in Washington D.C. in memphis are a perfect example of how the Department of Justice should operate week created strong partnerships with local leadership working hand in hand with both cities to send resources where they were needed. Most, the results speak for themselves,” she added.
“Despite the unprecedented degree of activism we’ve seen from the lower courts, we have never ignored a court order and why would we we have secured a historic 20 two victories at the Supreme Court alone with more to come,.
Our civil rights attorneys are fighting discrimination and anti Semitism. Our criminal attorneys are prosecuting violent criminals and foreign terrorist every single day. I look forward to continuing this work at the Department of Justice and I look forward to testifying before you today,” Bondi added.
Seditious Six' Mark Kelly Does It AGAIN - Pete Hegseth Promises A Legal Response
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired U.S. Navy captain, drew criticism after discussing details from a classified Pentagon briefing during a live interview on CBS News. In the segment with anchor Margaret Brennan, Kelly described the impact of U.S. military operations in the Middle East on American weapons stockpiles. He specifically referenced munitions including Tomahawk cruise missiles, ATACMS, SM-3 interceptors, THAAD rounds, and Patriot systems, stating it was “shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines.”
Kelly attributed the depletion to decisions made by the current administration, saying the president acted “without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline,” which he argued left the United States less prepared for potential conflicts elsewhere, including a hypothetical scenario involving China and Taiwan. He noted that replenishing the stockpiles would take years.
The comments followed a classified briefing provided to members of Congress on the effects of recent U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict. National security experts and administration officials have expressed concern that public discussion of specific munitions levels and readiness timelines could compromise operational security and provide adversaries with actionable intelligence.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responded swiftly, stating that the Department of Defense’s legal counsel would review Kelly’s remarks to determine whether they constituted a violation of his oath or improperly disclosed classified information. Hegseth wrote on social media: “Captain Mark Kelly strikes again. Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a CLASSIFIED Pentagon briefing he received. Did he violate his oath…again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review.”
Kelly has faced previous scrutiny for a video earlier this year in which he and several Democratic colleagues encouraged military members to evaluate the legality of orders from President Trump, remarks some critics labeled as seditious. As a former naval aviator and astronaut, Kelly has frequently drawn on his military background when discussing national security issues.
The senator’s office has not issued a direct response to Hegseth’s statement. In the interview, Kelly framed his comments as part of legitimate congressional oversight, noting that members of Congress receive classified briefings to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the handling of sensitive national security information. Legal analysts note that members of Congress are generally protected by the Speech or Debate Clause when discussing matters related to their official duties, but the public disclosure of classified details can still trigger internal reviews and potential referrals to the Department of Justice.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the accuracy of Kelly’s description of stockpile levels. Officials have previously warned that public speculation about munitions readiness can embolden adversaries and complicate deterrence strategy, particularly with respect to China’s military posture in the Indo-Pacific.
The incident occurs against the backdrop of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions and broader concerns about military readiness. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have expressed worries about the pace of munitions replenishment following sustained operations in multiple theaters. However, the public nature of Kelly’s remarks has intensified partisan debate over congressional responsibility and the boundaries of classified information.
As the Department of Defense legal review proceeds, the matter is likely to fuel further discussion about the balance between transparency, oversight, and national security in an era of heightened geopolitical competition.
Former General Milley Says Armed Forces Must Serve the Constitution Above Politics
Mark Milley Issues Stark Warning at Arlington National Cemetery — “Military Must Serve the Constitution, Not a President”
In times of political strain and national uncertainty, the most enduring principles of a democracy are often reaffirmed not through legislation or elections alone, but through the voices of those entrusted with its defense. The statement attributed to Mark Milley, delivered at Arlington National Cemetery, speaks directly to one of the foundational pillars of the United States: the subordination of military power to constitutional authority rather than individual leadership.
At the heart of Milley’s message lies a principle that distinguishes democratic systems from authoritarian ones—the military’s oath is sworn to the Constitution, not to a person. This idea, while deeply embedded in American civic tradition, gains renewed significance in moments when political divisions intensify and questions of loyalty arise. By emphasizing this distinction, Milley reinforces a core safeguard against the concentration of unchecked power: that no leader, regardless of position, stands above the constitutional framework.
The setting of Arlington National Cemetery adds a profound symbolic dimension to the statement. It is a place where the cost of preserving constitutional ideals is made visible in rows of white headstones, each representing a life given in service to something larger than individual ambition or political allegiance. Speaking in such a setting transforms a statement into a moral reflection, linking present concerns to a legacy of sacrifice. It reminds the nation that the principles under discussion are not abstract—they have been defended at the highest possible cost.
This message arrives amid ongoing debates about the relationship between civilian leadership and military responsibility. In any democracy, the military must remain under civilian control; yet that control is exercised through lawful authority rooted in constitutional order, not personal loyalty. The distinction is subtle but critical. It ensures that the armed forces operate as an institution of the state rather than as an instrument of any one leader’s will. When this balance is maintained, it protects both democratic governance and the integrity of the military itself.
Criticism of Milley’s remarks, particularly from allies of Donald Trump, reflects the broader polarization shaping contemporary political discourse. Some view such statements as overreach by military figures into political territory, raising concerns about the appropriate boundaries between military leadership and public debate. Others interpret them as necessary clarifications during a time when those boundaries may appear blurred. This divergence of interpretation underscores the difficulty of navigating institutional roles in a highly charged environment.
Yet beyond the immediate controversy, Milley’s words serve a broader purpose. They invite reflection on the nature of allegiance in a constitutional democracy. Loyalty, in this context, is not directed toward individuals but toward enduring principles—rule of law, separation of powers, and the rights enshrined in the Constitution. These principles provide continuity even as leaders change, ensuring that the nation’s identity is not tied to any single figure.
Ultimately, the significance of this moment lies not in partisan reactions but in the reaffirmation of a fundamental truth: the strength of a democracy depends on the clarity of its commitments. By reiterating that the military serves the Constitution above all, Milley echoes a tradition that has helped sustain American governance through crises both past and present.
In the quiet solemnity of Arlington, where history is etched in stone, such a reminder carries particular weight. It speaks not only to those currently in positions of power but to future generations, emphasizing that the preservation of democratic ideals requires constant vigilance—and, at times, the courage to restate what should never be forgotten.
