The Daily Wrap Up

11 Feb. 2026

[Transcript edited for clarity, length and flow]

Watch on Youtube HERE

Hello everybody. I’m Adam Parkhomenko, filling in for Mary Trump. Thank you for being here tonight, and please excuse my voice, I’m getting over a bit of a cold. We also just welcomed a new baby boy who is healthy, and everything is awesome on that front.

Today felt less like congressional oversight and more like a masterclass in evasion.

Victims were standing in the room. Members of Congress were asking direct questions. And the Attorney General of the United States pivoted to stock market numbers as though she were doing a cable news hit instead of answering for redactions in the Epstein files.

At the same time, House Republicans are moving forward with legislation that would make it harder for millions of Americans to vote in the name of “election integrity,” despite voter fraud being statistically microscopic.

So tonight, we’re talking about accountability. We’re talking about transparency. And we’re talking about who government is actually protecting.

Because if people in power won’t answer questions, won’t face victims, literally won’t turn around and face them and won’t defend democracy, then what exactly are they doing?

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi faced sharp criticism on Capitol Hill during a House Judiciary Committee hearing over the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Democratic lawmakers expressed frustration over what they described as excessive redactions and withheld material, despite a federal law requiring the release of nearly all files. The Justice Department insists it has been transparent, citing legal privileges for declining to publish certain documents.

Representative Ted Lieu pressed Bondi directly about Donald Trump’s past association with Jeffrey Epstein. The exchange unfolded this way:

Ted Lieu: Donald Trump attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein. I want to know, were there any underage girls at that party or at any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein?

Pam Bondi: This is so ridiculous that they are trying to deflect from all the great things Donald Trump has done. There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime. Everyone knows that. This has been the most transparent presidency.

Ted Lieu: I believe you just lied under oath. There is ample evidence in the Epstein file.

Lieu referenced a witness who claimed to have overheard Trump discussing Epstein and alleged abuse, noting that no one at the Department of Justice had interviewed that witness. The broader issue is unavoidable: Ghislaine Maxwell is serving time, but the larger network of accountability remains untouched. Maxwell deserves prison. But that cannot be the end of the story.

When Jerry Nadler attempted to obtain a direct answer and was met with deflection, Jamie Raskin stepped in. Here is what he said:

Jamie Raskin: You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch. Not on our time.

That was not theater. That was oversight. The fact that it required another member intervening just to keep the questioning on track tells you how the hearing was being handled.

Instead of engaging the substance of redactions, Bondi pivoted to market performance. At one point, she said the following:

Pam Bondi: The Dow is over 50,000. The S&P at almost 7,000 and the Nasdaq smashing records. Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.

The stock market is not what was under scrutiny. The Justice Department’s transparency was. When oversight turns into a Dow Jones update, it is obvious someone is avoiding the actual question.

One of the most striking moments came when Representative Lou Correa turned his attention to the survivors in the room. He asked them directly:

Lou Correa: Please stand up. Raise your hand if you think after everything you’ve heard today that the Department of Justice has your back.

The silence was powerful.

Representative Pramila Jayapal later urged Bondi to simply turn around and acknowledge the survivors standing behind her. The survivors raised their hands when asked whether they had still not been able to meet with the Department of Justice. Bondi did not turn around. It was a basic request for humanity. The refusal spoke volumes.

Representative Mary Gay Scanlon attempted to clarify whether the Department had created a list of groups designated as domestic terrorist organizations. The exchange went like this:

Mary Gay Scanlon: Did you prepare the list?

Pam Bondi: I’m not going to answer it yes or no.

You cannot threaten to label organizations as domestic terrorists and then refuse to define who you are referencing. That is not law enforcement. That is intimidation.

Even Republican Representative Thomas Massie appeared frustrated during questioning about redactions involving Les Wexner. This was the exchange:

Thomas Massie: Are you able to track who obscured Les Wexner’s name as a co-conspirator in an FBI document?

Pam Bondi: We corrected that within 40 minutes.

Massie later told reporters that Bondi had failed to answer critical questions and had instead defaulted to unrelated talking points. When Republicans begin expressing frustration, the dysfunction is no longer partisan. It is institutional.

The hearing made one thing clear: the louder the deflection, the clearer the avoidance.

Now to something that should concern every voter.

House Republicans are advancing legislation known as the SAVE Act, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. It would require Americans to present documentary proof of citizenship, such as a valid U.S. passport or birth certificate, when registering to vote. It would also require valid photo identification before casting a ballot.

Federal law already requires voters in federal elections to be U.S. citizens. What it does not require is documentary proof.

Voting experts estimate that more than 20 million voting-age citizens do not have proof of citizenship readily available. Nearly half of Americans do not possess a U.S. passport. Votebeat.org has reported that women who changed their last names after marriage may not have documentation matching their current legal name, creating additional barriers.

Speaker Mike Johnson defended the measure by claiming Democrats want non-citizens to vote. This is what he said:

Mike Johnson: They don’t have any logical answer. They want illegals to vote. That’s why they opened the border wide for four years under Biden and Harris. It is existing federal law that only American citizens can decide American elections, and we’ve got to make sure that we can enforce that law.

Voter fraud is extraordinarily rare. When fraud is statistically rare but access becomes statistically harder, the goal is not security. It is restriction.

Laws like this do not protect democracy. They narrow it.

Watch on Youtube HERE