Mega Edition: Transcripts From Pam Bondi's Epstein Related Trip To Congress (Part 9-12) (8/8/26)

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Epstein Chronicles

Mega Edition: Transcripts From Pam Bondi's Epstein Related Trip To Congress (Parts 9-12)

Host: Bobby Capucci
Date: August 8, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this "Mega Edition" episode of The Epstein Chronicles, host Bobby Capucci continues his deep-dive into the Congressional transcripts and hearings involving former Attorney General Pam Bondi regarding her role in the handling and release of materials related to the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases. Spanning Parts 9 through 12, this episode focuses on the Congressional Oversight Committee's relentless questioning of Bondi, controversies over compliance with subpoenas, disputes about document production and redactions, and high-profile names in the files. The conversation paints a vivid picture of the complex interplay between the DOJ, Congress, survivors, and the political apparatus circling one of the most notorious criminal enterprises of recent history.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. DOJ’s Compliance with the Congressional Subpoena

• Initial Production Criticism: Congress criticizes the DOJ’s August 2025 production of 33,000 pages, noting most were already public.
  • Pam Bondi: Asserts that Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward handled the release, totaling around 3 million documents since then.
  • Pam Bondi: "I had minimum involvement in that." (02:21)
• Was There Directing to Withhold Information?
  • Pam Bondi: Denies any directive from the administration to release only public info. “To my knowledge, no.” (02:39)
• Obligation to Respond: Bondi agrees that the department is obligated to comply with Oversight Committee subpoenas, echoing a Truth Social post from President Trump. (02:49)

2. Name Searches and Redactions in the Files

• Searching President Trump’s Name:
  • Multiple committee members probe whether DOJ deliberately searched for President Trump or other officials before document releases.
  • Pam Bondi: Clarifies that anyone could search names in the files and that Trump’s name was among many searched, “not only with President Trump, with multiple people, by many of us, as you will, that was done.” (04:55)
  • Persistent Congressional Questions: Frost presses Bondi on whether Congress members' own searches were monitored, Bondi responds the system automatically logs searches to protect victims’ identities.
  • Pam Bondi: “No one told me to spy on members of Congress.” (08:44)
• Allegations of 'Spying' on Congress:
  • Any tracking of search histories was part of built-in security protocol to safeguard victim information. (09:20)

3. Handling of Sensitive and Privileged Documents

• Redactions and Production Process:
  • Pam Bondi: Admits some information, especially child sexual exploitation material (CSAM), was withheld or redacted as required by law (06:09).
  • Several accidental releases of survivor identities and other sensitive materials occurred due to the rushed 30-day production window imposed by the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA).
  • Pam Bondi: “If one victim’s name is released it didn’t perform properly... multiple victims’ names were released...everyone cared deeply about protecting the identity of the victims.” (37:49)

4. Survivor Interaction and Consultation

• Survivor Attorneys’ Input:
  • Bondi reports speaking only with survivor attorneys, not victims directly, adhering to legal standards regarding represented parties (07:22).
  • Cannot recall if survivors were consulted on document release strategy or given access to their own files (07:56).

5. Preferential Treatment for Ghislaine Maxwell

• Alleged Special Prison Privileges:
  • Bondi claims knowledge of Maxwell’s “perks” (puppy, private meals) only from media, defers to Bureau of Prisons for details and appropriateness (15:04).

6. Transparency Act & Congressional Access

• Extent of Access:
  • The reading room at DOJ included unredacted material for Congressional review; Bondi defends this as full compliance with subpoenas (16:30).
  • Only Republican members reportedly took Bondi up on offers for follow-up briefings, with no Democratic committee members attending (21:12).

7. Political Dynamics of the Investigation

• Questioning Political Motivation and Selective Release:
  • Several moments discuss whether document redactions or omissions favored or targeted particular parties or individuals (particularly Trump).
  • Example: Claims against President Trump included in document releases were “untrue and sensationalist and unfounded and false,” with no substantive DOJ investigation, per Bondi (31:00).

8. Handling of Specific High-Profile Allegations

• Photos and Allegations Involving Prominent People:
  • Some images (e.g., Commerce Sec. Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump) were temporarily removed and restored; Bondi attributes this to technical suspicion (“AI image”) or mistakes, not political motivation (41:52).
• Allegations from a Survivor:
  • Interview summaries involving accusations against both Epstein and Trump were mismarked as “duplicative,” later corrected—a technical error, not a political one (45:30).
  • Bondi asserts all possible material was released as required by law and denies withholding due to political considerations.

9. Oversight and Accountability for Errors

• Redaction Failures and Apologies:
  • Bondi recognizes failures in redacting survivors’ information, agrees DOJ owes apologies, but insists errors stemmed from deadline and workload, not malice (37:49, 55:56).
• Calls for Further Investigation:
  • Committee members, especially Stansberry and Walkinshaw, press hard on whether Bondi or DOJ demonstrated enough initiative in investigating prominent figures and preventing victim exposure.

10. Open Investigations & Privilege Disputes

• Refusal to Answer on Open Inquiries:
  • Bondi repeatedly refuses to confirm or deny investigations into several high-profile Epstein associates, citing considered privilege, though Congress counters the Transparency Act should override those objections (57:09).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Pam Bondi on Production Responsibility:
  “Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward handled that.” (02:21)
• On Public Access & Searches:
  “Anyone can. It’s public… anyone can go in and search for any name on there.” (09:01)
• On Redaction Failures:
  “If one victim’s name is released it didn’t perform properly and multiple victims names were released…everyone cared deeply about protecting the identity of the victims.” (37:49)
• On Legal Obligations:
  “I agree that you’re entitled to everything you’re legally entitled to, yes." (02:53)
• On Political Pressure:
  “President Trump was not present at the meeting.” (27:22)
• On Survivor Consultations:
  “I spoke with one attorney, I believe. I know attorneys in my office have spoken with multiple attorneys who represented or represent the survivors.” (07:28)
• On Document Release Errors:
  “We had hundreds of lawyers…using their best efforts to protect victims. And that was the fear of human error working such long hours to get 3 million pages plus of documents out within 30 days.” (37:18)
• On Maxell’s Prison Privileges:
  “I was not aware of that until I read it yesterday somewhere. I would direct that to the Bureau of Prisons, including its accuracy." (15:04)
• On Withheld Investigations:
  “I can’t answer whether there is or not a pending investigation into anyone, and that includes all the names you listed. It’s privileged and protected information, and I’m not going to discuss that.” (58:45)

---

Timestamps of Key Segments

• 01:16 – 03:55: Initial questions on subpoena compliance and Bondi’s role.
• 04:16 – 06:09: Name searching in the files; CSAM redactions.
• 07:17 – 09:10: Consultation with survivors/their attorneys and their access to files.
• 15:04 – 16:45: Maxwell prison privileges and Congressional document access.
• 21:12 – 22:31: Attendance breakdown: Republicans/Democrats at Bondi’s follow-up sessions.
• 28:15 – 35:51: Legislative and technical process of document production; redaction errors.
• 36:38 – 43:25: Redaction and accidental release of victims’ names.
• 45:30 – 47:00: Technical explanation for duplicated/missing survivor interview documents.
• 57:09 – 59:44: Stansberry’s pointed questions on DOJ privilege assertions and legal compliance.
• 64:30 – 68:00: Review instructions for DOJ document contractors, whistleblower allegations, and the issue of monitoring Congressional searches.
• 68:00 – 70:00: Discussion on lack of interviews of Epstein co-conspirators.
• 75:00 – End: Closing acknowledgments and preview for next episode (Sarah Kellen transcript).

---

Tone & Language

The tone is contentious, often adversarial, with Bondi at times appearing defensive under relentless Congressional scrutiny. The questioning frequently switches between technical detail and political grandstanding, with occasional moments of sarcasm and exasperation (especially from committee members). Bondi consistently emphasizes legal protocols, limitations, and heavy workloads as explanations for perceived failures.

---

Conclusion

This episode captures the persistent tension between Congressional investigators demanding transparency and accountability, and Pam Bondi’s DOJ defending its handling of unprecedented, sensitive, and politically explosive materials from the Epstein case. The transcript reveals process breakdowns, heated exchanges on responsibility and privilege, and continued calls for more candor and action—setting the stage for future hearings and investigations.

---

For all supporting documents and detailed timelines, see episode description box.

Transcript

[Spinquest Advertiser]

Hanging out at the pool is great. Relaxing and playing Vegas style games on my phone at the same time. Drink in one hand and a blackjack in the other. It's all at spinquest. Over a thousand games including your favorite slots and table games. Be cool with this summer special. New players get 30 coin packs for

[Spinquest Disclaimer]

[e-mail] Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[McCurley Subaru Advertiser]

During the Subaru A Lot to love event at McCurley Subaru, there's a lot to love. Great offers, a great experience and a chance to help make a difference. Right now, drive a new Subaru with financing as low as 0.9%. We'll also help you maximize your trade. Take advantage of every available manufacturer incentive you qualify for and explore financing options that fit your budget. Plus, every new Subaru sold helps grant a local Make a wish wish McCurley Subaru your way home. Unapproved credit seat dealer for details.

[Pam Bondi]

What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with the Pam Bondi discussion with the OIG investigators.

[Congressional Questioner]

Now Ms. Ansari is asking the questions.

[Pam Bondi]

Hi, Ms. Bondi. Thank you. All right. I would like to focus questions on failure to comply with the oversight committee subpoena. On August 5th of last year, Chairman Comer issued a subpoena to the DOJ for all documents and communications from DOJ's Epstein and Maxwell related cases. On August 22nd of last year, DOJ produced approximately 33,000 pages to the committee. Almost all of those materials were already publicly available. And that's all that we have received from the doj in the 10 months since this subpoena was issued. Why was the first production in August made of mostly and all publicly available material? Bondi As I said earlier, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward managed the release of those documents. And since then the department received and released approximately 3 million documents. Ms. Ansari. But did anyone in the administration direct

[Congressional Questioner]

you to release material that were already

[Pam Bondi]

publicly available pertaining specifically to the subpoena? Dylan I think we're having some difficulty hearing you.

[Congressional Questioner]

Bondi.

[Pam Bondi]

Yeah, Ansari.

[Congressional Questioner]

Okay.

[Pam Bondi]

The question in regards to our subpoena before prior to the Epstein Files Transparency Act. I have to turn. I can't turn my neck, so I have to turn towards you, if that's okay. Ms. Ansari. So the question is, did anyone in the administration direct you to release only public available information in those 33,000 pages? Bondi as I said, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward handled that. Ms. Ansari I understand that, but Bondi cuts her off. I had minimum involvement in that. Ansari but he works for you, yes. ANSARI did someone direct you to only release publicly available information in regard to our subpoena to the Department of Justice? Bondi no. Ansari okay. Bondi to my knowledge, no. Do you believe that the department is obligated to respond to the Oversight Committee subpoenaed Bondi yes. And sorry. In November of 2025, President Trump posted on Truth Social about the committee subpoena saying, quote, the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to. Do you agree with President Trump? Bondi can you repeat that? ANSARI In November of 2025, President Trump posted on Truth Social about the committee subpoena, saying, quote, the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to. Do you agree with the president? I agree that you're entitled to everything you're legally entitled to, yes. Ansari okay. And then finally, does the committee need to bring you in for a deposition instead of a transcribed interview to get complete answers?

[Congressional Questioner]

No.

[Pam Bondi]

Okay, thank you. Now we have. Mr. Submaranium, thank you for coming in today. I was just curious if you went through any of the files yourself. Like, did you read through any of the files yourself? Some of them, probably. Sure, some of them. But there were 3 million pages, so very little Subramnium.

[Congressional Questioner]

Right.

[Pam Bondi]

And you were looking for anything in particular in the files? Bondi no. Mr. Submaranium. And there's rumors of an effort potentially to look through the files for President Trump's name in particular. Are you aware of any sort of effort at the Department of Justice anywhere else in the administration of doing that? BONDI I'm not going to discuss anything with the department or discussions that did or did not take place. QUESTION I'm asking about your knowledge of any sort of effort to do that, not any sort of discussions that happened. BONDI I'm not going to discuss any conversations that did or did not happen regarding that. QUESTION I'm not asking about conversations, just to be clear, just your knowledge of any effort to look for President Trump's name. Dr. During the redaction process or during the release of the files. BONDI what I do know is you can go online. That's why I'm hesitating. And there are 3 million pages, and I believe you can type in a name and it'll come up. So I'm sure many people did that with many individuals and I believe members of Congress names are also listed in there. So to my knowledge, did that happen? Yes, but not only with President Trump, with multiple people, by many of us, as you will, that was done. Question. Absolutely, you're right. But what I'm asking, though, is before the release of the files, during the process of releasing the files, was there any effort to look through for President Trump's name or any other administration official's name before the release of the files? I don't recall. And are you aware of any effort to do that? You don't recall? I don't recall. Okay. And you suggested he gets cut off by Bondi. Again, this were 3 million pages.

[Congressional Questioner]

Question.

[Pam Bondi]

It's not about what's in the files. I'm asking any effort to look for President Trump or any other administration official's name in the files up to the release of the files. And in the process of releasing the files.

[Congressional Questioner]

Bondi.

[Pam Bondi]

I don't recall. Submarine. You don't recall. Okay. And then at various points, you suggested that the DoJ holds a significant volume of child sexual abuse material within the Epstein files. Can you clarify what that means, what you meant by that? BONDI sure. It's called csam, and that is protected, as you know, under the law, highly

[Congressional Questioner]

protected child sexual abuse material.

[Pam Bondi]

And yes, I'm aware of that. And I'm aware that there was much of that contained in the Epstein files. Question. And would you say that some of the files that would have been withheld are those types of materials? Bondi. To my knowledge, yes. Okay. And last month, Mr. Blanche said on a podcast that the FBI did not collect any video of Mr. Epstein or others participating in sex acts. Would you agree with that statement? I don't have direct knowledge of that, but I do know that initially when all those videos were obtained, they were scoured through by attorneys and probably agents to be sure no victims were released. And much of it, if not all of it, ended up being child sexual abuse material that he downloaded, if that makes sense.

[Congressional Questioner]

Question.

[Pam Bondi]

That makes sense.

[Congressional Questioner]

Thank you.

[Pam Bondi]

That's very helpful. And you have spoken and have you spoken with any of the survivors? Dylan, you can answer this, but you can answer it again. Bondi. I spoke with one attorney, I believe. Question one of their attorneys. Bondi. I spoke with one of their attorneys, I believe. I know attorneys in my office have spoken with multiple attorneys who represented or represent the survivors. And as you know, it's not appropriate for us to talk to someone who is represented directly without talking to their attorney. I've spoke with one of the attorneys. Question were they or their attorneys at all consulted in the process of releasing the files. VONDI I don't know. I don't recall.

[Congressional Questioner]

Question.

[Pam Bondi]

You don't recall? And at one point there was talk about giving the survivors access to their own files or statements that they made. Was there any discussion about that or sorry, do you have any knowledge of any sort of or understanding of any sort of effort to do that? Bondi can you repeat that question the survivors have asked for their own files, meaning statements that they gave at the time that they were interviewed. Do you have any awareness of this request? BONDI I would direct that to the current Attorney General. Question but while you were Attorney General. Bondi I don't recall. Question I believe they made that request. You don't recall them requesting that publicly or directly? Bondi Access to the files. Question yes. Bondi Meaning question they have asked for their own statements. There are 302 statements. And so they have said that they requested this. I believe it was a public letter, too. And I'm wondering if you would have any knowledge of that request. BONDI I don't recall. I would direct that to Deputy Attorney General Blanche. Question in your opinion, would you have been willing to fulfill this request? BONDI we have asked multiple times if any victim wants to meet with us that we would meet with them and that would include that information, to give them that information, to discuss it with

[Congressional Questioner]

them in my mind.

[Pam Bondi]

Question Great. And then I believe you answered this earlier, but based on everything you've seen, do you believe that the department should move forward with any effort or prosecution related to the matter? BONDI As I said, we had Jay Clayton in the Southern District of New York open an active case on the matter around Jeffrey Epstein and other individuals. When I left office, I believe that was still a pending investigation, so I can't answer. I would direct that to Todd Blanche or Jay Clayton. Thank you, Mr. Frost thank you. I just have one more question for clarification. In response to one of the questions he just asked about people name searching Donald Trump, you mentioned that maybe he was name searched or members of Congress had been name searched, but then you looked at us and said, y', all, which leads me to believe I just want clarification. Are you saying that you know that members of Congress search for President Trump's name or search for people's names in the files? Ms. Bondi can you repeat that? FROST so when he asked you about was there an effort to search for President Trump's names in the file, you started talking about the fact that, well, people can go online and look up anybody's name. You can look up the president's name. There's members of Congress names in it. Then you looked at us and said, y' all have searched this as well. And I just when you said that, did you mean members of Congress have searched for President Trump's name in the files? BONDI Anyone can. It's public. FROST but by the thing you just told us a little earlier, it seemed like you have knowledge of members of Congress name searching President Trump's name. BONDI oh, no, that I don't have knowledge of. I don't recall that. But anyone can go in and search for any name on there and hopefully the system's working where it will pull it up. Mr. Frost the reason I asked this is because they were reporting of when you were testifying to the Judiciary Committee that you had information on our search history for when we went to the Department of Justice. Was that something that you were being told to keep? Were you told to keep that information, the spying on members of Congress at as they were looking through the Epstein files? BONDI no one told me to spy on members of Congress. FROST so is that a decision you made on your own? BONDI Members of Congress were not spied on. That system downloads anyone who looks at it, because there are millions of pages of unredacted victims names there faces, names, information that's not public, that's built into the program. In fact, when you go and review it, if we also have had, I don't know if it's still happening, people in the room watching what was happening to be sure no one was walking out with unredacted victims names on a list. And in fact, they did find someone doing that. FROST I'm aware that's how the system might work, but obviously, you know, I'm trying to ask if someone asked you to or why you had printouts of it in your hearing at Judiciary Committee. BONDI O A staffer gave me that, a lower level staffer gave me a printout, and I intended to talk to Representative Jay Appel when she was questioning me about it. No one was trying to hide it. I went and I met with her for about an hour and a half after the hearing as well, in person in my office. And I planned on discussing with that with her, but I couldn't get a word in edgewise on that. And the point of that was to show her that we had been a lot of talk about a particular graphic. I believed it was it was a circle. There had been a lot of talk that we were trying to hide men's names because a half a graphic showed a man and other half was redacted when in fact, once anyone went online and saw the unredacted version, you could see that those were women and victims. That's why they had been redacted. Mr. Frost. Huh? Thank you. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right there. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with Pam Bondi and her interview with Congress. Question. All right, Ms. Bondi, we've got about maybe three minutes left in the round. I'm going to just try to efficiently hit a few straggling questions and then we'll take a break. Just one question. Globally, Mr. Blanch previously represented President Trump in a personal capacity. To your knowledge to did anyone at the Department of Justice ever Express concern about Mr. Blanche's management of the Epstein files process given his previous personal representation of the President? Dylan, you can answer that. To the extent that it doesn't reveal internal deliberation of the Department of Justice. Bondi, I believe Attorney General Blanche follows all ethics rules. He's highly ethical and followed the rules of ethics. Question. Hey everybody.

[Lady Luck (Spinquest Advertiser)]

Lady luck here. And we're celebrating America's 250th birthday. Now all summer long I'm going to be celebrating by playing on spinquest.com which is an American owned social casino. It obviously features over a thousand slot games and live blackjack, live craps, live bubble craps. Head on over to spinquest.com get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.

[Spinquest Disclaimer]

Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spendquest.com for more details.

[McCurley Subaru Advertiser]

During the Subaru A Lot to love event at McCurley Subaru, there's a lot to love. Great offers, a great experience and a chance to help make a difference. Right now, drive a new Subaru with financing as low as 0.9%. We'll also help you maximize your trade, take advantage of every available manufacturer incentive you qualify for and explore financing options that fit your budget. Plus, every new Subaru sold helps grant a local make a wish wish McCurley Subaru your way home on approved credit seat dealer for details.

[Campaign Brief Presenter]

Hey, I've got the campaign brief ready Built from last quarter's Data and the competitive landscape.

[Monday.com Advertiser]

Approved. Oh, agents, where would we be without you?

[Campaign Brief Presenter]

Somewhere with a lot more tabs open.

[Monday.com Advertiser]

Create your first Monday agent [e-mail].

[Pam Bondi]

Ms. Maxwell has reportedly received preferential treatment and her new prison special privileges in terms of meetings, private meals, a puppy. Do you have any understanding of why Ms. Maxwell is receiving those perks? I was not aware of that until I read it yesterday somewhere. Would you tend to think that those perks are warranted, given the gravity of her crimes? I would direct that to the Bureau of Prisons, including its accuracy. With respect to the committee subpoena. I think you used a phrase, the committee can have what they're legally entitled to. I think the President has previously used that same praise publicly. You know, what's your understanding of the scope of that? Because I think from our point of view, essentially all 3 million pages of EFTA would certainly be covered by the subpoena. And I think probably more than that because the terms aren't exactly the same. What's your understanding of what this committee is legally entitled to pursuant to its subpoena? To be able to review an unredacted version of all the documents, which is what is in the reading room, including, I believe, the duplicative material as well for you to review. And that's why the reading room was set up with unredacted material.

[Congressional Questioner]

Question.

[Pam Bondi]

To your recollection, at least during your time as Attorney General, was the reading room EFTA process viewed by the Department as a fulfillment of the committee subpoenaed? Can you repeat the question?

[Congressional Questioner]

Question.

[Pam Bondi]

Yeah. The reading room at doj. To your recollection, when you were in office, was the reading room a completion of the Department's obligation under the committee subpoena? Answer. To my knowledge, everyone was doing everything they could to comply with the committee subpoena.

[Congressional Questioner]

Question.

[Pam Bondi]

Okay. And one last question before we go off the record. You've mentioned Mr. Clayton's investigation in the Southern District of New York. I think in the build up to that, there was some public back and forth. President Trump posted on Truth Social that he was asking the department to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry summers, Reid Hoffman, JPMorgan Chase, and now this is a quote, many other people and institutions. You have already described your understanding of the investigation. I won't ask you again. Do you have an understanding of who the many other people and institutions are that the President was referring to? No, but I do now recall that I did respond to that and that's how it became public. That Jay Clayton was assigned and looking into that. Yes, totally agree. But you don't have a personal understanding of who those other people and institutions were. No question. Do you have any sense of why the only individuals included on the President's list were Democrats, despite the fact that prominent Republicans also appear in the Epstein files? Answer no question. Okay, thank you. And with that we can go off the record. Mr. Emmer, we'll go back on the record. I understand the witness would like to make a clarification. Bondi I was asked by one of the members of Congress, I believe, Congressman Frost, whether I directed the President's name to be reviewed to see if his name was in the documents. I don't believe. I know I did not direct anyone's name to be reviewed to see if it was in there, but it was done because I remember now. I don't know the time frame though, but I remember being aware, of course that his name was in it along with hundreds or countless, countless other individuals. And I think the list ultimately came out as well involving high profile individuals. So I'm aware that his name was searched, but that was among many, many names that the Department searched. I said hundreds. I'm not sure if it's hundreds, but many, many high profile names. And in fact that list was ultimately released. So I was aware of that, but I did not direct it. Mr. Emmer, thank you. Question I would like to pick up where we left off. During the majority's first hour, we were discussing redactions, the Department's practices as it relates to those redactions. And I want to discuss it's been reported that there were several documents that were produced pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency act that were on the online interface on DOJ's website that were subsequently removed. Are you aware of documents being removed? Yes, I believe there were errors where the victims names were inadvertently released that shouldn't have been and those were removed and the names or information regarding individuals was redacted that should have been released and upon learning that the Department of Justice redacted and corrected both measures. Question Are you aware of any documents that were removed that were not subsequently produced in their redacted form? Answer not to my knowledge, unless you want to refresh my memory, but not to my knowledge. Question Starting on February 5, 2026, the DOJ allowed members of Congress to go and review the unredacted versions of the Epstein files. I believe that you were asked during the previous hour, but you can elaborate on what the process was in place to allow members of Congress to review unredacted documents at the Department of Justice? Answer. It's laid out. I believe it was put in writing. The hours that they could go in, what they could see, which was unredacted. But there was a process. But I don't have all the details in front of me. Were there any restrictions placed on members of Congress as far as what they could review? Not as what they could review, no. And again, even the duplicative material was included in there, to my knowledge. When you and then a Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch appeared before this committee as. As part of the briefing that you provided in March, I believe you suggested and invited members of Congress that were present to come meet with you and Blanche personally, Is that right? Yes. How many members on our committee took you up on that offer initially? I believe almost all the members were here. Oh, I'm sorry, you mean here when we came to. Gets cut off by Emmer. How many members that you invited pursuant to the briefing and that you were at. How many members actually took you up on that offer? Answer. You mean come to our office? Question. Correct. Answer. I don't believe any. Did.

[Congressional Questioner]

Question.

[Pam Bondi]

And Bondi cuts him off. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

[Congressional Questioner]

Some.

[Pam Bondi]

I'm sorry. Some of the Republican members did.

[Congressional Questioner]

Yes.

[Pam Bondi]

Representative Boebert, Cloud and Perry. Maybe Representative Burchett, Maybe. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. 3. I was thinking on the Democrat side.

[Congressional Questioner]

No.

[Pam Bondi]

Democrats took us up on that. I did meet at one point, but she's not on the committee. Representative Jayapel Emmer. Question. And to be clear, no Democrats on the committee took you up on that offer?

[Congressional Questioner]

No.

[Pam Bondi]

Okay, cool. How many Republicans showed up to talk to Les Wexner? Like, come on, stop with the games. This is bullshit.

[Congressional Questioner]

Question.

[Pam Bondi]

And during that briefing gets cut off by Bondy? To my knowledge, no. To meet with anyone in my office, but not with me. Question. Thank you. And during the briefing in March, did any Democrat ask you substantive questions as to relating to the Epstein and Maxwell matter? Answer. The briefing that we had here in Congress. No. In fact, one of them yelled that they were mad at the C span wasn't there, and they got up and left. As Deputy Attorney General, Blanche and I continue to brief you, I believe it was for an hour and a half. And answer your questions. Yeah. About the dao. This lady's unbelievable. And I mean that literally and figuratively. Question. And a couple questions. Do you have any knowledge as to why the Biden administration did not release any files related to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell? Answer.

[Congressional Questioner]

No.

[Pam Bondi]

I don't have any knowledge on that, nor do I have any knowledge whether any of these members of Congress ask that they be released during the Biden administration. My understanding is none of them did, to my knowledge. Maybe Representative Khanna, that is such a weak ass out. So because the last team didn't do a good job, we're not going to do a good job either. Question Attorney General Bondi, given the number of times you testified on the subject and that you are no longer involved in DOJ matters, is there anything that you have not been asked today or any other setting that you believe is relevant to this committee's investigation? ANSWER no, Chairman Comer. Madam Attorney General, thank you for being here today. You've answered questions going back to the briefing that we had. You've answered four hours worth of questions, been responsive from our requests. So we want to thank you for that. And I think that concludes the majority's questions. So thank you again for being here and answering our questions. Bondi. Thank you. Comer. That concludes the majority's questions. Emmer, we can go off record. Redacted. Okay, so we're back on the record. Ms. Bondi, I understand you have a clarification you'd like to make. Yeah. Regarding the documents in the reading room, when I said all 6 million were available, I know I said the duplicative ones were, but I want to clarify, and I was just informed of this, that the unresponsive documents that have nothing to do with the case are not in the reading room nor is anything that contains privileged material. So if I could clarify that. And then one more point. Is Representative Garcia and outside saying that I quote through Todd on placing the blame on Todd Blanche. That is 100% incorrect. Todd Blanche is one of the most highly ethical individuals I know, and I think he is making an incredible acting Attorney General and he managed this investigation. It was a Herculean task with very little error. And Todd did an excellent job, in my opinion and is doing an excellent job as Attorney General. I'm not blaming anything on Todd. But you are. We just read the transcript ourselves. Thank you for the clarification, Bondi. Thank you. Question. I will also clarify from the transcript that Congressman Congresswoman Lee was present at the previous round, although we neglected to announce her at the time. Question. All right, Ms. Bondi, I would like to ask you a few questions about the Epstein Files Transparency act, which has already been discussed to some degree today. As you know, on November 19th of last year, President Trump signed EFTA, and that's what we'll call it EFTA into law. Just starting with a few questions about the law's passage. It was publicly reported that the week before the bill passed here in Congress, President Trump met with Congressman Lauren Boebert in the White House Situation Room in an attempt to convince her to vote against the bill. Were you present at that meeting? Answer. I was present at the meeting. I was present at the meeting. President Trump was not present at the meeting. Question. That's very helpful, thank you. What's your recollection of who was present at the meeting?

[Lady Luck (Spinquest Advertiser)]

Hey everybody, Lady Luck here. And we're celebrating America's 250th birthday. Now all summer long I'm going to be celebrating by playing on spinquest.com which is an American owned social casino. It obviously features over a thousand slot games and live blackjack, live craps, live bubble craps. Head on over to spinquest.com get yourself a 30 coin pack for just 10. 10 bucks.

[Spinquest Disclaimer]

Spinquest is a free to play social casino. Void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Monday.com Advertiser]

This Monday.com ad was created by a team of people and AI agents. The agents wrote the copy and managed the timelines while our human creative director made sure it all made sense. Easy. Create your own AI agent today on Monday.com now at McDonald's, everyone can get

[McCurley Subaru Advertiser]

more of what they want when they want it. With McVowey, you can choose your wake up call, you can choose your study meal or even your drive through dinner.

[Lady Luck (Spinquest Advertiser)]

Jump from craving to saving with McDonald's under three dollar menu including a McChicken for only two dollars. Limited time only. Price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer.

[Pam Bondi]

Answer. Myself, Deputy Attorney General Blanche, Legal affairs, which would be James Blair and James Braid, I believe. Kash Patel. Perhaps. We'd have to ask Representative Boebert. I understand. Thank you. The public reporting has characterized the meeting as an effort to persuade Ms. Boebert to vote against the bill. Is that your recollection of the meeting? I recall the discussion with her was the concern about passing the bill would jeopardize the identity of victims, which is exactly what ended up happening. And after the bill was passed, victims names were inadvertently released. I recall the topic being protecting victims. And there may have been a couple more individuals in the meeting. I'm sorry, I can't recall. We can ask Representative Bobert for her recollection.

[Congressional Questioner]

Question.

[Pam Bondi]

Thank you. Answer. But President Trump was not at the meeting. Question. Got it. Do you recall any concerns being discussed in that meeting beyond Survivor identity. Answer. Survivor identity. That's a good way of putting it. Survivor identity. Victim's identity was the only thing that I recall at this time. But we can ask Representative Boebert. Question. It was publicly reported that at least one of the members may have been pressured by the administration to vote against the act. Do you recall or are you aware of a similar meeting to the one we talked about? No, not to my knowledge. Question. Thank you. I don't recall. You don't recall, you're not aware of such a meeting either way, is that right? Answer. Yes. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

[Congressional Questioner]

What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna dive right back in and pick up where we left off with Pam Bondi and her interview with Congress. Question. I'd like to spend a little more time on the document release themselves. So, as you well know, on December 19th, which was with the 30 day statutory deadline, the department released about 4,000 files. Then over the next few days, there were three other releases. And then on January 30th of this

[Pam Bondi]

year, a big release of about three

[Congressional Questioner]

and a half million documents which the department said fulfilled its duties under the Act. You have touched on this today, so I don't want you to repeat yourself, but what do you recall as far as the process for that first production for working with survivors councils? Any recollection of how that process functioned? Answer.

[Pam Bondi]

No.

[Congressional Questioner]

Question. Okay. Would Mr. Blanche probably have a more detailed understanding of that answer or some of his staff? Question. There was a letter from Mr. Blanche on the day of that first production that listed the components of DOJ that were included in the search and the poll, and that was FBI. I can give you a minute. It may be one of the exhibits that was already passed out. Bondi, what was the date of that question? I think that was on December 19th. Dylan. I don't think that's been marked as an exhibit. Redacted. It's literally just a few agencies. Bondi. I don't have the document. Dylan. It hasn't been marked. Redacted. Question. Okay, yeah, it was just telling Congress that oig, of course, inside of doj, the Office of the Inspector General of the FBI, of course, the Bureau of Prisons, which makes sense. SDNY and sdfl, the two jurisdictions in which the two Epstein investigations occurred. We were just wondering whether other components of DOJ such as the DEA would have been part of the collection process. Dylan I think the witness is entitled to see the document, but before she answers questions about it. Redacted that's fine. We can do that. Give us a second to pull it out. Bondi and I'd rely on what Deputy Attorney General Blanche put in writing regarding the components who were involved. Redacted Question and that'll save us some time and paper. Would it be your understanding that if Deputy Blanche listed components then that would be your best understanding of the components? Answer yes. Question okay, in that case I don't think we have to do the whole exhibit. Answer and I don't recall the DEA being involved. Question okay, thank you. Answer Whether they were or weren't. Question On December 22, the DOJ released about 11,000 documents. That was the third production of documents. There were a four or five day period in which I think there were three or four releases. One of them on December 22 had some redaction related challenges. You could use software to get around some of the redactions or copy and pasting. Do you recall whether the Department had an understanding of those problems before those documents were released? Oh, I don't believe we did. I do recall that there were problems after the fact. On December 23rd, about 30,000 additional pages were released. That's the fourth production. That production included a higher volume of material related to President Trump. It included some allegations against President Trump and so the he gets cut off by Pam Bondi. Can I clarify? Yeah, I think you said December. Wasn't that in August when the 33,000 pages were released? Question December 23rd of last year the department's fourth EFTA production and that had about that had about 30,000 pages of content, is our understanding. I don't specifically recall that other than it was a rolling release of documents as they came in because we continued to get additional documents after EFTA was passed as we were attempting to comply with the order. And I believe that a significant amount, almost maybe a million pages, was added from sdny Southern District of New York. Question we were just going to ask on the day of that release, December 23rd, the department released a statement calling the claims against President Trump that were in the release untrue and sensationalist and unfounded and false. And we just wanted to ask, to the best of your knowledge, were any of the allegations against President Trump that were included in that release investigated by the Department of Justice? Answer I don't believe that they were investigated by any Department of Justice. And that might be a question for the Biden administration, because if I recall the it was all just before the 2020 election. The salacious allegations, always somebody else, always pointing the finger somewhere else. I'm done with maga, I'm done with Pam Bondi, and I'm done with Donald Trump the next day. And I think you just alluded to this. The department tweeted that SDNY and the FBI had discovered a million more documents. Do you have any recollection of the circumstances of the discovery of those documents? Answer no, but it made it very difficult to comply within the 30 days. Question On January 30, there was the largest release of documents, about three and a half million pages. Deputy Attorney General Blanch at the time wrote another letter to Congress. It's been discussed here today. There was the phrase that more than 6 million pages had been identified as potentially responsive. And the volume, the total volume of release ended up being around three and a half million pages. Three and a half million and six million. Those were page counts. Do you have an understanding or recollection of how many documents were potentially responsive and documents produced? Answer no. And to the best of my knowledge, I asked, I answered that question previously as to why there were so many documents. Question do you have an understanding or recollection as to how many documents were ultimately tagged as unresponsive? I think this has been asked and answered, but you can answer it again, not an exact amount. Do you have any recollection or understanding of how many documents were tagged as duplicative Same, Bondi same? I don't recall the exact number. There I think was a figure in this letter from Mr. Blanche and we can just ask him, but I think he had said around 200, 000 pages were adapted or withheld for privilege. Answer yeah, and I was just looking for that letter that I believe you had provided to me and I would refer to that from AG Blanche as to the number of documents that fell into each category. And that's the letter that you provided to me, dated February 14, 2026. Question and so I would assume, but let me just ask for the record, if Mr. Blanche says hey, or around 200, 000 pages were redacted or withheld for privilege. If we wanted to understand well, how many of those pages were redacted but how many were withheld, that would not be the question that you would have involvement with. Answer correct. Question Mr. Blanchard staff would have an understanding of that. Is that right, Bondi?

[Pam Bondi]

Answer Correct.

[Congressional Questioner]

Question. Thank you. And I would assume the same answer would apply for trying to understand how many documents were withheld under different categories of statutory withholdings. Is that correct? Answer Correct. Could I add one more thing? Question. Of course. Answer. A privilege was produced to you. I don't believe you shown me that today in the documents Question. Thank you.

[Pam Bondi]

Hey everybody.

[Lady Luck (Spinquest Advertiser)]

Lady luck here and we're celebrating America's 250th birthday. Now all summer long I'm going to be celebrating a by playing on spinquest.com, which is an American owned social casino. It obviously features over a thousand slot games and live blackjack, live craps, live bubble craps. Head on over to spinquest.com get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.

[Spinquest Disclaimer]

Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Monday.com Advertiser]

This Monday.com ad was created by a team of people and AI agents. The agents wrote the copy and managed the timelines while our human creative director made sure it all made sense. Easy. Create your own AI agent. Today on Monday.com I'd like to touch

[Congressional Questioner]

on victim related redaction challenges which have been discussed to some extent here. I would like to just introduce as minority exhibit an example of that problem. Bondi. Minority Exhibit C was Mark 4 identification redacted. I'll give you a moment to look that over, Mr. Gwynn. Council, can I just clarify something? We're confident that the way this proceeding and these exhibits are going to be treated, the way that this transcript and these exhibits. You're not concerned with introducing this into the record? We're not going to read any of the identifying information you see on the document. Gwen.

[Pam Bondi]

Okay, great.

[Congressional Questioner]

Bondi. It was just introduced to the record though, so that'll be sealed. Redacted. Yeah, exactly. That will not be publicly available. Redacted. Question. So if you have a moment to look this over. This is an email that was originally included in the January 30th production from the department. I know that there has been some public discussion of this email previously. You may have discussed this email previously. I think from our point of view, this is a difficult email to understand. The subject is abstinevictim list. There's a list of names. The vast majority of those names are not redacted. Do you have a sense or understanding of how this document could have gone unredacted? Answer no, but I would believe it's not intentional. We had hundreds of lawyers that were working around the clock using their best efforts to protect victims. And that was the fear of human error working such long hours to get 3 million pages plus of documents out within 30 days. Why not just use AI? Why not just use the technology that's available to you? Bondi, I guess she was busy worrying about the DAO though. Question Is it your best understanding that every document that was released did experience the full internal review process? In other words, every document Benefited from a first level review and QCs when appropriate? Answer I believe so. Did you ever receive any information or understanding as to how this particular document could have made it through any kind of review process? Answer no. I do recall that I don't know which era it was, but one of the reviewers was working, I believe very long hours and didn't properly hit save after the redactions were done. And I believe Deputy Attorney General at the time Blanche addressed that. I don't know if this is the particular document question I was just going to. I think Mr. Blanche was also mentioned that in the briefing. You don't know whether that issue ended up affecting this document or not. Yes. Question I think from a public point of view, the department by its own admission has taken down several thousand documents that mistakenly implicated survivor's identity or personal information. Do you have a personal perception of how the department's victim redaction process performed? Bondi? Well, if one victim's name is released is it didn't perform properly and multiple victims names were released and of course that in my opinion was done inadvertently and everyone I knew involved in the process cared deeply about protecting the identity of the victims. Question did you gain any understanding of whether there were particular common themes that were emerging in those mistakes, whether it was somebody not hitting save? I'm not sure why that is so bothersome to you. It helps us to have oversight of the process. Do you have an understanding whether it was technical review or a process issue? Answer I'm not aware other than what I just mentioned. Question thank you. Answer and Deputy Attorney General Blanche at the time addressed I believe all the questions here when he came with me a few months ago to discuss all of these issues. But I don't think you were present for that. She always has to try and get a dig in. Here's an idea. Save your stupid ass commentary and answer the questions. And frankly, I really hope whoever the next administration is launches an investigation into Pam Bondi. Question in your view, do you think that the department owes anything, whether that's an apology or financial compensation to survivors whose identities were exposed in the document released? We absolutely owe an apology to any victim's name anytime it's inadvertently released. Question I'd like to touch on the claim that some material may have been over redacted or removed for possibly political reasons. And so I will introduce as minority exhibit D this photograph. Question. You may be familiar with it. This is a photograph that was introduced on January 30. It appears to be, and the committee's understanding is that it is a photograph of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and other individuals with Mr. Epstein on Mr. Epstein's island in the U. S. Virgin Islands. The photo was reportedly included in the initial production on January 30, then taken down and then reposted after there were press inquiries on the subject. Do you have any understanding of why this image was taken down? Answer, I do. I believe that Deputy Attorney General Blanche or his staff believe that this was AI for some reason and not real. It was taken down, but it was put back up. I'm not sure if it was intentionally taken down, but it was put back up because it was confirmed that it

[Pam Bondi]

was Howard Lutnick and his family.

[Congressional Questioner]

Question do you have any direct or indirect knowledge of the photo being taken down for political reasons? No. Question. I would like to introduce as minority exhibit E, one more similar image. Harmeet Dhillon jumps in. Is that D Redacted? Sorry, that's D. Dylan no, it's E. Redacted. It's E. The Lutnick photo is D. The new exhibit is E. Question I don't know whether you've seen this image before. It was part of the production on December 19th of last year.

[Pam Bondi]

It shows a series of photographs taken

[Congressional Questioner]

at one of Mr. Epstein's homes. It has Bates number EFTA 0000468. In the bottom left portion of the photograph, there's another photograph of what appears to be to be President Trump prior to being president, it would seem.

[Pam Bondi]

And Glenn Maxwell. That's a publicly known photograph. And so it's a question of public record that the first lady as well

[Congressional Questioner]

as Mr. Epstein are obscured in the

[Pam Bondi]

middle of that photograph underneath on the desk here.

[Congressional Questioner]

And there's one more image. It's hard to tell. I think there's a view of that image on top of the image I just described as President Trump prior to being in office with a group of women in. In bathing suits. This photograph, this photo was originally included in the first December 19th production. Same pattern where it went down and

[Pam Bondi]

when it came back up.

[Congressional Questioner]

Do you have any understanding of why that image was taken down? Answer no. Question do you have any direct or indirect knowledge of this photo being taken down for political reasons? Answer no.

[Pam Bondi]

All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here.

[Congressional Questioner]

And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up

[Pam Bondi]

where we left off.

[Congressional Questioner]

All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the Pam Bondi interview with Congress. Question I'd like to ask about a woman who was interviewed by the FBI four times and who accused Mr. Epstein and President Trump of sexual misconduct. The January 30th production contained one of her interview summaries, but not the other three interview summaries. And in those other interviews, the woman had accused President Trump of sexual assault. The department subsequently released those other interview notes on March 5 and said that they had been incorrectly coded as duplicative. Do you have any understanding of how these interview summaries came to be incorrectly coded as duplicative? Bondi, other than Deputy Attorney General Blanche's statement that it was, I believe he said, incorrectly labeled because they were already mentioned in a summary. So it popped in as duplicative and then they were in fact put back online. And that's the best of my recollection from his statements. Question thank you. And is it your perception that if we wanted to get more granular and try to understand what exactly happened with these documents, that Mr. Blanche would be a logical starting point? Answer well, I believe he, he came to this committee and I think he answered that question. I believe that he addressed that in front of this committee already. Question do you have any knowledge of any documents related to this woman and the claim being withheld from a DOJ production due to political considerations? Answer no. Question do you have any understanding of the extent to which this woman's allegations were investigated by the FBI or the doj? Answer no. Our best understanding is that there are still a few more documents linked to this woman's serial number that have not been released. Do you have any understanding of those documents and their release status? That is not my understanding. So no question. The woman's friend was also interviewed and her interview was linked to different serial number. There is only one interview summary of the friend, as far as we know that's been released. Do you have any knowledge of any other documents under the friend's serial number being withheld? Answer no. Mr. Ginn, hold on, counsel, can I just ask you a question? And I don't know if it's possible to do this appropriately on the record, given the nature of the person you're talking about. But I'm not sure the Attorney General knows the identity of the person you're referring to. Bondi. I don't. Gin. And so I think it's hard for her to make sure that she's correctly answering the questions about that person's status and the like. Hermeet. Dylan. Yeah. Redacted. Yeah, it's just the witness best understanding, whatever the understanding is. Dylan, we're not playing a game here, are we? I think only you are. Dylan. Ask her the answers, she gets cut off. I think you're the only one who is. Dylan. Or do you just want to play a shell game? Redacted. So the question and every question is to the best of the witness's understanding. And if the witness lacks the understanding that you're describing, that's the answer. Dylan, if there's a lack of foundation in this question, that would be a basis not to answer it. Bondi, do you have the document redacted? We may.

[Pam Bondi]

I think I'm willing to limit it

[Congressional Questioner]

to do you have an understanding of any document related to the woman or any friend of the woman being withheld by the DOJ? Dylan, what woman? Lack of foundation. Mr. Ginn, who is the woman? Redacted. We don't have the rules of evidence here, but I think the witness understands. The initial discussion gets cut off by Ginn. I think the witness might think she understands, but I don't know if she does because we don't know who the woman is. Bondi. I believe that the Department of Justice released everything legally that they could release under the law. I don't know who you're talking about. Specifically Redacted. Okay, answer. But I believe the department in good faith complied with the Epstein Act Question. Thank you. One more, which is similar category and to the best of your knowledge or awareness? There was an interview in January 30th production of an Epstein survivor who said that when she was 13, Epstein took her to meet President Trump. And Epstein said to Trump, not president at the time, so then Donald Trump. But the interview reflects that Epstein said to. This is a good one, huh? That document was taken down and then put back up. Do you have any knowledge of why that document I just described would have been taken down and put back up? Not that specific document. Unless it was what we discussed earlier, one that was already in a summary, listed in a summary, therefore it was duplicative, considered duplicative, but then put Back up question. Thank you. Bondi and I believe the Deputy Attorney General at the time discussed that already. With this committee redacted, we're going to turn it over to some members who have questions of their own. What's up everybody? It's Bretzky and America is turning 250 and I can't think of a better

[Campaign Brief Presenter]

way to celebrate that than playing on

[Congressional Questioner]

an American owned social casino.

[Campaign Brief Presenter]

Spinquest.com with all of your favorite games, live craps, bubble craps live blackjack, there's no better place to play for free

[Congressional Questioner]

and win real cash prizes.

[Spinquest Disclaimer]

Spinquest.com Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Campaign Brief Presenter]

Hey, I've got the campaign brief ready. Built from last quarter's data and the competitive landscape.

[Monday.com Advertiser]

Approved. Oh agents, where would we be without you?

[Campaign Brief Presenter]

Somewhere with a lot more tabs open.

[Monday.com Advertiser]

Create your first Monday agent in [e-mail]

[Congressional Questioner]

Mr. Min, thank you very much. I appreciate you being here. And again, I'm sorry about your circumstances

[Pam Bondi]

of your current situation. I wanted to first just ask about

[Congressional Questioner]

the scope of production, something you touched on earlier. As you've said, the DOJ received approximately 6 million documents and under your and possibly then Deputy Ag Attorney Blanche's direction, the DOJ released roughly 3 million of those documents.

[Pam Bondi]

And I think you said earlier that

[Congressional Questioner]

3 million documents that were not released were withheld because, quote, much of it was duplicative, some was privileged, and some

[Pam Bondi]

material had nothing to do with Epstein.

[Congressional Questioner]

Does that sound accurate? Bondi?

[Pam Bondi]

I believe there I've answered this previously.

[Congressional Questioner]

God, she's literally one of the worst human beings ever.

[Pam Bondi]

All the people that cried about Merrick

[Congressional Questioner]

Garland, I was one of them. Where are you at now? Nothing to say here, Mr. Min, I'm just recharacterizing what you said earlier. Does that sound familiar to you? That basically 3 million documents were not produced because it was duplicative, privileged, and had nothing to do with Epstein? Bondi, I would rely on the list that we discussed that Deputy Attorney General Blanche released as to the reason. Min, do you mind speaking into the mic?

[Pam Bondi]

I can't really hear you too well. Bondi.

[Congressional Questioner]

I would rely on the list that Deputy Attorney General Blanche at the time released given the reasons why things were withheld. Actually just quoting what you said earlier to the best I was able to transcribe it. But again, you've said much of it is duplicative, some of it was privileged and some had nothing to do with Epstein.

[Pam Bondi]

And I guess I'm just curious how Many fell into each bucket.

[Congressional Questioner]

You know how many were duplicative, how many were privileged, how many had nothing to do with Epstein? This has already been asked and answered. Okay, maybe I missed it. Would you mind answering the question? This has been asked and answered repeatedly, if you want to check. If you don't know, I think I missed it. And sometimes it's hard to hear. So if you don't want to answer, well, you may have missed it because you weren't here.

[Pam Bondi]

Yo, are these people okay? Seriously?

[Congressional Questioner]

Has professionalism just went out the window? Act accordingly. Ms. Dylan,

[Pam Bondi]

I believe you were out

[Congressional Questioner]

doing an interview and missed it. But what happened? We discussed it and I said I'm not sure the exact number of documents, but that is listed somewhere. Maybe she was busy looking at the dao again. Okay, I believe it's been released to you. So I want to drill down on the privilege aspect of that. Do you know what type of privilege was being asserted, or is that a question for Mr. Blanche? Dylan, again, this has been asked and answered. Okay, Dylan, again, you were not in the room. The witness can answer that. I'm a member. I'm asking my own questions.

[Pam Bondi]

You're not on this side of the table. Let her figure it out.

[Congressional Questioner]

I've answered that multiple times. Would you mind answering again? Know it's in the transcript. Okay, I guess I just wanted.

[Pam Bondi]

You had said earlier that the prosecution

[Congressional Questioner]

memo would be the type of evidence that's privileged. Would the documents of evidence assembly by the.

[Pam Bondi]

Collected by the FBI and DOJ that

[Congressional Questioner]

went into the decision to prosecute or not prosecute, would that also be considered privileged under the DoJ's view of what was produced? Somehow your microphone is echoing.

[Pam Bondi]

Okay.

[Congressional Questioner]

When we're talking about what is privileged,

[Pam Bondi]

you said earlier that a prosecution memo

[Congressional Questioner]

would be the type of document that's privileged. Would that document or evidence collected by

[Pam Bondi]

the FBI and DOJ that went into

[Congressional Questioner]

a decision to prosecute or not prosecute, would that also be considered privilege?

[Pam Bondi]

When the DOJ was deciding whether or

[Congressional Questioner]

not to produce evidence to produce any

[Pam Bondi]

of the Epstein files, I'd have to

[Congressional Questioner]

look at the specific document. Min, I'm just asking a general question. Were the documents withheld? And specifically, I guess I want to get to the question. The 302 witness statements which do not seem to have been produced and we have had a lot of survivors is noted. Was noted. As for those 302 witness statements for themselves, the ones that were transcribed, that they took many years ago, those apparently were withheld. What's the basis for. For that withholding and why were they not produced? BONDI As I said earlier, I would rely on the basis for any withholding of documents in the memo that Deputy Attorney General Blanche released laying out all the reasons. So you have no knowledge. BONDI continues items not being released. You have no knowledge or you are not in charge. You had no direction on these decisions

[Pam Bondi]

on what to withhold.

[Congressional Questioner]

I did not do the review.

[Pam Bondi]

I've said that earlier.

[Congressional Questioner]

Right. But there seems to have been a systemic policy and in place to have withheld certain documents related to the decision to prosecute or not prosecute. I'm just trying to clarify if that was the case. Bondi well, I don't agree with your assessment of systemic. She gets cut off by men.

[Pam Bondi]

How would you characterize what was allowed to be produced then in this case?

[Congressional Questioner]

BONDI I believe that the Department of Justice acted in good faith in releasing all the documents permissible under the law.

[Pam Bondi]

And I would refer you it again

[Congressional Questioner]

to the Deputy Attorney General's memo.

[Pam Bondi]

Andy came in here before this body to discuss all these topics and all of you walked out.

[Congressional Questioner]

So we will have to ask Mr. Blanche that.

[Pam Bondi]

I appreciate it.

[Congressional Questioner]

Dylan Please don't talk over the witness.

[Pam Bondi]

I'm sorry, I have one minute left,

[Congressional Questioner]

so I'm going to reclaim. They're just going through all these fights now and it's stupid, a waste of time. Exactly what we don't need. Who cares about Dave Min, whatever his name is, and Pam Bondi in their stupid little fight men. So I'm just going to. I apologize for the interruption, but this is the nature of this, unfortunately. I have a question about the redactions or non redactions of survivors personal information.

[Pam Bondi]

I know you have described this as a situation where you had a lot

[Congressional Questioner]

of documents to produce.

[Pam Bondi]

I know you have said that Mr. Stanley Woodward was primarily responsible for the

[Congressional Questioner]

review and production of these documents. I guess my question is this. First of all, there were a number

[Pam Bondi]

of nude photos allowed to be produced and again, I know that was not under your purview.

[Congressional Questioner]

That seems to me to be shocking. Like this does not seem like something

[Pam Bondi]

that should ever be produced. And any attorney in a law firm

[Congressional Questioner]

that allowed something like that to be produced in public in this context would be fired.

[Pam Bondi]

So I guess my question is were there any disciplinary proceedings taken against any attorneys or or otherwise who allowed for improper identifying information about the victims to be produced or nude photos to be produced?

[Congressional Questioner]

Bondi As I said earlier, the Department of Justice, under the law that you

[Pam Bondi]

voted for, gave us 30 days to release approximately 30 million.

[Congressional Questioner]

Dylan. 3 million.

[Pam Bondi]

Bondi.

[Congressional Questioner]

I'm sorry. 30 days to release approximately 3 million documents. 6 million were reviewed. And during that time we were very concerned that there would be errors and that's why we produced on a rolling release of documents. But I believe everyone acted in good faith. I hope they did and doing the best they could. But yes, there was human error. Yes, we've discussed that multiple times. Men.

[Pam Bondi]

I will just note that it took

[Congressional Questioner]

you much longer than 30 days to produce. And these were nude photos. These were not like a line that was missed. It's really hard for me to imagine that this was done in good faith, but with that, I yield back.

[Pam Bondi]

All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with Pam Bondi and her chat with the Congressional Oversight Committee. And we're picking up with questioning being done by Ms. Stansberry. While I get started, I'm going to

[Congressional Questioner]

ask if staff can pass out Exhibit

[Pam Bondi]

F, which is the Epstein File Transparency act, because I'm going to refer to a section in my later question, but former Attorney General, I want to ask about some more specific individuals who are named in the files as potential perpetrators of crimes associated with Epstein. And I want to ask, during your tenure as eag, to your knowledge, did the DOJ investigate any of the following individuals? And so if you would answer yes or no, I'd appreciate it. Prince Andrew Bondi I'm not sure if he's subject of a pending investigation. I'm not sure who is or who is not subject to an investigation. As I stated earlier, Jay Clayton had opened an investigation in New York, so I wouldn't be able to give you any names, whether they were or were not are or are not being investigated or have been. Stansberry. I appreciate that. Bondi. I refer that to Jay Clayton. Stansberry I appreciate that. I'm going to go ahead and go through the names, notwithstanding the comment you just made, because I do think that it's important to have the record. Another prominent name is Leon Black. Do you know if there was any investigation pending or open during your tenure? I would refer you again to Jay Clayton Stansberry, Glenn Dubin Bondi do you want to go through the list? STANSBERRY yeah, I'm gonna go through the list. BONDI do you want to go through it all and then I can answer if any of them? STANSBERRY Just for the record, let's do each one. Glenn Dubin, please. BONDI I would refer it to the

[Congressional Questioner]

deputy attorney general or Jake Layton.

[Pam Bondi]

STANSBERRY okay. Jess Scaly, Bondi Same answer. Stansberry Les Wexner, Bondi Same answer. Stansberry Alan Dershowitz Bondi Same answer. Stansberry Paolo Zampoli, Bondi Same answer. Stansberry Donald Trump? Bondi Same answer. STANSBURY when you left the department in April, had you been briefed on any investigation or any open cases regarding the Epstein case at all? BONDI I can't answer whether there is or not a pending investigation into anyone, and that includes all the names that you listed. STANSBERRY so as the sitting U.S. attorney General overseeing the case, and I understand that you referred to Todd Blanche many times as being the managing supervisor of the case and the release of the files, you were not briefed on any of the prominent names, including the president, and whether or not anyone was investigating their appearance in the files? BONDI it's privileged and protected information, and I'm not going to discuss that. STANSBERRY and which privilege which privilege are you asserting? DYLAN yeah, we're not having to assert privilege. This is a transcribed interview. STANSBURY I'm sorry, the AG just asserted a privilege. BONDI I'm not going to answer that. STANSBERRY you're not going to answer what kind of privilege you're asserting or you're not going to answer the question? BONDI I'm not going to answer whether there was or was not pending investigations again into anyone. We've said that I've asked and answered. It's been asked and answered this question multiple times. Stansberry well, Madam A.G. the reason why I'm asking is because of Exhibit F, which is the Epstein Files Transparency act, which sets out what files were required under the federal law to be released to Congress and the public. And it specifically states in the second page of the act, as signed into law by the president, that all internal DOJ communication, including emails, memos, meeting notes concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates were required to be disclosed by the Epstein File Transparency act, and then it has a list of permitted withholdings. And there is nothing in this law that allows the assertion of any kind of privilege that you've discussed today. In fact, the law was very explicit that those privileges could not be asserted. And so part of why I'm asking you if there's a pending investigation into some of the individuals is because their names were redacted in the publicly released files and when we looked at them unredacted as members of Congress, the only redactions that were permitted for open cases. So I'm asking were there pending investigations into any of these individuals? DYLAN I've that's asked and answered. BONDI I've answered the question. STANSBERRY okay, well I would assert then that is a breaking of the law because the law is very clear about what privilege and what material were supposed to be released. And my final question is, you know, the survivors have made very clear that the release of their names, their personally identifiable information, home addresses, phone numbers, photographs of many of them when they were minors, we're talking children were released publicly. How would you answer for that? Do you personally feel responsible for that? BONDI As I said earlier, we were given 30 days to release 3 million plus documents and our concern our primary concern was protecting the identity of the victims and I believe everyone in the Department of Justice feels horrible and when any victim's name or identifying information is released STANSBERRY but do you feel personally responsible at all? BONDI I believe everyone who was involved in the process would and I believe you should too, because you were pressing us to get 3 million pages out in 30 days and that was virtually impossible. STANSBERRY oh, I'm not personally responsible for the Department of Justice. I don't work there. BONDI you are telling us she gets cut off by Stansberry, BONDI cuts her off. If I could finish you are telling us to get STANSBERRY cuts her off My question is about you. As the sitting attorney general, you oversaw the implementation. Even if you delegated this, you are responsible. You're the named human in the Epstein files Transparency act do you have any remorse over the release of DYLAN jumps in okay, this verges on badgering BONDI I've she gets cut off by Dylan and tedious BONDI back at it. I've answered this question multiple times that we feel sorry for the victims whose names were released inadvertently. STANSBERRY well, for many of the victims, these women, they will not be able to reclaim their privacy. So I yield to the next member.

[Spinquest Advertiser]

What's going on, everyone? It's bluff here and you know what's more American than America's 250th birthday? Supporting American owned companies like Spinquest, America's number one social casino with over a thousand games like live dealer blackjack and craps. They're offering new users a $30 coin package for just $10. Go to spinquest.com and sign up today.

[Spinquest Disclaimer]

Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Campaign Brief Presenter]

Hey, before your Q3 call, I've got the campaign brief ready. Built from last quarter's data and the competitive landscape.

[Monday.com Advertiser]

Great. Did you include the differentiation angle the CMO asked for?

[Campaign Brief Presenter]

Already in there. Three angles. No competitors using right now. Just need your approval.

[Monday.com Advertiser]

Approved.

[Pam Bondi]

Thanks.

[Monday.com Advertiser]

Oh agents, where would we be without you?

[Campaign Brief Presenter]

Hmm? Somewhere with a lot more tabs open.

[Monday.com Advertiser]

Create your first Monday agent in [e-mail]

[Pam Bondi]

now it's Mr. Walkinshaw. Ms. Bondi add my name to the list of folks wishing you a speedy recovery in March of 2025. FBI personnel and we've discussed this already a little bit, reviewed 100,000 Epstein documents. That was long before the Transparency act passed, of course. So there wasn't a statutory framework for that review, at least not one specific to it. Under whose authority was that review conducted? Bondi I'm sorry, what date were you. Walkinshaw picks up in March of 2025. The hundred thousand documents, was that under your authority? Bondi yes, and I delegated that to Todd Blanche. Walkinshaw okay. And do you know what instructions were given to those reviewers? I believe we have released the instructions that were given, but those may have been given later. Have you released all? Because I know that there was a FOIA request. Bondi uh huh. WALKINSHAW to your knowledge, have all of the instructions to reviewers been released publicly? Bondi I don't know. Walkinshaw okay. Were those reviewers instructed to flag mentions of Donald Trump? Bondi I don't believe so. Walkinshaw okay, because it's been reported there's a whistleblower who came forward. There are documents that the media has cited saying those reviewers were instructed to flag mentions of Donald Trump. You don't have any knowledge of that. I have not seen. I have not heard of a whistleblower saying that. I have no knowledge of that. Walkinshaw okay. Senator Durbin sent you a letter last year citing that whistleblower. To your knowledge, have you responded or did the department. Ms. Dillon, you can feel free to jump in. Did the department respond to that letter that Senator Durbin sent? Bondi we can ask Patrick Davis, who runs that department. Walkinshaw okay. To your knowledge, were any records flagged? Flagged for whatever reason, since you don't recall whether they were flags of Mentions of Donald Trump. Any records that were flagged in the process ultimately withheld or redacted from the Transparency act release. I don't believe reviewers were asked to flag anything, to my knowledge. Walkinshaw. Okay.

[Congressional Questioner]

All right.

[Pam Bondi]

Bondi. There were over 500 attorneys at some point reviewing documents. Walkinshaw. Huh? Okay, so there was no flag of mentions of Donald Trump. No one came to you and said, we reviewed these hundred thousand documents and there are X number of mentions of Donald Trump. No one ever said that to you. I don't believe anyone asked to flag anything. Okay. You stated earlier that it's common for the Bureau of Prisons to move prisoners maybe based on their safety. Is it common in your experience for the Deputy Attorney General to personally interview prisoners? Is that common? Can you recall any other instance of the Deputy Attorney General personally interviewing prisoners? Bondi. We were in office for a year. Of course not. That was the only prisoner, to my knowledge, that he interviewed, and that was because she was living. Epstein's dead. And his intent was exactly what this committee is trying to get at to find out if she had evidence of other crimes. Yo, she was in prison. She's already convicted. What does that even mean? That's the most of excuses I've ever heard. It was about the COVID up. It was about the exoneration of Donald Trump. That's all it was. Walkinshaw. She was in his inner circle, right? Very close to it. Bondi. And you can read the transcribed interview, what he asked her, and it's very clear why he asked it. To see if there were other crimes that she knew about that had been committed. Walkinshaw. One of the things our investigation has revealed is that other individuals very close to Epstein were never interviewed by the FBI across multiple administrations. Khan Indict the accountant, the lawyer, Les Wexner, whose money financed a lot of Epstein's trafficking. I mean, in your professional opinion as a former prosecutor, do you find it strange that the FBI never interviewed some of those figures very close to Epstein? And do you think they should? Bondi. You're gonna have to ask Obama and Biden administrations the exact same thing. Nobody's asking them. They're asking you. God, she's disgusting. Walkinshaw. I said it's multiple administrations. I'm asking you, across all those administrations, is it strange to you, do you think those individuals should have perhaps still should be interviewed by the FBI? Bondi. If there was evidence of wrongdoing, yes. And I would direct that to the FBI. And, and I would also direct that to the Biden administration who had four years. Walkinshaw. But it was a memo while you were Attorney General that said the case closed. Nothing else to be seen here. We're not going to investigate anything. Bondi, you're mischaracterizing that. Can you read that to me where I said case closed? Walkinshaw. Those key figures close to Epstein were not interviewed. Deputy Attorney General Blanche went and spent a lot of time with Clayne Maxwell, but other figures close to Epstein never even got interviewed by the FBI. Why didn't you say to the FBI, y' all need to go and interview some of those folks? Bondi, you're mischaracterizing. Walkinshaw, I'm asking you a question. No, you're mischaracterizing something that you've stated was in the document. Can you read it back to me? Walkinshaw, I'm asking you why didn't you, as a former prosecutor, a professional who understands these cases, look at it and say, these folks who are in the inner circle of Epstein's massive sex trafficking ring were never investigated? My boss, Donald Trump, ran on the issue. I'm going to make sure that they're questioned and interviewed so that we can get to the bottom of it. Why didn't you do that, Ms. Bondi? Bondi. Deputy Attorney General Blanche interviewed Maxwell to see if she had evidence of any other crimes. To the best of my knowledge, that transcript is widely available. Walkinshaw, you asked me to. Gets cut off by Bondi. You criticized him interviewing her, but his interview. To try to answer your question. Walkinshaw. I'm asking why didn't y' all interview anyone else? You said, we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. Some people who might have had evidence were Epstein's lawyer, his accountant, his financier, Wexner. Why didn't you direct that they at least be interviewed and questioned? Bondi, that statement is very different from the one you asked earlier. Walkinshaw, I'm asking you a question. Why didn't you direct that they be interviewed to uncover, perhaps, evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties? Why didn't you do that? Bondi? I've answered that multiple times. Walkinshaw. You haven't answered it. You don't have an answer. Bondi, you also misrepresented something that I just had to read it back. Redacted. All right, we've got a few last questions and we're coming to an end. I'll be brief. One question is some members have experienced that in the reading room. Some documents that they go see on redacted still have some redactions on them. Do you have any understanding of how or why a document in the reading room would still have redactions? Bondi yeah, I believe that's because some of the documents were sealed redacted by SDNY which we receive them. We receive them redacted is my understanding of that. But I would have to look at the specific document and see where it came from. Question do you have any recollection of any other category of redaction other than the one you just described? No. Question as Attorney General of Florida did you ever look into potential co conspirators of Epstein's crimes? Answer that would have been the state attorney in Palm beach who had jurisdiction over the federal authorities. I was only had the office of Statewide Prosecutor question a few follow ups on the topic that we discussed earlier of members going to DOJ to review files and records that may have existed of member searches. It came up high profile at one of your hearings. I just want to make sure I understood correctly. Was your description that it was not deliberate change in policy at doj that was just a function of how the DOJ system is set up in Is that fair or correct? Bondi no, I believe this was unprecedented what we did putting 3 million pages online and part of the system included monitoring sensitive information that was on there and people reviewing it. It was built into the system and it's still in that system. Question and that's what I was getting at was a deliberate policy choice made to track and monitor member searches under the Epstein file. Not to my knowledge. Question okay, as far as you know if a member went to the DOJ to review some other piece, some other document, some other piece of material, nothing to do with Epstein, would that search typically be tracked in the same way? I don't believe a member can go look at anything online. The system was set up with over 3 million to 6 million pages of documents to protect victims identity to the best we could and of course the they all weren't protected Question and so your knowledge DOJ's usage of the member search history it sounds like is restricted to protecting survivors identities. Is that your recollection? In other words, how did the DOJ use that information? Answer can you rephrase the question? Question sure. So DOJ has or at least had member search history when members would come review different files and they choose which files they wanted to review, how did the department use that information to your recollection regarding Epstein? Yes. Specifically tracking member Epstein searches? I don't know. I don't recall. As far as you know, if a member went to review an Epstein file on redacted today at doj, would their search records be tracked in the same way? I believe that's part of the program. And they had to be tracked, I believe. I'm not certain. Question a couple of last miscellaneous ones with respect to Mr. Epstein's death. Is your personal review that he committed suicide? I would rely on the FBI's investigation. Are you aware of any information indicating that Mr. Epstein worked for a domestic or foreign intelligence service? Not personally. I would rely on the FBI's investigation. Redacted. That concludes my questions. I'll just state for the record that the minority did have additional questions that would have fallen within one of the parameters that you or your counsel described specifically with respect to conversations with the President, we withheld some of those questions for your sake. But we want to note for the record that those are important questions to us and we think they deserve to be answered in the investigation. With that, I will thank you for your time today. And we can go off the record. Ms. Bondi. Thank you. All right, folks, that's going to do it for the Bondi interview with the House Oversight Committee. And next up, we're going to be diving in to the Sarah Kellen transcript. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

[Spinquest Advertiser]

Happy Birthday, America. It's time to celebrate and play your favorite Las Vegas casino games by American owned spinquest.com what's better than fireworks and American pieces? Hitting a blackjack in the palm of your hand and you won't lose your fingers. Over a thousand games, including slots and live dealers and $30 coin packs are on sale for 10 spinquest.com buy American players for American players, Spinquest is a

[Spinquest Disclaimer]

free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.