Is accountability possible in a system built for spectacle?

The cameras were hot, the questions were sharp, and the answers—when they came—raised more doubts than certainty. We walk you through the pivotal moments of a combative Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi, from the still-murky $50,000 cash handoff to the whiplash over an “Epstein client list.” Beyond the viral clips, we unpack what real oversight should look like, why carefully chosen words matter, and how deflection corrodes public trust faster than any partisan meme.

Then we step outside the hearing room to tackle a listener’s tough question: can nonresident immigrants just use the ER for “free” care? We break down EMTALA’s limits, the hidden costs everyone pays when prevention is absent, and the political calculus that turns shutdown seasons into showdowns over immigration and healthcare. You’ll hear a clear, plain-English map of the arguments on both sides—cost-saving prevention and public health versus fairness, limits, and prioritizing citizens—without the noise of talking points.

This episode weaves accountability, health policy, and civic responsibility into a single thread: performance wins headlines, but only substance changes lives. If you’re tired of the stage play and hungry for the receipts—timelines, evidence, and straight answers—you’re in the right place. Subscribe, share with a friend who follows the news closely, and leave a review telling us where you think accountability should start.

Chapters

• 0:00 Cold Open: Ad Spot & Setup
• 1:47 Meet Virginia’s History-Making Candidates
• 2:43 CIA Tradecraft vs. Marine Discipline
• 3:39 Why Run: Motivation and Calling
• 4:10 Tease: Issues to Watch
• 4:22 Senate Fireworks Begin
• 8:17 The $50,000 Question
• 12:21 The “Client List” Claim
• 16:53 Photos, Deflections, and Non-Answers
• 19:51 A Catalog of Questions Refused
• 21:59 Performance vs. Substance
• 25:05 Listener Q: Immigrant Health Care and ER Facts
• 29:19 Shutdown Politics and the Health Care Fight
• 32:54 Cost, Public Health, and Fairness Frames
• 35:49 The Hidden Bill We All Pay
• 38:49 Governance or Netflix Drama?

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 0:46

Empty roll- Oh, but I just changed this! We need something bigger. Like Charmin Mega Double XL. You can go up to one week before changing the role. Charmin Mega Double XL lasts so much longer. It's Joy the Go with Sharmin. Guaranteed to fit.

SPEAKER_15: 1:01

We are just weeks away from early voting in Virginia's governor's race, a history-making matchup. I'm News 3's Kurt Williams, and I'm sitting down one-on-one with the Republican nominee, Winsome Earl Sears, and the Democratic nominee, Abigail Spamberger, helping you get to know who just might be Virginia's first female governor. Former intelligence officer with the CIA. Yep. Three-term congresswoman for the 7th District. Postal inspector. All right, let's see. Former Marine. No, no, no. Once a Marine. Once a Marine. That is right. That is right. Once a Marine, always a Marine. All right. Uh first African-American woman elected to statewide office in Virginia. Mother of three. And now the Democratic nominee for governor. Former delegate. Yes. Grandmother. And now the GOP gubernatorial nominee. All right, so before we get into the political stuff, you you worked undercover. That's right. What was what was that like?

SPEAKER_13: 2:00

It was exciting. The whole purpose was to be able to enter spaces and talk to people and focus on the issues that would enable me to be able to, you know, collect valuable information.

SPEAKER_15: 2:11

So before we get to more political stuff, I just have to ask, what was it like being a Marine?

SPEAKER_10: 2:16

So I learned discipline, I learned leadership. I was a German electrician and a diesel mechanic.

SPEAKER_15: 2:22

Do you think it in any way also helps you in some way in this current campaign?

SPEAKER_13: 2:27

I mean, I think uh I mean, undeniably, right? As an intelligence officer, you're a professional ask of questions. Uh, so that is certainly helpful to have a a history of of asking questions and actually really listening.

SPEAKER_15: 2:41

Does being a once a marine always a marine, does that help you in any way in this current campaign?

SPEAKER_10: 2:47

It does, because I understand that you have to make sure that you come and see about people.

SPEAKER_15: 2:53

Now to the political stuff. I I always whenever I meet a politician, especially in today's climate, why are you running?

SPEAKER_13: 3:03

I think at this moment, it's actually the the chaos of this moment that continues to motivate me every day. As it relates to the issues, I'm I'm not I I'm running to serve Virginia.

SPEAKER_15: 3:13

Why do this?

SPEAKER_10: 3:14

Well, because you Okay, so I came back into politics, right? After being gone for 20 years. And what would have moved me like that? Well, I have a calling, I believe.

SPEAKER_15: 3:24

So what do these two candidates believe are the most pressing issues for Virginians? I'll have that for you tomorrow. Kurt Williams, WTKR News 3.

SPEAKER_05: 3:36

Were you consulted by the White House before they deployed uh National Guard troops to cities in the United States?

SPEAKER_14: 3:45

I am not going to discuss any internal conversations with the White House.

SPEAKER_01: 3:50

Do you believe that government officials like Gregor Bovino are obligated to follow applicable court orders, whether they agree with them or not? Yes or no?

SPEAKER_14: 4:00

I wish that you loved your state of California as much as you hate President Trump.

SPEAKER_11: 4:06

The President said we can't delay any longer, Pam, using your name, and then goes on to tell you to prosecute a member of this committee, to prosecute the Attorney General of New York, and to prosecute James Comey. Do you consider that a directive to the Justice Department?

SPEAKER_14: 4:26

Senator Clovishark, President Trump is the most transparent president in American history?

SPEAKER_15: 4:31

Did you discuss James Comey with the President of the United States? He was sitting just to your left.

SPEAKER_14: 4:37

Well, two seats down, yes. Two seats down. And I am not going to discuss any conversations that I've had or not have with the President of the United States.

SPEAKER_12: 4:50

How did you conclude that these strikes on ships or boats in the open ocean are legal?

SPEAKER_14: 4:58

Senator Keynes, I'm not going to discuss any legal advice that my department may or may not have given or issued.

SPEAKER_03: 5:05

Having bond with completely irrelevant far-right internet talking points really is not very helpful here.

SPEAKER_08: 5:14

It's very clear to me that when the president holds something like that, that he considers the DOJ to be his law firm and you his lawyer.

SPEAKER_14: 5:31

I am not going to discuss pending cases because Comey was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia by, I may point out, one of the most liberal grand juries in the country.

SPEAKER_04: 5:44

Gary 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 black mailer ever, close quote.

SPEAKER_14: 5:57

Have you reviewed that transcript of that interview? I have not reviewed the transcript, but I saw the clip of it.

SPEAKER_04: 6:02

Okay. It appears that that uh Secretary Lutnick uh was Mr. Epstein's next door neighbor. In fact, their their their townhomes um shared a wall. Um and and the uh the reporter that was asking, talking to Mr. uh Lutnick, uh she asked how how other prominent men could have been associated with Epstein when Mr. Lutnick could immediately sense that he was a quote pervert. And then Secretary Lutnick said, or rather the reporter said, Did they see it and ignore it? Do you remember that from the interview? I did. And Commerce Secretary Lutnick said, no. They participated. And then Commerce Secretary Lutnick 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 blackmailer ever, blackmailed people. That's how he had money, end quote.

SPEAKER_14: 7:05

True. Senator Zar July Memo said we did not uncover evidence. This case has gone through three administrations, as well as former U.S. determinants.

SPEAKER_04: 7:15

I'm not the pamphlet. Have you have you interviewed Secretary Lutnick?

SPEAKER_14: 7:19

No, Senator. Do you plan to? If he wants to talk to the FBI or the FBI wants to talk to him, that is more than on the Don't you think you ought to talk to him after this interview? Senator, if if Howard Lutnick wants to speak to the FBI and if Director Patel wants to speak to Howard Lutnick, absolutely. Okay.

SPEAKER_04: 7:33

Maybe we'll get Mr.

SPEAKER_06: 7:34

Lutnick in here too, Mr. Chair. Now I said that Attorney General Bondy was forced to answer questions about Howard Lutnick because that's the normal procedure that cabinet members find themselves in when testifying to the Senate. But we discovered today that the most incompetent attorney general in history only feels forced to answer a question if the senator asking the question is a Republican. But when Democrats ask questions, she simply refuses to answer them. And that was unimaginable before Donald Trump assembled the most incompetent cabinet in history. The question about the Trump cabinet before they were confirmed was not just how could they survive confirmation hearings, but how could they survive any Senate hearing about anything, including routine oversight of their department? And the answer has now become obvious. They will simply refuse to answer questions from Democrats. Prior to this incompetent cabinet, no one in Washington knew that that was an option. If a Democratic Secretary of the Treasury ever refused to answer a question from a Republican during a Senate Finance Committee hearing when I was the staff director of that committee, and Dan Patrick Moynihan was the chairman of that committee, Chairman Moynihan would have ordered the Democratic Secretary of the Treasury or the Democratic Secretary of Health and Human Services or any other Democratic cabinet member appearing before that committee to answer that Republican Senator's questions. And Chairman Moyhan would have done that when he was chairman of the Senate Environment Public Works Committee. That's the way it used to work. You had to answer the questions. But the most cowardly Senate in history, the current Republican Senate, has decided to sit idly and silently by on their side of the room, while Trump appointees not only refuse to answer Democratic senators' questions, they've decided to publicly attack the Democratic senators for asking questions. We've seen the lethally stupid and dangerous Robert Kennedy Jr., who owes his job entirely to his father's name, do this when he testifies to the Senate. We've seen Donald Trump's comically inept FBI director tried to do it. And today it was Donald Trump's attorney general's turn. She's the first attorney general in history to preside over a department that has shut down all an investigation into a high-ranking member of the administration who was reportedly caught on an FBI video accepting$50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents last year.

SPEAKER_03: 9:39

What became of the$50,000 in cash that the FBI paid to Mr. Holman in a paper bag, evidently?

SPEAKER_14: 9:51

Senator S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche recently stated the investigation of Mr. Holman was subjected to a full review by the FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing.

SPEAKER_03: 10:03

And that was not my question. My question was: what became of the$50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag, to Mr. Holman?

SPEAKER_14: 10:12

Senator, I'd look at your facts.

SPEAKER_03: 10:17

Are you saying that they did not deliver$50,000 in cash to Mr. Holman?

SPEAKER_14: 10:20

Senator, as recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Holman was subjected to a full review of the by the FBI agents. By Department of Justice prosecutors. They found no evidence of wrongdoing.

SPEAKER_03: 10:31

That's a different question. What became of the$50,000? Did the FBI get it back?

SPEAKER_14: 10:36

Mr. Whitehouse, excuse me. Senator Whitehouse, you're welcome to talk to the FBI.

SPEAKER_03: 10:40

The report to you, can't you answer this question?

SPEAKER_14: 10:42

Senator Whitehouse, you're welcome to discuss this with Director Patel.

SPEAKER_03: 10:46

Did Homan keep the$50,000?

SPEAKER_14: 10:51

As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch recently stated, the investigation of Mr. White House.

SPEAKER_03: 10:56

I can see I'm not going to get a straight answer from you to a very simple.

SPEAKER_14: 10:58

By the FBI agents and the DOJ. They found no credible evidence of wrongdoing. You know, you're very concerned about money and people taking money and you know against dark money groups. You work with dark money groups all the time, Senator Whitehouse.

SPEAKER_03: 11:11

Did you know whether or not in that investigation they looked at whether the 2024$50,000 payment to Mr. Homan was declared by him on his tax returns?

SPEAKER_14: 11:23

Senator, I would be more concerned if I were you when you talk about corruption and money that you that when you pushed for legislation that would subsidize your wife's company.

SPEAKER_03: 11:36

So having you respond with completely irrelevant far-right internet talking points really is not very helpful here. I'd like, Mr. Chairman, you'd generally like to have us be able to get answers to know, and we'll follow up with a QFR. And to extend Patel wants to answer, that would be great as well. What happened to the$50,000? Did Homan keep it? Did the FBI get it back? If he kept it, did he put it on his tax returns? Pretty simple questions.

SPEAKER_06: 13:57

Did he keep it? Does he have it? Is it at home? Pretty simple questions. And not one answer.

SPEAKER_08: 14:05

Last year, President Trump's new border czar, now Border Tsar, Tom Holman, was uh videotaped taking a bag with$50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents after suggesting he could help with government contracts. Sounds like a bribe. Two weeks ago, DOJ officials reportedly shut down the bribery investigation into Mr. Holman.

unknown: 14:26

Ms.

SPEAKER_08: 14:27

Bondi, did you approve closing the uh Holman investigation? Bribery investigation?

SPEAKER_14: 14:35

Senator Perono, as I stated earlier, the Department of Justice and the FBI conducted a thorough review and they found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing. You were also on video outside the White House protesting with a group called CASA where Antifa members were.

SPEAKER_08: 14:55

Does that mean you're a member of Antifa? You know, I simply asked the question as to whether or not you approve the shutting down of the investigation of Mr. Holman. I have to assume that you did because the FBI reports to you, but the American people would look at the situation where this person is taking a$50,000 in cash, no less, and that you testified today that a thorough investigation was done. Now, I have to assume I conclude that since no wrongdoing was determined, the uh in answer to Senator Whitehouse's question, he kept the money. He kept the money, and I hope that he put that on his uh tax returns as income.

SPEAKER_02: 15:30

You know, there's a tape, right, with uh Mr. Homan. I mean, first of all, is there a tape in that has audio and video of the transfer of the 50,000?

SPEAKER_14: 15:38

You would have to talk to Director Patel about that.

SPEAKER_02: 15:40

No, I'm I I'm talking to you.

SPEAKER_14: 15:42

I don't know the answer, Senator.

SPEAKER_02: 15:44

You do know the answer.

SPEAKER_14: 15:45

Don't call me a liar. I didn't call you a liar. You just said I know the answer. I said I don't know the answer. You have to talk to Director Patel. What I said is that investigation was closed.

SPEAKER_02: 15:53

If you don't know, why don't you know whether there was a tape and video?

SPEAKER_14: 15:57

Senator, I believe that was resolved prior to my confirmation as attorney general.

SPEAKER_02: 16:02

Do you think that it is of public interest for the people to know what happened to the 50 grand that the FBI turned over to Holman?

SPEAKER_14: 16:08

Did you hear what I just said? That was resolved prior to my confirmation as attorney general. That's why I said I wouldn't go.

SPEAKER_02: 16:15

It's not resolved. There's$50,000. Holman has it or somebody has it. Do you have no interest in knowing where it is?

SPEAKER_06: 16:22

You're not going to sit here and slander Tom Holman. Well, she was right about that. He was not sitting there slandering Tom Holman. And every lawyer in the room knows there was not one word of slander against Tom Holman in that room. Donald Trump's so-called Borders Art Tom Holman has never said I did not take the$50,000. Donald Trump's so-called Borders Art Tom Holman has never said I don't still have the$50,000. Donald Trump's so-called Borders Art Tom Holman has never said I gave the$50,000 back to the FBI. Donald Trump's so-called Borders Art Tom Holman has never said I declared the$50,000 on my tax return because it was legitimate income. And in no version of the executive branch of this government in history prior to Donald Trump, would it be possible for a member of the administration to be caught on an FBI video taking$50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents and still have a job in that administration and never be required to tell anyone what happened to the$50,000? That is a corruption level that no previous administration has ever reached. And the most incompetent attorney general in history refuses to answer every legitimate question about that. The senior Democrat on the committee asked the Attorney General about her most infamous public disagreement with herself.

SPEAKER_05: 17:29

In February, you made a public claim that the Epstein client list was, quote, sitting on my desk right now for review. End of quote. You then produced already public information and no client list in a major media event hosted at the White House. Attorney General Bondy, why did you publicly claim to have the Epstein client list waiting for your review and then produce nothing relevant to that claim?

SPEAKER_14: 17:46

Senator Dur Senator Durbin, if you listened to my entire clip on that, I said I had not reviewed it yet. And if you see our memo on Epstein, you will see excuse me, our memo on Epstein clearly points out that there was no client list.

SPEAKER_06: 18:07

Okay, let's do what you wants us to do. Let's listen to exactly what she said in that TV interview. This is something Donald Trump has talked about. That DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?

SPEAKER_14: 18:18

It's sitting on my desk right now to review. Um that's been a directive by President Trump.

SPEAKER_06: 18:23

She was asked about the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients, and she said, it is sitting on my desk right now. She was not asked about the Epstein files. She was not asked about the thousands of pages of paper and the legal filings and the Epstein files. She was asked about what could be one piece of paper, one page of the Epstein files, the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients, and she said, it is sitting on my desk right now. And then she allowed an unsigned Justice Department statement to be released saying, there is no Epstein planning list. It is not a matter of listening carefully to what she said on Fox to find out that there's no inconsistency. There is a shocking inconsistency. Listening carefully to what she said on Fox proves that she has contradicted herself. That is something that very, very few of the confirmed 87 attorneys general of the United States have ever publicly done. Most of our attorneys general, from the first in President Washington's administration, Edmund Jennings Randolph, right through to the Biden administration, never once publicly contradicted themselves. It is something that most lawyers in a lifetime of practice never do. Publicly contradict themselves. It doesn't happen. But it is what the most incompetent attorney general in history is now most famous for. Senator Whitehouse had a question about something else that might be in the Epstein files.

SPEAKER_03: 19:39

Let me ask you something else. There's been public reporting that Jeffrey Epstein showed people photos of President Trump with half-naked young women. Do you know if the FBI found those photographs in their search of Jeffrey Epstein's safe or premises or otherwise? Have you seen any such thing?

SPEAKER_14: 19:57

You know, Senator Whitehouse, you sit here and make salacious remarks, once again trying to slander President Trump left and right, when you're the one who was taking money from one of Epstein's closest confidants, I believe. Yeah, you're pulling me on President Trump and some photograph with Epstein?

SPEAKER_03: 20:23

Come on. The question is Did the FBI find those photographs that have been discussed publicly by a witness who claimed Jeffrey Epstein showed them to him? You don't know anything about that. Okay.

SPEAKER_06: 20:38

Um here's what some why don't we cut to something else? Why didn't you say no? Does the FBI have, quote, photos of President Trump with half-naked young women? Do you know if the FBI found those photographs in their search of Jeffrey Epstein's safe or premises or otherwise? Have you seen any such thing? Why didn't she say no? When she was asked by a Republican Senator, did you see the video of Howard Lutlet talked about Jeffrey Epstein? She said yes. She answered all those questions. She knows how to answer yes or no questions. Why wouldn't Donald Trump's attorney general want to shut down the possibility that the Epstein files contain photographs that were in Jeffrey Epstein's possession of Donald Trump with very young women? Why didn't she say no? Committee members asked their questions in order of seniority on the committee. And so our first guest tonight, who is the newest Democratic member of the committee, was the last Democratic senator to deal with the first attorney general in history who will only answer questions from senators who are members of her political party. The junior most member of the Judiciary Committee chose what turned out to be the best possible approach at that point to an attorney general who lives in fear of answering questions.

SPEAKER_07: 21:53

I think it's it's valuable that the American people get a sense of what you've refused to answer today. So these are just some of the questions you refused to answer, but or have answered with personal attacks on members of this committee. You were asked whether you consulted with career ethics lawyers, as you promised you would do, during your nomination hearing, when you approved the president receiving a$400 million gift from the Qataris. You refused to answer that question. You were asked what who or what role you may play, or who played the role in asking that Trump's name be flagged in any of the Epstein documents gathered by the FBI? You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether Holman kept the$50,000 bag money. You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether Holman paid taxes on the$50,000 brabe money, you refused to answer that question. You were asked, did career prosecutors find insufficient evidence to charge James Comey? You refused to answer that question. You were asked, how are military strikes on these boats in the Caribbean legal? And you refuse to even ask that question. You were asked to be asked to be a good question. Excuse me, excuse me. Um you were asked, did you discuss indicting James Comey with the president? You refused to answer that question. You were asked, did you approve the firing of any trust lawyers who disagreed with the Hewlett Packet merger? You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether you support a restoration fund for violent insurrections, insurrections to attack the Capitol on January 6th, refused to answer that question. You were asked whether you were firing career professionals, career prosecutors just because they worked on January 6th question, the January 6th investigations, you refused to answer that question. You were asked by my California colleague whether you believe government officials, like immigration officials, have to abide by court orders. You wouldn't even answer that question. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing. Oversight. Excuse me. You can attack me after my. Canned attacks on you? This is supposed to be a couple of things. No one needs a canned attacks on you. I'm trying to speak. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing of the Justice Department. And it comes in the wake of an indictment called for by the president of one of his enemies. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing, and it comes in the wake of revelations that a top administration official took$50,000 in a bag, and this department made that investigation go away. An oversight hearing when dozens of prosecutors have been fired simply because they worked on cases investigating the former president. This is another fires in California. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about the riots in LATOS about the cover-up of corruption, about the prosecution of the president's enemies. And when will it be? When will it be your time that the members of this committee on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those questions and refuse to accept the question?

SPEAKER_06: 24:44

In all my years working in the United States Senate, uh more hearings than I can count, in two committees that I was the staff director of, I never, ever saw a witness of any kind, cabinet member or arthur, interrupt a Senate. Never. That is the lost work of sanity that preceded Donald Trump's takeover of the Republican Party.

SPEAKER_09: 25:05

Now I know y'all saw it. Pam Bondi is strutting into the United States Senate as if she has just been drafted into the Super Bowl of politics. And in a way, she did. Because when you sit down in front of the Judiciary Committee, you're not just giving testimony you're auditioning for history. You're telling the country who you are, what you stand for. And whether you've got the spine to back it up when the lights are hot and the knives are out. Now let me set the scene for you. Bondi shows up with a folder of notes. Not unusual. Everybody does it. But here's the catch. The cameras zoom in, and suddenly America's watching her talking points before she even opens her mouth. That's like stepping into a fight gym. Throwing your playbook on the mat and letting your opponent study it before the bell rings. Rookie move. See in politics, just like in wrestling, just like in jiu-jitsu, confidence is half the battle. If you look like you're running on memorized lines, the crowd tunes out. Because conviction can't be faked forever. People smell it. They know when you're working the crowd instead of working the truth. Now, once she sat down, the Democrats sharpened their questions like kitchen knives. They wanted to know, is the Department of Justice being weaponized? What about Epstein? What about history of defending Trump, her ties to power? And Bondi did what a seasoned lawyer does, she pivoted, she jabbed, she counterattacked. Instead of answering Hadan, she started pointing the finger back. What about Democrats and their money? What about hypocrisy on your side? That's a classic move. It's like when you're losing an argument, so you go, yeah, but what about you? The problem is that's not an answer. That's a dodge. Now, don't get me wrong, some people ate it up. They saw Bondy as a fighter, somebody not afraid to push back. And in this era of politics, let's be honest, the performance often matters more than the substance. But here's where I gotta step back. The Senate ain't Twitter. It ain't a campaign rally. It's the chamber where the nation keeps its receipts. And when you leave more smoke than fire, those receipts will follow you. Think about it. When you walk into the Siddhartham, you're not just talking to the senators in front of you. You're talking to the people watching at home. You're talking to historians 30 years from now. You're talking to that high school kid who's watching C-SPAN because his civics teacher made him, and now he's forming his idea of what accountability looks like. That's the real audience. And Pam Bondi didn't win them. Here's the truth. America's tired of the dodge, tired of the answers. We don't expect perfection, but we expect honesty. And if you can't give that, then at least don't insult the intelligence of the public with pre-packaged theater, because that's what this looked like theater. Now let me take this down to the ground level, because politics always feels distant until you connect it to your own life. Imagine you're sitting across from your boss at work and they ask you about a mistake on your last project. Instead of answering, you start rattling off all the mistakes your co-workers made. That might buy you a little time, but it doesn't fix your problem. And eventually your boss is gonna say, yeah, but what about you? That's where Bondi found herself. And let me tell you in the Senate Chamber, you don't get to skip that question. Not for long. Now, some folks will say, Darrell, you're being too hard on her. She was just defending herself, defending her team. And listen, I get it. That's her role, that's the job. But here's where I push back. Defending your team is fine until defending your team starts to look like dodging accountability. Because the department of justice doesn't belong to one party, it belongs to the people. And every time we let these hearings turn into pure political theater, the people lose fate that justice is possible. And fate not the Sunday morning kind, but the civic kind is already running on films in this country. You strip that away, and you don't just weaken institutions. You weaken the nation itself. So when I watch Bondi in that chair sparring with senators, clutching her folder of notes like a lifeline, I didn't see strength. I saw calculation. I saw someone trying to win the news cycle, not trying to tell the truth. And maybe that's enough in this era to survive the news cycle to give your side enough ammo for one more round of talking points. But if that's all we expect, then we've already lowered the bar beneath the floor. Look, Bondi came in like a lion but left like a stage actor reading someone else's script. And history, history doesn't remember the actors. It remembers the truth tellers, the ones who sat in that chair and said, Here's what I know, W, here's what happened, here's where I stand, whether people liked it or not. So yeah, Pam Bondi went to the Senate. She performed. But when the lights dimmed and the cameras packed up, America was still left waiting for answers, and that silence says more than her folder of notes ever could. Welcome back to TDMs, or as we normally say, the Darrell McLean show, I am always happy when some of the listerns send me questions, and I have a great one from Jean who asks, Why do Democrats want health care for non-resident immigrants? Can't they just walk into an emergency room and be treated for free? Isn't it true hospitals can't turn people away? Good question. A sharp one. And like most sharp questions, it deserves a real answer. Not just the surface-level talking points you hear on cable news. Let's start with the facts. Yes, under federal law, hospitals cannot turn away someone in an emergency. That's the Mtala law, signed back in 1986 under President Reagan. It says if you show up to the ER and you're in critical condition, they have to stabilize you. Doesn't matter if you're a citizen, a visitor, undocumented rich, poor doesn't matter. You will get seized. But here's the catch. That's not the same thing as having health care. That's the same as saying, if your house catches fire, the fire department has to come put it out. But they're not going to rebuild your kitchen, install smoke detectors, or make sure your wiring isn't faulty in the first place. The emergency room is crisis medicine. It's triage. It's let's keep you from dying right now. What it is not is ongoing care. They won't refill your insulin every month. They won't monitor your blood pressure over years. They won't give you cancer screenings, mental health counseling, prenatal visits, or dental care. That kind of medicine is steady. Preventative, everyday stuff isn't part of the law. And no, it's not free. That's another myth. The hospital still sends a bill. If the patient can't pay, guess what happens? The hospital eats it, then raises costs for everyone else. Insurance premiums go up. Taxpayers foot the hidden bill. So when you hear people say, oh, they just get treated for free, what they really mean is, we're all paying for it, but through the most expensive, independent route possible. Now, why does this debate always heat up during a government shutdown? Because shutdowns aren't just about budgets, they're about theater. They're about leverage. Picture two kids in the backseat of a car fighting over who gets the last French fry. A shutdown is when they decide nobody gets fries and the whole car starves until somebody blinks. During those fights, both parties grab the loudest, most emotional issues they can. Immigration and healthcare, that's dynamite. Democrats push health care for immigrants as both a humanitarian issue and a public health issue. Their logic goes like this. First, it's cheaper to treat people early than to wait until they hit the ER in crisis. A$20 prescription today can prevent a$200,000 surgery tomorrow. Second, disease doesn't stop at borders. Viruses don't check passports. If people avoid doctors because they can't afford it, you get outbreaks that affect everybody. Third, they frame it as simple fairness, immigrants buy groceries, pay sales tax. Many even pay into Social Security with fake or borrowed numbers. Money they'll never see again. They're contributing to the system but excluded from its protections. Republicans, meanwhile, frame it as a matter of loyalty and limits. Their message. Hold on, why are we talking about health care for people who aren't even citizens when American families can't afford their own coverage? Why give benefits away to outsiders when veterans, seniors, and working class folks are struggling? That argument packs a punch during a shutdown when headlines show furloughed workers, delayed paychecks, unpaid troops. It becomes a potent line. Democrats want to fund immigrants while citizens go without. Now remember, The history here. Shutdowns have been used as weapons for decades. In the 90s, it was Clinton versus Gingrich. In 2013, Republicans shut the government down over Obamacare. Remember Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor? In 2018-2019, Trump presided over the longest shutdown in American history, 35 days all over border wall funding. Workers missed paychecks, TSA agents quip, Coast Guard families lined up at food banks. Every time the people end up as collateral damage, while politicians point fingers. So today the script is the same. Democrats say health care is a human right even for immigrants, and we're going to push for it, shut down or no shutdown. Not a dime. Not when our own people are hurting. Not when the border's out of control. That's why this question. Immigrant health care always surfaces during these moments. It's not random. It's strategic. It's a wedge issue that stirs emotion, divides neatly along party lines, and rallies each base. So let's circle back to the audience question. Can immigrants walk into an ER and get treated? Yes, but only for emergencies. Is it free? No. The rest of us foot the bill. Why do Democrats want more access? Because they believe it's smarter, cheaper, and more humane to provide care up front rather than mop up disasters later. Why do Republicans resist? Because they see it as unfair, unsustainable, and politically toxic to spend scarce dollars on people who aren't citizens. At the end of the day, this fight isn't just about immigrants or even hospitals. It's about what kind of country we want to be one that only deals with people at the brink of death, or one that sees health care as something broader. Shutdowns just make the fight louder, because both sides use it to prove who they're fighting for. So yes, the ER will keep its doors open. But that's not healthcare. That's duct tape on a bullet wound. The real debate is whether we want to build a system that works for everyone or keep patching holes after the damage is already done. You ever notice how Washington hearings look more like a bad Netflix special than actual governance? Half these senators look like they're auditioning for law and amp order, DC unit. You've got the grandstanding speeches, the raised eyebrows, the fake outrage perfectly timed for the evening news, and somewhere in the middle of all that, supposedly, is the truth. But here's the reality. While the cameras capture theater, real people live with the fallout. Government shutdowns leave workers without paychecks. Veterans wait months for claims. Parents sit through underfunded schools. Taxpayers eat the bill for dysfunction. The Bondi hearing was no different. Senators scored their stombites. Bandai played her role. Everyone left with their partisan clip ready for social media. And the American people left with nothing new. See, this is what I mean when I say performance versus substance. Performance wins headlines. Substance changes lives. But Washington keeps picking performance because it's easier. It's flashier. And the truth. The truth requires courage. So what we're left with is a government that behaves like a stage play. And the danger of stage plays is this the actors leave, the curtains fall, but the audience still has to go home hungry. And America's been hungry for real governance for a long time. Let's close with this. Pam Bondi and the Senate wasn't new. We've seen this movie before. McCarthy Hearings in the 1950s, Watergate in the 70s, Iran Contra the 80s, Clinton's impeachment in the 90s, Trump's trials and the 2010s, Zan Different Faces, same stage. The script never changes. And every time, the same costs. Trust erodes. Cynicism rises. People look at government and say, maybe this doesn't matter at all. And once that thought sets in, democracy doesn't need enemies abroad. It eats itself from within. But here's where I refuse to spare. Because while history repeats itself, people can break cycles. We don't have to accept theater as the standard. We don't have to accept that truth belongs to partisans instead of the people. So tonight I want you to remember this the Senate doesn't belong to Pam Bondi. It doesn't belong to Trump. It doesn't belong to Biden. It doesn't belong to Democrats or Republicans. It belongs to us. And when we watch, when we question, when we refuse to settle for the shadow boxing and demand real answers, that's when democracy breathes again. Because truth doesn't need a fodder of notes. It just needs somebody willing to speak it. So let's be that voice. Let's not settle for theater. Let's hold out for the truth.