Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 10) (6/9/26)

Transcript

The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 10) (6/9/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right
• 0:06
  back in and pick up where we left off with
• 0:08
  Pam Bondi in her interview with Congress. Question, I'd like
• 0:13
  to spend a little more time on the document release themselves. So,
• 0:16
  as you well know, on December nineteenth, which was with
• 0:20
  the thirty day statutory deadline, the department released about four
• 0:23
  thousand files. Then over the next few days there were
• 0:27
  three other releases, and then on January thirtieth of this year,
• 0:31
  a big release of about three and a half million documents,
• 0:33
  which the department said fulfilled its duties under the Act.
• 0:38
  You have touched on this today, so I don't want
• 0:41
  you to repeat yourself, but what do you recall as
• 0:44
  far as the process for that first production for working
• 0:47
  with survivors councils, any recollection of how that process functioned? Answer?
• 0:52
  No question, okay. Would mister Blanche probably have a more
• 0:56
  detailed understanding of that answer or some of the staff question.
• 1:01
  There was a letter from mister Blanche on the day
• 1:04
  of that first production that listed the components of DOJ
• 1:07
  that were included in the search. In the poll, and
• 1:10
  that was FBI. I can give you a minute. It
• 1:13
  may be one of the exhibits that was already passed out. Bondi,
• 1:17
  what was the date of that question. I think that
• 1:21
  was on December nineteenth, Dylan. I don't think that's been
• 1:24
  marked as an exhibit redacted. It's literally just a few agencies. Bondie.
• 1:30
  I don't have the document, Dylan, it hasn't been marked
• 1:33
  redacted question. Okay, Yeah, it was just telling Congress that OIG.
• 1:37
  Of course, inside of dj the Office of the Inspector General,
• 1:41
  the FBI, of course, the Bureau of Prisons, which makes sense,
• 1:45
  SDNY and SDFL, the two jurisdictions in which the two
• 1:49
  Epstein investigations occurred. We were just wondering whether other components
• 1:54
  of DOJ, such as the DEA, would have been part
• 1:57
  of the collection process. Dylan. I think the witness is
• 2:00
  entitled to see the document before she answers questions about it. Redacted.
• 2:04
  That's fine, we can do that. Give us a second
• 2:06
  to pull it out, Bondie. And I'd rely on what
• 2:10
  Deputy Attorney General Blanche put in writing regarding the components
• 2:14
  who were involved redacted question. And that'll save us some
• 2:18
  time and paper. Would it be your understanding that if
• 2:20
  Deputy Blanche listed components, then that would be your best
• 2:24
  understanding of the components. Answer yes, question okay, in that case,
• 2:29
  I don't think we have to do the whole exhibit.
• 2:31
  Answer and I don't recall the DEA being involved. Question okay,
• 2:35
  thank you? Answer whether they were or weren't? Question. On
• 2:39
  December twenty second, the DOJ released about eleven thousand documents.
• 2:43
  That was the third production of documents. There were a
• 2:46
  four or five day period in which I think there
• 2:49
  were three or four releases. One of them on December
• 2:52
  twenty second, had some redaction related challenges. You could use
• 2:55
  software to get around some of the redactions or copy
• 2:58
  in pasting. Do you recall whether the department had an
• 3:01
  understanding of those problems before those documents were released? Answer, oh,
• 3:06
  I don't believe we did. I do recall that there
• 3:08
  were problems after the fact. Question. On December twenty third,
• 3:12
  about thirty thousand additional pages were released. That's the fourth production.
• 3:17
  That production included a higher volume of material related to
• 3:20
  President Trump. It included some allegations against President Trump, and
• 3:25
  so the he gets cut off by Pam BONDI, can
• 3:29
  I clarify question? Yeah, answer, I think you said December.
• 3:34
  Wasn't that in August when the thirty three thousand pages
• 3:36
  were released? Question? December twenty third of last year the
• 3:40
  Department's fourth EFTA production, and that that had about thirty
• 3:44
  thousand pages of content? Is our understanding, Bondy, I don't
• 3:48
  specifically recall that, other than it was a rolling release
• 3:51
  of documents as they came in, because we continued to
• 3:54
  get additional documents after EFTA was passed, as we were
• 3:58
  attempting to comply with the order, and I believe that
• 4:03
  a significant amount, almost maybe a million pages was added
• 4:06
  from SDNY Southern District of New York. Question. We were
• 4:10
  just going to ask. On the day of that release,
• 4:12
  December twenty third, the Department released a statement calling the
• 4:15
  claims against President Trump that were in the release untrue
• 4:19
  and sensationalist and unfounded and false, and we just wanted
• 4:23
  to ask, to the best of your knowledge, were any
• 4:25
  of the allegations against President Trump that were included in
• 4:28
  that release investigated by the Department of Justice? Answer? I
• 4:33
  don't believe that they were investigated by any Department of Justice,
• 4:37
  and that might be a question for the Biden administration,
• 4:39
  because if I recall, it was all just before the
• 4:43
  twenty twenty election, the salacious allegations, always somebody else, always
• 4:48
  pointing the finger somewhere else. I'm done with Maga, I'm
• 4:52
  done with Pam Bondy, and I'm done with Donald Trump. Question.
• 4:57
  The next day, and I think you just alluded to this,
• 4:59
  the Department tweeted that SDNY and the FBI had discovered
• 5:03
  a million more documents. Do you have any recollection of
• 5:05
  the circumstances of the discovery of those documents? Answer? No,
• 5:10
  but it made it very difficult to comply within the
• 5:12
  thirty days question. On January thirtieth, there was the largest
• 5:17
  release of documents, about three and a half million pages.
• 5:20
  Deputy Attorney General Blanche at the time wrote another letter
• 5:23
  to Congress. It's been discussed here today. There was the
• 5:27
  phrase that more than six million pages had been identified
• 5:30
  as potentially responsive and the volume the total volume or
• 5:33
  release ended up being around three and a half million pages.
• 5:36
  Three and a half million and six million those were
• 5:40
  page counts. Do you have an understanding or recollection of
• 5:43
  how many documents were potentially responsive and documents produced? Answer? No,
• 5:49
  and to the best of my knowledge, I asked, I
• 5:51
  answered that question previously as to why there were so
• 5:54
  many documents. Question, do you have an understanding or recollection
• 5:59
  as to how many documents were ultimately tagged as unresponsive? Dylan?
• 6:04
  I think this has been asked and answered, but you
• 6:05
  can answer it again, Bondie, not an exact amount redacted?
• 6:10
  Do you have any recollection or understanding of how many
• 6:13
  documents were tagged as duplicative? Dylan? Same, BONDI same. I
• 6:18
  don't recall the exact number redacted there. I think was
• 6:22
  a figure in this letter for mister Blanche, and we
• 6:25
  can just ask him, but I think he had said
• 6:27
  around two hundred thousand pages were adacted or withheld for privilege.
• 6:32
  I answer, yeah, And I was just looking for that
• 6:34
  letter that I believe you had provided to me, and
• 6:37
  I would refer to that from ag Blanche as to
• 6:39
  the number of documents that fell into each category, and
• 6:42
  that's the letter that you provided to me, dated February fourteenth,
• 6:46
  twenty twenty six. Question, and so I would assume, but
• 6:49
  let me just ask for the record. If mister Blanche says, hey,
• 6:53
  around two hundred thousand pages were redacted or withheld for privilege.
• 6:57
  If we wanted to understand, well, how many of those
• 6:59
  pages were redacted, but how many were withheld, that would
• 7:03
  not be the question that you would have involvement with.
• 7:06
  Answer correct question, mister Blancheri's staff would have an understanding
• 7:11
  of that. Is that right, Bondie answer correct question, Thank you,
• 7:16
  And I would assume the same answer would apply for
• 7:18
  trying to understand how many documents were withheld under different
• 7:22
  categories of statutory withholdings. Is that correct? Answer correct? Could
• 7:27
  I add one more thing? Question? Of course? Answer a
• 7:30
  privilege was produced to you. I don't believe you shown
• 7:33
  me that today in the documents question. Thank you. I'd
• 7:37
  like to touch on victim related redaction challenges, which have
• 7:40
  been discussed to some extent here. I would like to
• 7:44
  just introduce as minority exhibit an example of that problem.
• 7:47
  Bondie minority exhibit CE was Mark four identification redacted. I'll
• 7:52
  give you a moment to look that over, mister Gwynn, counsel.
• 7:55
  Can I just clarify something. We're confident that the way
• 7:59
  this precon and these exhibits are going to be treated
• 8:02
  the way that this transcript and these exhibits. You're not
• 8:05
  concerned with introducing this into the record redacted. We're not
• 8:09
  going to read any of the identifying information you see
• 8:12
  on the document. Quinn, Okay, great, BONDI it was just
• 8:16
  introduced to the record though, so that'll be sealed redacted. Yeah, exactly.
• 8:20
  That will not be publicly available redacted. Question, so if
• 8:24
  you have a moment to look this over, this is
• 8:26
  an email that was originally included in the January thirtieth
• 8:29
  production from the Department. I know that there has been
• 8:32
  some public discussion of this email previously. You may have
• 8:35
  discussed this email previously. I think from our point of view,
• 8:39
  this is a difficult email to understand. The subject is
• 8:42
  Epstein Victim List. There's a list of names. The vast
• 8:45
  majority of those names are not redacted. Do you have
• 8:48
  a sense or understanding of how this document could have
• 8:51
  gone unredacted? Answer? No, but I would believe it's not intentional.
• 8:55
  We had hundreds of lawyers that were working around the
• 8:58
  clock using their best efforts to protect victims, and that
• 9:01
  was the fear of human error, working such long hours
• 9:05
  to get three million pages plus of documents out within
• 9:08
  thirty days. Why not just use AI why not just
• 9:12
  use the technology that's available to you, Bondie, I guess
• 9:17
  she was busy worrying about the dial though. Question is
• 9:20
  it your best understanding that every document that was released
• 9:23
  did experience the full internal review process? In other words,
• 9:27
  every document benefited from a first level review and QC's
• 9:30
  won't appropriate. Answer I believe so. Question did you ever
• 9:34
  receive any information or understanding as to how this particular
• 9:38
  document could have made it through any kind of review process?
• 9:42
  Answer no, I do recall that I don't know whichever
• 9:45
  it was, but one of the reviewers was working, I believe,
• 9:48
  very long hours and didn't properly hit saved after the
• 9:51
  redactions were done, and I believe Deputy Attorney General at
• 9:55
  the time. Blanche addressed that I don't know if this
• 9:57
  is the particular document question I was just going to
• 10:01
  I think mister Blanche also mentioned that in the briefing,
• 10:04
  you don't know whether that issue ended up affecting this
• 10:07
  document or not. Answer yes, question I think from a
• 10:10
  public point of view, the Department, by its own admission,
• 10:14
  has taken down several thousand documents that mistakenly implicated to
• 10:17
  Reviver's identity or personal information. Do you have a personal
• 10:22
  perception of how the department's victim redaction process performed bondye, Well,
• 10:27
  if one victim's name is released, it didn't perform properly,
• 10:30
  and multiple victims' names were released, and of course that,
• 10:33
  in my opinion, was done inadvertently, and everyone I knew
• 10:37
  involved in the process cared deeply about protecting the identity
• 10:40
  of the victim's question. Did you gain any understanding of
• 10:45
  whether there were particular common themes that were emerging in
• 10:48
  those mistakes, whether it was somebody not hitting save I'm
• 10:51
  not sure why that is so bothersome to you. It
• 10:54
  helps us to have oversight of the process. Do you
• 10:57
  have an understanding whether it was technical review or a
• 11:00
  process issue. Answer? I'm not aware other than what I
• 11:04
  just mentioned. Question. Thank you answer, and Deputy Attorney General
• 11:08
  Blanche at the time addressed, I believe all the questions
• 11:11
  here when he came with me a few months ago
• 11:14
  to discuss all of these issues, but I don't think
• 11:16
  you were present for that. She always has to try
• 11:19
  and get a dig in. Here's an idea, save your
• 11:21
  stupid ass commentary and answer the questions. And frankly, I
• 11:26
  really hope whoever the next administration is launches an investigation
• 11:30
  into PAMBONDI. Question in your review, do you think that
• 11:37
  the Department owes anything, whether that's an apology or financial
• 11:40
  compensation to survivors whose identities were exposed in the document released? Answer?
• 11:46
  We absolutely owe an apology to any victim's name anytime
• 11:50
  it's inadvertently released. Question. I'd like to touch on the
• 11:54
  claim that some material may have been over redacted or
• 11:57
  removed for possibly political reasons, and so I will introduce
• 12:01
  as minority Exhibit D this photograph. Question. You may be
• 12:05
  familiar with it. This is a photograph that was introduced
• 12:09
  on January thirtieth. It appears to be and the committee's
• 12:12
  understanding is that it is a photograph of Commerce Secretary
• 12:16
  Howard Lutnik and other individuals with mister Epstein on mister
• 12:20
  Epstein's Island in the US Virgin Islands. The photo was
• 12:23
  reportedly included in the initial production on January thirtieth, then
• 12:27
  taken down and then reposted after their repress inquiries on
• 12:31
  the subject. Do you have any understanding of why this
• 12:34
  image was taken down? Answer? I do. I believe that
• 12:38
  Deputy Attorney General Blanche or his staff believe that this
• 12:41
  was AI for some reason and not real. It was
• 12:44
  taken down, but it was put back up. I'm not
• 12:47
  sure if it was intentionally taken down, but it was
• 12:49
  put back up because it was confirmed that it was
• 12:52
  Howard Lutnik and his family. Question do you have any
• 12:56
  direct or indirect knowledge of the photo being taken down
• 12:58
  for political reasons? Answer? No, question. I would like to
• 13:02
  introduce as minority exhibit E one more similar image. Harmeet
• 13:06
  Dylan jumps in. Is that D redacted? Sorry, that's D Dylan,
• 13:10
  know it's E redacted. It's E. The Lutnik photo is D.
• 13:14
  The new exhibit is Z. Question. I don't know whether
• 13:18
  you've seen this image before. It was part of the
• 13:20
  production on December nineteenth of last year. It shows a
• 13:23
  series of photographs taken at one of mister Epstein's homes.
• 13:26
  It has bates number e FTA zero zero zero zero
• 13:30
  zero four six eight. In the bottom left portion of
• 13:33
  the photograph, there's another photograph of what appears to be
• 13:36
  President Trump prior to being president, it would seem and
• 13:39
  Glenn Maxwell. That's a publicly known photograph, and so it's
• 13:44
  a question of public record that the first Lady as
• 13:47
  well as mister Epstein, are obscured in the middle of
• 13:49
  that photograph. Underneath on the desk here, and there's one
• 13:53
  more image. It's hard to tell. I think there's a
• 13:55
  view of that image on top of the image I
• 13:57
  just described as President Trump prior to b being on
• 14:00
  an office with a group of women in bathing suits.
• 14:03
  This photograph. This photo was originally included in the first
• 14:07
  December nineteenth production, same pattern, where it went down and
• 14:10
  when it came back up. Do you have any understanding
• 14:13
  of why that image was taken down? Answer no. Question
• 14:17
  Do you have any direct or indirect knowledge of this
• 14:19
  photo being taken down for political reasons? Answer no. All right, folks,
• 14:25
  we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
• 14:27
  episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
• 14:29
  we left off. All the information that goes with this
• 14:32
  episode can be found in the description box.