Americanswers... on 5Live! Why did Pam Bondi, US Attorney General, lose her temper during Epstein Files questioning?

Summary

---

Americast – Americanswers on 5Live!

Why Did Pam Bondi, US Attorney General, Lose Her Temper During Epstein Files Questioning?

Date: February 17, 2026
Hosts: Sarah Smith, Justin Webb, Marianna Spring, Anthony Zurcher
Special Focus: Analysis of Pam Bondi's contentious congressional testimony on the Epstein files and the political and social reverberations.

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Americast centers on the explosive congressional hearing with US Attorney General Pam Bondi regarding the Epstein files release and the broader ramifications for American politics and public trust. The hosts tackle several audience questions, dissect the motivations and impacts of key political figures—particularly Bondi, Kristi Noem, and the Clintons—and consider the ongoing public hunger for answers around the Epstein scandal.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Pam Bondi’s Contentious Congressional Testimony

• Central Theme: Bondi’s combative approach during questioning about the handling and redactions in the Epstein files. She frequently clashed with committee members, refusing to answer directly, instead attacking her questioners.

• Dynamics at Play:

  • Bondi came aggressively prepared, launching personal attacks and accusations rather than offering substantive responses.
  • The hearing devolved into a “theatrical” back-and-forth, with little genuine progression toward new information.
  • The spectacle may erode the public’s patience with congressional hearings but is unlikely to deter Trump administration officials from appearing in the future.

  Justin (06:06): “Pam Bondi came perfectly prepared for a very adversarial meeting... She was ready to fling [prepared insults] at them rather than answer their questions. So, yes, I mean, it was a rather unedifying spectacle. It was difficult to watch and listen to.”

• Political Fallout:

  • The administration, particularly Trump, appeared to support Bondi’s combative style, suggesting a continued strategy of confrontation over cooperation with oversight.

  Anthony (13:31): “Donald Trump was very quick to talk about what a great job she did and how proud he was of her. I think he likes a fighter... she goes on the attack and belittles everyone asking her questions.”

Notable Quotes & Exchanges

• [05:57] Pam Bondi (on committee): “This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.”
• [06:03] Pam Bondi: “You’re a failed politician.”
• [22:29] Pam Bondi: “No, I’m going to answer the question the way I want to answer.”
• [22:34] Pam Bondi: “I’m not going to get in the gutter with these people.”
• [30:34] Victims asked to stand and signal if the DOJ had ignored them—a moment described as visually powerful and damning.

---

2. Epstein Files: Limited New Insights, Lasting Outrage

• Key Frustration: Despite thousands of pages released, the files contained little actionable evidence against abusers in Epstein’s orbit. Lack of answers fuels ongoing suspicion and conspiracy.

• Victims’ Silence: Many victims are afraid of retaliation, legal risks, or trauma, and some expect that only the government should unveil the full truth.

• Congressional Grandstanding: Hearings are often used for political theater rather than fact-finding; this compounds public cynicism.

  Anthony (24:38): “What we learned, we learned in the files. We didn’t learn a whole lot new from this testimony, except that Pam Bondi is going to dig in and push back. But we knew that already.”
  Justin (27:22): “Nothing in the Epstein file seems to have moved us any closer to a prosecution of any of the men in Epstein's orbit who were abusing his victims. This is one of the reasons why this simply will not die as a story.”

---

3. Political Implications for Cabinet: Bondi & Kristi Noem

• Cabinet Tensions: Both Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem are seen as vulnerable, but Trump's instinct is not to appear pushed by critics into firing staff. Negative coverage and backstabbing within the White House increase pressure on Noem.

• Bondi’s Utility: Bondi’s willingness to defend Trump aggressively is seen as valuable, making her more likely to be retained despite controversy.

  Anthony (11:19): “You see some of the recent reporting around Kristi Noem... shows that she’s definitely got a big target on her back when it comes to even people who are close to Donald Trump.”

---

4. The Clintons Opt for Public Testimony

• Strategy: Bill and Hillary Clinton, facing Congressional demand for Epstein-related testimony, pivoted from reluctance to insisting on a public, televised appearance.

• Reason: They hope public testimony prevents selective leaks and lets them directly address accusations, potentially embarrassing Trump as well.

  Marianna (14:29): “They've kind of turned the tables on everyone... I suspect Bill probably thinks he can do it in public because it is potentially embarrassing to Donald Trump, but also he gets the chance to put his side of it.”

Historical Precedent

• Unusual Step: Public testimony by a former president is rare, raising the bar for transparency from all ex-presidents in future controversies.

---

5. White House Ballroom Renovation Rumors

• Inquiry: Viral claims stated a judge halted Trump’s extravagant ballroom project, leaving “a pile of rubble.”

• Reality: Judge is still reviewing, no actual construction yet; demolition work continues.

  Anthony (17:29): “I still hear jackhammers going and construction taking place. Now, whether that's just the excavation and the clearing... I think the building hasn't started yet.”

---

6. Obama’s Alien Comments: Meme, Science, and Disinformation

• Incident: Obama jokingly suggested “aliens are real” in a podcast, then clarified on Instagram that he meant statistical probability, not proof of visitation.

• Public Overreaction: The hosts reflect on how innocuous comments fuel conspiracy theorizing and viral misinformation.

  Justin (04:29): “Just to state something that's almost certainly scientifically true sends everybody off onto a conspiracy theory kind of festival.” Sarah (03:24): “The odds are good there's life out there, but the distances... are so great that the chances we've been visited... is low.”

---

7. Grassroots Response: Buddhist Monks’ Peace Walk

• Listener Highlight: A listener’s question draws attention to the Buddhist monks’ cross-country peace walk with their dog, contrasting it with the prevailing divisiveness.

• Reflection: The walk resonated locally and sparked reflection on the forms of American resistance or detachment from Trump-era politics.

  Marianna (19:44): “We maybe ought to concentrate more on those Americans who have decided that your inner life, your personal behavior is what you concentrate on in the era of Trump.”

---

Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes by Timestamp

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote/Context | |-----------|---------|---------------| | 05:57 | Pam Bondi | “This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.” | | 06:03 | Pam Bondi | “You are a failed politician.” | | 06:06 | Justin | “Pam Bondi came perfectly prepared for a very adversarial meeting...” | | 13:31 | Anthony | “Donald Trump was very quick to talk about what a great job she did and how proud he was of her...” | | 14:29 | Marianna | “They've kind of turned the tables on everyone... I suspect Bill probably thinks he can do it in public...” | | 17:29 | Anthony | “I still hear jackhammers going and construction taking place...” | | 22:29 | Pam Bondi | “No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer.” | | 24:38 | Anthony | “What we learned, we learned in the files. We didn't learn a whole lot new from this testimony...” | | 27:22 | Justin | “Nothing in the Epstein file seems to have moved us any closer to a prosecution...” | | 30:34 | Pam Bondi (committee moment) | “To the survivors in the room, if you are willing, please stand... every single survivor has raised their hand...” | | 31:29 | Marianna | “Remember, this is the woman who said she had the whole file, everything on her desk...” |

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Pam Bondi Congressional Hearing & Fallout: 05:13 – 14:15; 21:46 – 32:00
• Obama on Aliens & Info Correction: 02:39 – 05:03
• Clintons and Public Testimony: 14:15 – 16:50
• White House Renovation Rumor: 16:50 – 18:56
• Victims’ Rights, Congressional Naming, & Obstacles: 25:08 – 28:10
• Buddhist monks’ Walk for Peace: 18:56 – 21:14

---

Original Language and Tone

The episode is marked by the BBC team’s signature blend of dry wit, dispassionate analysis, and clear frustration at political spectacle replacing accountability. Sarcasm and exasperation color many of the comments, particularly around Bondi’s performance and the broader state of American political transparency.

---

Conclusion

This episode underscores the deep distrust and polarization in American political life, where congressional hearings become theater, transparency remains elusive (particularly regarding Epstein), and political loyalty often trumps institutional norms. The enduring power of spectacle—whether through Bondi’s combative testimony or the peaceful resistance of Buddhist monks—points to a society struggling to reconcile its search for truth with its appetite for confrontation.

---

For more Americast:

• Email: [e-mail]
• Discord server details in the episode description

“It is you, the Ameracaster, that makes AmericasT the community that it now is.” – Marianna (32:36)

Transcript

[Marianna]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk. This message comes from Schwab at Schwab. How you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own. Plus get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award winning service, low costs and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

[Advertisement Voice]

You know that goal you set at the start of the year? You can still do it. Whether you're committed to a thru hike with friends, lifting heavier or simply walking more, it's not too late to stick with it and make your future self proud. Especially with the all in One Nutrition Shake from Cachava because quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated. Just two scoops of Cachava's all in One Nutrition Shake and you've got 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, adaptogens and so much more. Plus it actually tastes delicious. No fillers, no nonsense, just the good stuff your body craves. So instead of adding to your backstock of supplements that overpromise and under deliver, simplify your progress with just two scoops of the highest quality ingredients. Stick with your wellness goals. Go to kachava.com and use code NEWS for 15% off. That's kachava.com and use Code NEWS K-A C H-A V A.com Code NEWS.

[Marianna]

Lots of questions about the Epstein files this week. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General clashing in Congress. What we did or didn't learn from her grilling. It was very, very contentious. We also talked about talk about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Why are they insisting on giving their evidence live when they do testify on Epstein before Congress? Plus, has a judge stopped Donald Trump's White House renovations? Does there really only exist now a pile of rubble and nothing more? And does Barack Obama believe in aliens? Sarah Anthony and I joined Marianna on Five Live. Welcome to America. Answers.

[Pam Bondi]

AmericasT AMERICAST from BBC News.

[Marianna]

You hear that sound? Oh, I think when I hear that sound reminds me of money.

[Anthony]

Nicolas Maduro yeffed around and he found.

[Sarah]

Out this is a big cover up and this administration is engaged in it.

[Pam Bondi]

This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.

[Marianna]

I have four words for you. Turn the volume up.

[Sarah]

Let's start with a topic that feels like it's kind of my cup of tea. Before we get into everyone's questions, I'd like to know what you think about former US President Barack Obama saying that aliens are real. Barack Obama was doing a quick fire questions on the no Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen podcast.

[Justin]

Are aliens real?

[Marianna]

They're real, but I haven't seen them. And they're not being kept in, what.

[Justin]

Is it, Area 50?

[Marianna]

Area 51? There's no underground facility. Unless there's this enormous conspiracy and they hid it from the President of the United States.

[Justin]

What was the first question you wanted.

[Marianna]

Answered when you became president? Where are the aliens? Where are the aliens?

[Sarah]

That is worth saying that. Obama has now posted on Instagram to clarify his remarks. And he said, I'm trying to stick with the spirit of the speed round, but since it's gotten attention, let me clarify. Statistically, the universe is so vast, the odds are good there's life out there, but the distances between solar systems are so great that the chances we've been visited by aliens is low. I saw no evidence during my presidency that extraterrestrials have made contact with us. I have to say that a lot of people who like to indulge quite extreme conspiracy theories and other ideas have very much jumped on the alien hype.

[Anthony]

They got to him.

[Marianna]

They got to him. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. It's the modern world, isn't it? It is very much your world, Marianne. He's a thoughtful guy who answered the question with a mix of humor and the obvious, really, which is that if there is an infinite universe, it's almost certain that there are other things out there which you might describe as aliens. And the attention that it gets, I find a bit depressing, actually, because he's.

[Sarah]

I suspect he aliens feels a bit lighter than what we're dealing with most of the time in politics.

[Marianna]

It interests me that he felt that he had to clarify it at all.

[Justin]

It shouldn't be that controversial, though, should it? I mean, Justin and Obama are right. The chances are statistically very, very high that there's some kind of life form. That doesn't mean that they're capable of visiting us. It doesn't mean they want to visit us or contact us. It could be plankton or amoebas on some very, very far planet or something, but nonetheless, that would count as an alien life form. And it's. I don't know, it's the grip that they have on everybody's IM that just to state something that's almost certainly scientifically true sends everybody off onto a conspiracy theory kind of festival.

[Sarah]

Anthony, what do you think of the aliens?

[Anthony]

He gave a typical Obama answer, right? Measured, professorial. And he didn't Expect the firestorm that it would set off, even though he probably should have.

[Sarah]

Okay. We have had this email from Benedict, from Kent, who says, is it possible that after Pam Bondi's performance this week in front of the Epstein testimony, that Republican Republicans will use it as a reason to refuse to attend such hearings in the future, claiming they represent theater and a distraction from more important work?

[Pam Bondi]

Chairman, may I have another question on that? Here's the question and I need to give my answer on that.

[Anthony]

We'll let the attorney general respond and then the gentleman can move to the next question. It's my turn.

[Pam Bondi]

Within 40 minutes, you asked me a question. Within 40 minutes, Wexner's name was added back.

[Marianna]

Within 40 minutes of me catching you red handed.

[Pam Bondi]

Red hair was one redaction where he's.

[Justin]

Listed as a co conspirator.

[Pam Bondi]

And we invited you in. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.

[Marianna]

He needs to get.

[Pam Bondi]

You're a failed politician.

[Justin]

Well, so Pam Bondi came perfectly prepared for a very adversarial meeting. And it is true that she frustrated the lawmakers very much who were trying to ask her questions, and they ended up talking over her as well. But I think, frankly, I mean, it sounds a little bit school playground to say it, doesn't it? But if we want to talk about who started it, I think Pam Bondi came with a prepared insult for every single lawmaker on that committee that she, you could tell that she was ready to fling at them rather than answer their questions. So, yes, I mean, it was a rather unedifying spectacle. It was difficult to watch and listen to. And it will probably put all sorts of people off congressional hearings. But whether it puts any certainly Trump administration figures off going to the Hill, I would doubt it very much. I think it just means that they're going to go, you know, absolutely with their armor and their insults ready and going to see far more of this kind of theater rather than any attempt to really get any answers.

[Marianna]

I think it's unlikely to answer the question directly. I think it's unlikely, actually, they'll refuse to go and Anthony will know whether they have to go or not. I can't. I mean, you can be mandated to go to a congressional committee. I'm not sure if you are as a member of the White House staff. There's probably a difference there between whether you're a staff member or whether you're a cabinet secretary, et cetera, et cetera. I'm sure Anthony knows. But I just, in general, these things are often theater. You think of the hearings that Kamala Harris made her name at when she was a senator, in which, you know, in a really naked way, and I don't say this as a criticism for her, but, I mean, she just set out to make her name asking pointed questions that were all about the question rather than about the answer during a succession of Senate committee hearings. And that. That. That's how they're used by the politicians, actually, on both sides. And Pam Bondi's tried to use it as well.

[Anthony]

Yeah, There are some members of the Cabinet who are required by law to attend. It's written into the statutes. The Secretary of Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a lot of different financial, mostly financial members of the presidential Cabinet, they have to show up. The rest show up mostly by tradition, by norms. They're invited and they accept that. That's why Pam Bondi was there. And in theory, they could say, no, I'm not going to. Not going to show up. And a lot of Trump's Cabinet secretaries have been reluctant to come down there. They've had appearances much less frequently than past administrations. If they flat out refuse, in theory, Congress could subpoena them, force them to show up. If they didn't show up, they could hold them in contempt of Congress. But we've seen that those contempt of Congress attempts tend to kind of bog down in legal wrangling. And then I guess the ultimate power to answer Benedict's question is that the Senate could, in theory, impeach these Cabinet secretaries for not showing up. Although, again, the political will to do that just isn't there.

[Sarah]

It's a high bar on this topic of Pam Bondi. We've got this text in from Amy, who says, hi, Marianne. We all remember Trump's first term for the amount of people around him who resigned or got fired. My question for you and the rest of the Americast team is who do you think is most likely to resign or be fired this term? Will he feel the pressure to replace Bondi and. Or Noem.

[Marianna]

Noem's going, do you think?

[Justin]

Yeah, yeah. She's the closest to it right now, by the way.

[Sarah]

These are proper hostage to fortune. We always get these wrong.

[Marianna]

But anyway, this is a big BBC impartiality thing, because the reason why I find it really difficult to get on with her is that she shot a dog. For that reason, I probably got to recuse myself.

[Anthony]

She wrote about it as a kind of a story about how tough she is in dealing with things. A dog was a bad dog. She shot some goats too, apparently. Ordinary goats. So, yeah, that backfired and I think it did cost her some political standing. But she is on thin ice. I think Trump has been reluctant to push out cabinet secretaries this time around because of all the bad press he got in that first presidential term where a lot of cabinet secretaries were coming and going. And it kind of underlined the chaos in that administration. But it seems like if you see some of the recent reporting around Kristi Noem and some of the stories that have been coming out, some of the criticisms, they have fingerprints from inside the White House, people who are sharing these stories to damage her, which shows that she's definitely got a big target on her back when it comes to even people who are close to Donald Trump.

[Justin]

The one thing that might savor is the fact that Donald Trump doesn't want to look as though he has been pushed into making a decision like that, either by the media or by political opponents and criticizing him. So he has an instinct to double down and back somebody who's under fire simply because he doesn't want to look as though he's being pushed around. But there will come a point, and I think Kristi Noemi is very close to it now, when having somebody like that in the cabinet is doing more political damage than not. And he'll see that it may be necessary to get rid of her, if only just to drop, draw a line underneath the terrible news that there has been about the immigration raids and the ICE deployments over the course of this year so far already. Getting rid of Kristi Noem would be quite a good way to put a full stop under that.

[Anthony]

Probably there was a cabinet meeting just a few weeks ago and Kristi Noem was there along with all the other cabinet secretaries. And a lot of us were looking at that meeting as a chance for Donald Trump to offer his defense of Noem. And got through the whole meeting. He didn't say anything about her. She didn't even talk, despite many of the cabinet secretaries taking their turns talking. So again, if you're reading tea leaves, if you're looking for palace intrigue, that is a good data point too.

[Marianna]

And another kind of palace intrigue point. It's in real clear politics, all one word. They've got a really interesting piece, very well resourced piece, I thought, well sourced piece about how Donald Trump, although he refers to the fake news media and suggests that he doesn't believe a word that is in any of the broadcast media or newspapers actually when his people are criticized in those papers. He takes it really seriously and will ring them and say what's going on, particularly if it's above the fold.

[Sarah]

But isn't it that whole thing, like, I can be mean about my own family, but I don't want anyone else to be mean about that. It's sort of that. And it's worth reminding people that Kristi Noem's title is She's Secretary of Homeland Security, isn't she? Which is why the various things we're talking about fall under her, under her sort of responsibility. And with Pam Bondi, do any of you think that she's nearing her? Because, I mean, particularly everything around the Epstein files, if you were Donald Trump, you might be thinking, ooh, how helpful is she being to me here? Or not?

[Justin]

There may come a point when the administration needs to look for a sacrifice over the Epstein files and think that maybe the one way to stop everybody talking about them endlessly is to get rid of somebody. But that, of course, you see, to sack Ham Bondi at this point would be to suggest she had done something wrong in preparing the files for release and that maybe, you know, an extra 2 million documents ought to have been released all along. So that's a little bit tricky there. And she has been extremely willing to do Donald Trump's bidding when it comes to going after some of his political opponents and using the judicial system to do that. Now, that's not yet been very effective, but that's because it's been stymied by grand juries and by judges in some cases. But what you have got is a Department of justice under Pam Bondi as the Attorney General, who is prepared to just, you know, act at the whim of the president, which is not constitutionally the way it's been normally, but it does mean that she is particularly helpful to him in that regard.

[Anthony]

I was just going to say, after her testimony that we played the excerpt from earlier, Donald Trump was very quick to talk about what a great job she did and how proud he was of her. So we talked about the lack of any kind of defense of Kristi Noem. Well, here we have the exact opposite. Donald Trump going out and praising her. I think he likes a fighter. I think he probably likes how she handles that testimony before Congress where she goes on the attack and belittles everyone asking her questions. So, yeah, the Epstein thing, she has definitely muddled the response of the administration, cost them some political capital on it. But if we're going through Cabinet secretaries right now who are on thin ice, I think she's still pretty solid, right?

[Sarah]

Another question that we've got. Gina says this, this is a voice note from her. What do you think is the motivation behind the Clintons choosing to testify in public at the end of this month? And what do you think they might disclose?

[Marianna]

Yeah, I mean, I think he thinks. I think Bill particularly thinks this is testifying about Epstein. Yeah, he's testifying about Epstein. And they'd been asked to do it before and they'd said no. And they changed their tune when it seemed that they were going to be threatened with some sort of legal action. Potentially contempt of Congress, which is a serious thing, can get you put in jail. And specifically some Democrats seemed to be part of that. So they were beginning to feel that they were on pretty thin ice, but they've kind of turned the tables on. Everyone was saying, okay, well, not only will we testify, we want to do it in public. And I think Bill probably thinks he can do it in public because it is potentially embarrassing to Donald Trump, but also he gets the chance to put his side of it. And for quite a lot of these people who were involved with Epstein, but there's no evidence they did anything wrong or indeed saw anything wrong happening. One of the kind of missing pieces of all of this is their ability to come out and say, this is why I actually happened. This is what I saw. This is why I was there. And I suspect that Bill Clinton still has enough faith in his own abilities. Whether he's right, of course, is a completely different matter, but I suspect he's still enough faith in his abilities to think he can make this work for him.

[Justin]

But also I think it sets a very important precedent because, well, Anthony will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I think this is the first former president who has agreed to go and give evidence like this. Once he has, it makes it much harder to. For future former presidents to refuse to give evidence, which, of course, yes, we're looking at you, Donald Trump.

[Anthony]

There have been some instances of presidents testifying before Congress, but certainly nothing in a kind of an adversarial sort of way that we see here. And so I think that Sarah is exactly right. They want it all out in the public. They don't want Republicans to cherry pick the most controversial and most inflammatory bits and leak those to the press, because that's what happens behind closed doors. And it's not just one side or the other. Both Democrats and Republicans do it. We've seen Democrats leaking bits and pieces of the Epstein documents that have been released to Congress. Ahead of time, ones that point the finger more directly at Donald Trump. So that's part of the political game here. And I don't think the Clintons want to get caught up in that. I think they want the American public to see it all kind of played out under the floodlights.

[Sarah]

And we did do an episode about this where we kind of discussed particularly how Hillary Clinton has been kind of catnip for extreme conspiracy theory is very different to obviously the real allegations we're talking about relating to Epstein, and that maybe might be part of their motivation or not. Okay. Neil from Ashton Underline in Greater Manchester has emailed us and he says, I recently read a post on social media that a federal judge has stopped the renovation work currently being conducted at the White House, leaving an unsightly mound of rubble in the place where Donald Trump would like a shiny ballroom. Is this information correct or have I unwittingly fallen for one of the many rage bait articles that Mariana has frequently warned me of? Drumroll. Anthony, is, is this true?

[Anthony]

Well, a federal judge, Judge Richard Leon, has weighed in and is reviewing the case. Although when I'm at the White House, I still hear jackhammers going and construction taking place. Now, whether that's just the excavation and the clearing and not the building of the new building that's going to go in there, the judge has been somewhat reluctant to step in and, and stop any kind of further demolition because once it's been torn down, it's been torn down. But I think the building hasn't started yet. The actual construction of the ballroom, we've seen some mock ups of what it might look like, as big as the White House itself, a towering building that will dominate the one side of it. But those are still kind of the blueprints. We haven't begun to get to the actual constructing yet.

[Justin]

Yeah, people are going to get a real shock. I think if it's built to Donald Trump's plans, when they finally see it, there's a lot of people who agree, I don't know if Anthony is one of them, but who are in and around the White House who think, yeah, they do need a bigger space. I think it's pretty obvious from some of the events and press conferences and things I've attended that they need a big sort of ballroom sized space. But it's grown bigger and bigger in Donald Trump's imagination and in his plan since it was conceived of and it is now, yeah, practically the size of the rest of the White House. And so when it is eventually unveiled, if it's constructed as he wants. I think people are going to get a real fright when they see it.

[Sarah]

Okay, this is an email from Sue. She says, I listen to every episode of AmericasT and I have to say that I'm really disappointed. There's been no mention whatsoever of the Walk for Peace by the Buddhist monks from Fort Worth, accompanied by Aloka the dog to Washington D.C. over the last three months. They are now back in their home temple in Fort Worth. They are truly inspiring and give me hope that the majority of peace loving Americans will come to the fore in the future.

[Marianna]

I suppose, I mean, do you know what the others think of this? There are sort of two ways in which those who are fundamentally opposed to Donald Trump have faced the fact that he was elected again. There's the ones who say, let's oppose him and let's try and oppose him politically. And they get really frustrated when the Democrats, they think, don't oppose him enough. And there are those who really go for mindfulness and just say, you know what, I'm just going to tune out of all of this stuff.

[Sarah]

Log of social media.

[Marianna]

Yeah, love of social media. I'm going to be walk with the dog. Walk with the dog. And this particular dog. You know, it's worth saying that at the beginning of this march, I think I'm right in saying that a truck crashed into them and one of these monks actually lost his leg. This is not a kind of just a sort of vague thing that happened. It had real consequences certainly for that monk. But also more widely as well. They hope that it has the consequence that people think in a peaceful way. I come from a Quaker tradition. I understand that. I think the Trump administration, though, would say, well, hang on a sec, we're actually bringing peace around the world, but doing so in sort of what they would regard as realistic ways instead of thinking about it. But the thinking about it aspect, yeah, you're right. I mean, we maybe ought to concentrate more on those Americans who have decided that your inner life, your personal behavior is what you concentrate on in the era of Trump.

[Anthony]

I live in Arlington, Virginia, which is very close to Washington, D.C. and it was a big deal in our little suburb. They walked through it, they closed roads. All the neighbors were talking about it. They were following these monks who walked all the way from Fort Worth to D.C. which is thousand, over a thousand miles in the middle of winter. I mean, this is not, you know, sunny spring day. This is walking through snow and ice and sleet. That big winter storm hit us in the middle of It. So I think it did make an impact in the local communities that these Buddhist monks walk through.

[Marianna]

Okay, we're off air with five Lives. Sarah and Anthony and I all still here. We just want to go back to what is by far the biggest story in our inbox this week. So our set of questions from you. And that, of course, is the Epstein files. There's also been a bit of discussion on the Discord server about the Attorney General Pam Bondi's evidence to Congress this week. Now, we played a short clip, didn't we, of Pam Bondi earlier. I think it's worth listening to a bit more of her answering questions, if that's quite the right way of characterizing it in Congress.

[Anthony]

I want to know, were there any.

[Marianna]

Underage girls at that party or at.

[Anthony]

Any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein?

[Pam Bondi]

This is so ridiculous. And 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. He's the one that those five.

[Marianna]

I'm reclaim my time. I got your answer. You said there's no evidence. Mr. Chairman, please stop the clock. Please stop the clock.

[Anthony]

This is a long time. How many have you guided?

[Pam Bondi]

Excuse me? I'm going to answer the question.

[Marianna]

Answer my question.

[Pam Bondi]

No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer.

[Justin]

Answer the question.

[Pam Bondi]

Chairman Jordan. I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people. I'm going to answer the question.

[Marianna]

How many of you indicted?

[Anthony]

Again, the time claiming my time.

[Marianna]

You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch. Not on our time. No way. And I told you about that Attorney General before you started.

[Pam Bondi]

You don't tell me.

[Marianna]

Oh, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate.

[Pam Bondi]

Lawyer. Not even a lawyer.

[Anthony]

Many will be in order.

[Pam Bondi]

Was the President aware of Secretary Lutnick's ties to Epstein when he chose him to lead the Department of Commerce? Was he aware Chris Malan was a Border Patrol agent? Okay, so I'm going to conclude that the President in fact did know about his ties because he was the next door neighbor. Shame on you. Oh, for goodness sakes. You're from a pathetic. This is pathetic mistake. I am not asking trick questions here. The American people have a right to know the answers to this. These are senior officials in the Trump administration. This is not a game, Secretary. I'm Attorney General. My apologies, I couldn't tell you.

[Anthony]

Get a flavor of the contentiousness of that, that hearing, if we hadn't already from the earlier clips and the attempts by Democrats and one Republican in particular, Thomas Massie, who we heard earlier, try to get Pam Bondi to be on the record responding. Some of the new details that we found from these Epstein files, as people have pored over the 3 million pages that were released asking about things like Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump's Secretary of Commerce, who it was revealed in the Epstein files, had gone to Jeffrey Epstein's island with his family at one point, despite saying that he hadn't. Now, whether we got anything out of this testimony, I think probably not. It was just contentious and a lot of shouting over each other. So I feel like what we learned, we learned in the files. We didn't learn a whole lot new from this testimony, except that Pam Bondi is going to dig in and push back. But we knew that already.

[Justin]

It was interesting, I thought, how incredibly defensive Pam Bondi was on this subject of Jeffrey Epstein. When the people who are asking the questions, not just from the committee but out in the public, are so often MAGA supporters, they can't dismiss this as some sort of Democratic hoax or some left wing conspiracy that's out to get them. It's their own people who want answers to the very kinds of questions that Pam Bondi was just completely refusing to talk about there. And I wonder if that is politically smart.

[Marianna]

We've had a question too about the victims who've spoken out in public, courageously, relentlessly. This is Annie's question. Who asks of those victims in the cases where they can name names and give traceable details of circumstances surrounding what happened to them? What's stopping them from speaking out now? Is it some sort of law that prohibits it or what? Which, Anthony, is a good question is it's one that we sort of toyed with in the past. Because it does seem to a lot of people to be odd that given that the victims are there, given that they've got lawyers, given that we know that there were men who abused them, why don't we just know their names?

[Anthony]

They say they do know the names of people who abuse them. The reason they say they haven't gone public with this, there's a variety of reasons, but one of the big ones is they're afraid of legal retaliation, defamation, lawsuits from people in positions of power and wealth who can fund massive legal battles, and they don't have the kind of resources to, to defend against that. They also say they're afraid for their own safety. That they feel threatened. They say that it's the government's responsibility. The Justice Department has these files. They know the names of these people. It's their responsibility to release them publicly, not theirs. And also there's the fact that it would be traumatizing for them to, again, detail exactly what happened to them. And they say that's another reason why they haven't come forward. Now, one of the things we've heard from some of the members of Congress, Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene when she was in Congress, is that they have said that they might just take to the floor of the House of Representatives and read these names out. And there's a provision in the Constitution called the Speech and Debate Clause which insulates, which protects members of Congress from prosecution for anything they say on the floor of Congress. So. So in theory, they could get up there, they could name all the accusers or name all the alleged assailants, and not face the kind of legal exposure that the victims say they would confront if they just came out publicly and said them outside of Congress.

[Justin]

Nothing in the Epstein file seems to have moved us any closer to a prosecution of any of the men in Epstein's orbit who were abusing his victims. This is one of the reasons why this simply will not die as a story. And people are not satisfied with what they've got so far. All of the emails that have been released show us about Epstein's network, his communications with them, his social life, but none of them get to revealing any evidence that would help prosecute any abusers. And what we haven't seen are details of FBI investigations or notes within the Justice Department in preparing the case against them in 2009. That's what people really, really wanted. They wanted evidence of who the abusers were, and preferably enough evidence that would see them prosecuted and potential convicted for it.

[Marianna]

And just politically, I just wonder whether Pam Bondi's performance, Anthony, was something that is going to not necessarily endear her, not just to the wider American public, but also to those in the White House who want all of this to kind of go away as an issue, because in a sense, that that extraordinary set of clashes that we saw have brought it back into the public eye, which is not where the White House wanted to be.

[Anthony]

Yeah, the congressional hearings aren't often great for revealing new information, for shedding light on details of whatever the hearings are on. It's a lot of grandstanding, a lot of politicians giving speeches for speeches, say. But there are moments and visuals that stand out, whether it's Anita Hill testifying in Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court back in the 90s, or if you remember those tobacco executives, one after the other, saying that nicotine wasn't addictive in flying in the face of scientific findings. And I think that there was a moment from that Pam bonding area, and it was the one where one of the members of Congress, a Democrat, asked for all of the victims to stand up in the audience if they had reached out to the Justice Department and tried to communicate with them, and then also saying that they hadn't received any kind of response. And the visual was Pam Bondi sitting at the witness table with these women kind of over her shoulder and Bondi kind of looking down to the left. It was a visual representation of what a lot of Americans, I think, Justin, feel, which is that the officials in power, the Justice Department in particular, are not listening to these women and they are not serving these women and acknowledging their victimhood. And there was a moment also where Pam Bondi refused to directly apologize to them as they were standing there. So moments, rather than exchanges and revelation of facts, I think might last beyond this. And that was a moment I think that people will remember for some time.

[Pam Bondi]

To the survivors in the room, if you are willing, please stand. And if you are willing, please raise your hands if you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice, please know for the record that every single survivor has raised their hand. Attorney General Bondi, you apologize to the survivors in your opening statement for what they went through at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Will you turn to them now and apologize for what your Department of Justice has put them through with the un Absolutely unacceptable release of the Epstein files and their information.

[Marianna]

And remember, this is the woman who said she had the whole file, everything on her desk, and was going to reveal it when she had the opportunity to do so, when she took over, once the Trump administration took over. And then, of course, I had to be forced out of them, and then it's much redacted anyway. So it's a really tricky political situation. That's not the most important thing about all of this, of course, but it does matter, and I think it is going to. It just shows how this thing has a constant life that is going to go certainly all the way to the midterms, but possibly even further than that, because as Anthony, I remember you saying ages ago, when we first discussed the calls for all of this to come out for the, for the whole file, all the files to be. To be made public, you were saying then it's still not going to work because there'll still be something kept back. Or if there isn't, then people will still think that something's being kept back. And that's exactly where we are. Rightyho. That's it for now. Bye bye to everyone.

[Anthony]

Bye bye bye.

[Marianna]

Thank you for listening to another episode. It is you, the Ameracaster, that makes AmericasT the community that it now is. If you like what you've heard, please do subscribe to this podcast on BBC Sounds or wherever you get your podcasts. We always want to hear your feedback as well. We look at every single bit of correspondence that we get so you can send us an email americastbc.com the WhatsApp is 443-301-239480 and you can get involved in the AmericasT discord server. The link to that is in the description. Till next time, Bye bye. Abercrombie's new spring collection has every outfit you need for the season of long weekends full of linen shirts, sweaters and coastal shorts designed to go from your desk straight to days off. For me, the collection's a must have are the baggy trousers with the casual.

[Anthony]

Fit and tailored look for endless versatility?

[Marianna]

Get your closet ready for spring plans. Shop Abercrombie in the app online and in stores. Support is available 247 with VRBoCare. We're here day or night, ready whenever.

[Justin]

You need help because a great trip starts with the right support.