← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 6) (6/7/26)
00:13:18
Pam Bondi’s congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd...
Loading summary
Transcript4 lines
- [00:00]
A
Most people would rather attend a corporate team building workshop than search for auto and home insurance. Go, team. Feel that synergy. That's why the zebra searches for you. Comparing over 100 insurance companies to find savings no one else can Compare. Today@thezebra.com who's ready for the trust fall? Too fast, Trevor. Too fast. Here at the Zebra, research shows people would rather teach their kids to drive than search for auto and home insurance. I know what I'm doing, Mom. Or attend a corporate team building workshop. Go, team. Feel that synergy. Or be regaled by Uncle Frank's conspiracy theories. They're listening to us right now. That's why the zebra searches for you. Comparing over 100 insurance companies to find savings no one else can compare. Today at the Zebra.com we do the searching, you do the saving.
- [00:45]
B
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 congressional interview. Bondi. And to Clarify, that was 2019 and I was not the Attorney General at the time. Question. Yeah. And when that's the case, just feel free to clarify for me. Thank you. I'd like to ask some questions about President Trump. What's your understanding of the extent to which President Trump was aware of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell's crimes prior to those crimes becoming public? Dylan, you can certainly answer if you have any knowledge of that. Can you ask that again? Of course. What's your understanding of the extent to which President Trump was aware of Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell's crimes prior to the crimes being public knowledge? Answer. I don't know. Question. During your tenure, Bondi. Wait, can you repeat that again? Question. Yeah, I can phrase it again. Absolutely. I just want to make sure it's clear for both of us. Answer. Because you're talking about Glenn Maxwell, too. Answer. Yeah, and I can split them up and do them one at a time if you want. No, go ahead. What's your understanding of the extent to which President Trump was aware of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell's crimes prior to the crimes becoming public? I'm not certain of the extent of his knowledge. Okay. During your tenure, did President Trump direct you or any of your subordinates to take official action related to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell? I'm not going to discuss any conversations that I've had with the President or of the United States. Question. It would be helpful for us to just understand whether that's just a refusal to discuss full Stop. Or whether that's an invocation of some version of executive privilege. Answer privilege question. And can you or your counsel elaborate a little bit on the nature and the privilege of the record? Dylan, we're not going to get into any conversation that the former Attorney General had with other senior members of the executive, members of the White House and the immediate staff of the President. That's covered by privilege. Mr. Ginn, I'll also add, we don't even need to formally assert the privilege in this context, given the voluntary nature of these proceedings. So we're just going to refuse to provide answers about conversations with the President or his advisors. Oh, I bet you are. Are you guys catching on yet? Thank you. And as I think you just said, those are two different concepts. So, just for clarity one more time, is this just a voluntary refusal to answer or a formal assertion of executive privilege? Dylan, this is a voluntary interview. An assertion of privilege is not legally required. And so just telling you what's out of bounds, you're not going to get answers on those issues. Why is Bondi even here? Enough with the bullshit. And all the people out here that are still beating the drum for Trump, Wake the fuck up. Wake up. Already redacted. It's just a choice not to answer that question, correct? Dylan? I'm not testifying here, so I'd say redacted. I think you can go ahead and ask your next question. Question. Well, just to clarify with the witness. Thank you. That's a great point. Redacted question. That's just a choice, the witness part. Not simply to answer the question in the category you described, which is conversations with the President or his close advisors. Is that correct? And as I've said in the past on multiple range of topics, but is that the case here today? Yes. Yes. Sorry, I just need that last. Yes. Yes. Thank you. To your knowledge, has the DOJ released all Jeffrey Epstein related files and. And documents that relate to President Trump? Answer. To my knowledge. Yes. Question. It was reported by the Wall Street Journal that in September of last year, President Trump told Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene that if she tried to expose the names of Epstein's abusers, that, quote, my friends will get hurt. Were you present for that conversation? Answer. Not to my knowledge. Question. Were you aware of that comment being made? Not to my knowledge. Do you have any knowledge of which friends President Trump was referring to? Not to my knowledge. Did President Trump ever tell you that he had friends who could be exposed as abusers by the Epstein files? I'm not going to discuss any conversation that I've had with the President on this matter. There may be a time I'll try to minimize it, but there may be times where it's appropriate for. For you to say that again. For the record, and I appreciate your patience. I'd like to discuss some chronological events, starting with President Trump's 2024 campaign. During that campaign, then candidate Trump promised to release the Epstein files. Did you speak with then candidate Trump or any of his advisors about Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell during the 2024 presidential campaign? Answer not to my knowledge. But again, he wasn't the president. DYLAN jumps in it's beyond the scope of the interview. Bondi and yeah, it's beyond the scope question. So it's helpful for us. Does that boundary extend beyond President Trump's time in office? Right. QUESTION yes. Dylan I don't understand your question. Redacted. I'll redo my question then. It's whether during the 2024 presidential campaign, whether you, Ms. Mondi, had any conversations with then candidate Trump or his advisors about Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. Dylan and to repeat, this witness is here voluntarily to talk about our time as Attorney General. And that's an overarching limitation so that we cannot be here all day. And those are the ground rules that we agreed on when we came here. So that's our limitation. Your question goes beyond that. I'm just noting that for the witness, this is why these shouldn't be voluntary. This is all a big ass joke and the whole entire circus is being led by James Comer at the direction of Donnie Diddles. Redacted. Just to be clear for the record, we never agreed to that or were informed of that. Dylan Fine question. And separately, it would be helpful for me to understand with the question relating to candidate Trump, is that still part of the previously described concern of not discussing conversations with Donald Trump or President Trump? In other words, is it no conversations with him at any time, whether or not he was in office. DYLAN this is a separate limitation regarding the temporal limitation redacted, which has previously been articulated to you. Her testimony here today is limited to what she said was or did during her time as the Attorney General. Dylan. And that's the basis on which we're here today. Question. We blew through that one on the 2019 email, but it sounds like maybe it's a separate limitation on conversations with. I mean, you tell me. It's just helpful for us and for the record to understand where that limitation is. Dylan. Yeah, this is a voluntary interview. The fact that she answered A question is is not relevant to the overall limitation. And we're going to be here all day if there are no limits. So that's a limit. Redacted. Definitely. This will go so much quicker if there's clarity in describing what the limits are. So let me just do the question again. Dylan cuts her off. Redacted. You seem determined to eat up all your time on repeating yourself. That's your choice. But she's going to stick to the limits that have been articulated. I really dislike Hamit. Dylan. You know, the lady that wasn't qualified for the office that she was given. Yeah, her redacted. That's great. But we can't walk out of here confused about what the limits are. So let me just repeat this one question. And if the limit is no conversation with President Trump in or out of office, then that's the limit. And as you said, it's a voluntary conversation. We just need it on the record. So when President Trump was a candidate during the 2024 presidential campaign, did you have any discussion with him or his close advisors about Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell? Dylan, it's beyond the scope. Bondi jumps in. It's beyond the scope. I was subpoenaed as Attorney General or asked to come in as Attorney General. Question. Sorry, just a little closer to the microphone. Answer beyond the scope. Question. Okay, in what sense? I don't want to lose all day on it, but in what sense do you view it as a witness as beyond the scope? Question. I was not Attorney General at the time. Question. Okay, you were sworn in as attorney general on February 5th of last year. When was your first conversation with President Trump about the Epstein investigation?
- [09:35]
A
Nobody does insurance like the Zebra, because at the Zebra, we're focused on finding you savings like Andrew. Hey there. A real human helping find the best price for you. And Tina, she runs partnerships that help unlock you better rates, sending savings to you. Everyone here is focused on one thing, saving you money on car insurance. Find out how much you can save today@the zebra.com Savings will vary. Not all will save.
- [10:06]
B
Answer. I don't discuss any conversations, whether I've had them or not had them with the President of the United States. Question was with respect to the February 21 comment about the DOJ maybe releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients sitting on my desk. We heard the discussion in the previous round and we've heard a discussion of this previously. And just for the very last piece of clarity, to your knowledge, is the Department of Justice currently withholding a document that lists Jeffrey Epstein's clients Bondi Answer to my knowledge, no. Question with respect to the February 27 meeting, what was discussed in the previous round? That grouping of files, to the best of our understanding, was most already public at the time. Do you recall whether at that time you knew whether these files were already public or not public? Answer no. Question no, you don't recall? Answer don't recall. Don't believe I knew they were public at the time. Question Our understanding is that none of the files were classified in the legal sense of the word. Do you recall why the word declassified was stamped on top? I don't recall if they were or weren't. Question. You may have said this already, but were these material the same files that you had said that were sitting on your desk a few days earlier? Are those the same packet of files? Answer yes. Question the Wall Street Journal has reported that you told President Trump last May that he was in the Epstein files and that the department did not plan to to release any more Epstein files. Deputy Attorney General Blanche was also reportedly in that meeting. What did President Trump say when you told him he was in the files? I won't discuss any conversation that I did or didn't have with the President of the United States. I'll note, just for the transcript purpose, that I think the Department of Justice publicly confirmed the nature and the scope of that meeting. So that would seem to us like something that's reasonable to discuss in this forum. But I understand your position and I'll move forward with respect to the July 2025 memo that I think the majority handed out in the previous round, I think I heard. But I just want to confirm that Mr. Blanche was managing the process for putting together the memo. Is that correct? Which memo? The July 25th FBI DOJ. No further disclosures are warranted. I don't recall who was managing that because I don't think it's signed. It was just looking at that. I don't recall who managed that, but AG Blanche was managing the entire investigation. Question okay, the memo stated, quote, we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. I think a lot of folks now, having seen the files, are having trouble accepting that claim. Would you tend to I can just read it. It's just the one sentence. I can read it back if that's helpful. Answer, go ahead. Question it was just the quote, we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. So I think a lot of folks now haven't seen the releases struggle with that logic of that claim, do you tend to agree with that statement as you sit here today? What was the date of the memo? Question I think it was July 7th when it was released, although I don't think it has a date on it. I would refer any of that to AG Blanche. Mr. Redacted. Can I just clarify to your question? Are you referring to the public's perception of that sentence at that very limited number of files the department was aware of at this the time this letter was drafted or later after many more documents were reviewed? Question the latter, which I think and hope was clear in the question. Okay, I don't think it was clear, so in that case it's helpful. Question I can do a lead in. I think folks who have now seen the release of the Epstein files struggle with that claim. Looking back on it last July, do you have a view on that statement sitting here today? Answer as AG Blanche has said multiple times, I believe Director Patel has multiple times, and I would agree if there is any evidence of a crime, they would ask now that people contact the FBI so anything can be fully investigated. Also, as I've stated earlier, I believe U. S. Attorney Jay Clayton had an investigation in the southern district of New York, and I don't know the current status of that as well. Question. Thank you. All right, 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.