Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 4) (6/6/26)

Transcript

The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 4) (6/6/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 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 get right
• 0:06
  back to Pam Bondi and the transcript from her meeting
• 0:10
  with Congress. Question, so let's talk about that thirty day timeline.
• 0:17
  Was a Department of Justice able to produce all documents
• 0:20
  within the thirty days? Bondi? No, And that is when
• 0:24
  I became more involved, because we had over five hundred attorneys,
• 0:28
  I believe, working around the clock to do the best
• 0:30
  we could in good faith to release as many documents
• 0:33
  as we could within thirty days while protecting the identity
• 0:37
  of the victims. And I do recall very vividly that
• 0:40
  these lawyers were working over Christmas New Year's holidays to
• 0:44
  get that done, some late into the night, I mean
• 0:47
  one two am question. And you mentioned five hundred attorneys,
• 0:51
  Bondi plus question, where did they come from? Bondie? They
• 0:56
  came from our National Security Division. They came from I
• 0:59
  believe SDMA, why the Northern District of New York and Florida.
• 1:03
  Todd Blanche recruited attorneys within our office to come in
• 1:06
  and complete this herculean task of millions of documents within
• 1:10
  thirty days to the best that we could to protect victims. Question.
• 1:15
  I would presume that the five hundred attorneys had other
• 1:18
  roles and responsibilities that they were to handle at the
• 1:20
  Department during the period. Answer they absolutely did. Yes. Question
• 1:25
  were their concerns about diverting resources? Answer? Yes? And to clarify,
• 1:30
  some may have taken this on full time, but I
• 1:32
  believe many of them had other roles going on at
• 1:34
  the same time as well. Emmer, we've had another member
• 1:38
  join us. Can he please identify himself for the record,
• 1:42
  mister Kana, Rocana, California, seventeen. Emmer, and I know that
• 1:47
  you've already mentioned how many documents were produced, but again
• 1:50
  for the public. How many total documents or materials did
• 1:53
  the Department of Justice produce to the public pursuant to
• 1:57
  the Epstein File Transparency Act Bondy, approximately three million? Question,
• 2:03
  and there has been public statements. I believe that then
• 2:06
  Deputy Attorney General Blanche had said at one point there
• 2:09
  were six million total potentially responsive material Is that right, Bondy.
• 2:14
  He did, and he's clarified that multiple times, I believe,
• 2:17
  publicly indicating that a lot much of it was duplicative
• 2:21
  because it was coming from two districts, some was privileged,
• 2:24
  and also he stated that some of the material had
• 2:26
  absolutely nothing to do with Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein, it was
• 2:30
  over collection in an effort to ensure radical transparency for
• 2:34
  the country. Questions, So, to be clear, there has been
• 2:38
  a lot said and accusations that the Department didn't produce everything.
• 2:42
  Attorney General BONDI, are there any documents remaining in possession
• 2:46
  of the Department of Justice that are required to be
• 2:48
  released pursuant to the Epstein File Transparency Act? Answer? To
• 2:53
  my knowledge, they've all been released, to my knowledge. Question,
• 2:57
  why do people keep asking for the files to be released? Answer?
• 3:01
  The unredacted versions are also available to members of Congress,
• 3:05
  including duplicative material. So and I believe that's still available,
• 3:09
  so people can so Congress can go and see it
• 3:11
  for themselves. The six million pages versus why three million
• 3:15
  was released and much of it was duplicative or privileged
• 3:19
  or completely unrelated to Jeffrey Epstein. At this time, I
• 3:23
  would like to introduce what will be marked as Majority
• 3:25
  Exhibit number three. And this is a letter that was
• 3:29
  sent from the Department of Justice to Senators and members
• 3:32
  of Congress on January thirtieth. Mister Emmer, I would also
• 3:36
  like to introduce what will be marked as majority Exhibit four.
• 3:39
  This is also a letter that was sent on February
• 3:42
  fourteenth of twenty twenty six. Emmer, And I'll give you
• 3:47
  a moment to review. Attorney General BONDI, you've had a
• 3:50
  chance to review the documents. These are the notifications that
• 3:53
  you provided Congress pursuant to the Epstein File Transparency Act. Answer. Yes,
• 3:58
  question and again you touched on previously. But there were
• 4:02
  certain categories of documents that were not produced. Is that right? Answer? Yes,
• 4:06
  question and again you I believe one class was duplicative documents.
• 4:11
  And for the record, I know that you've been an
• 4:13
  attorney for many years. Can you just explain again what
• 4:17
  qualifies as duplicative documents? Answer? Sure, the same document being
• 4:22
  released twice, and that occurred, I believe because there were
• 4:25
  documents in multiple districts within the country, specifically, I believe
• 4:29
  the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of
• 4:32
  New York. Question and understanding that then Deputy Attorney General
• 4:36
  Todd Blanche was overseeing the efforts, did he ever brief
• 4:40
  you on how many documents were considered to be duplicative?
• 4:44
  Answer not specifically, but I believe it was approximately three million.
• 4:48
  I believe, oh duplicative. No, I don't. I'm sorry, I
• 4:51
  don't recall how many were duplicative? Question? And there were
• 4:55
  certain documents that were privileged? Answer? Yes, question can you
• 4:59
  elaborate more on why those can't be produced? Answer? I
• 5:03
  can give you an example, which would be a prosecution
• 5:05
  memo was privileged. Question and who made that determination whether
• 5:10
  a document was considered to be privileged? Answer Todd Blanche
• 5:14
  while following the law. Question And Todd Blanche never approached
• 5:18
  you about any specific document as it relates to privilege. Bondie. Probably,
• 5:23
  I don't recall specifically, but we probably talked about it.
• 5:27
  I talked to him every day about multiple issues around
• 5:29
  the country and the world. Question and I know you
• 5:32
  touched on this previously. But the Department of Justice, according
• 5:35
  to the letters, said that they were certain files that
• 5:38
  were being withheld that are not part of the case
• 5:41
  file for Epstein or Maxwell and we're completely unrelated to
• 5:45
  the case. Is that right? Answer? Yes? Question, can you
• 5:49
  give us an example of what that would be? What
• 5:52
  would have been captured by that answer, Bondie. I believe
• 5:56
  an example that Todd Blanche used was there was someone
• 5:59
  else in South Florida with the name of Epstein, an
• 6:02
  entire case that had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein.
• 6:05
  That would be an example of it. Question and for
• 6:08
  the record, recognizing that you had to conduct a search
• 6:11
  and to produce millions of documents, if those documents were
• 6:14
  determined to have nothing to do with Epstein or Maxwell case,
• 6:18
  why were they originally included in this search that the
• 6:21
  Department of Justice conducted. Answer? We wanted to have radical
• 6:25
  transparency and find everything that was related to Jeffrey Epstein,
• 6:29
  and that's why the search was overboard. Question thank you.
• 6:34
  I want to talk about the redactions that were in
• 6:35
  the files. What was the Department of Justice redaction process
• 6:39
  for documents released under the Epstein File Transparency Act. Answer?
• 6:44
  I believe that it listed is one of Todd Blanche's memos,
• 6:47
  and he was in charge of the process and the
• 6:49
  entire release of the Epstein files. Question and during the
• 6:53
  process when you were preparing documents to be produced, were
• 6:57
  their concerns about what should or should not beted? Answer?
• 7:01
  I believe so. Question did you have concerns BONDI, yeah,
• 7:05
  I have grave concerns about victim's names being released because
• 7:09
  of the volume of documents and the timeframe in which
• 7:11
  those documents had to be released, and I believe most
• 7:14
  people in the office shared those same concerns. Question and
• 7:18
  were the guidelines in place for DOJ employees on how
• 7:21
  to make redactions? Answer? I believe Deputy Attorney General Blanche
• 7:25
  now Acting Attorney General Blanche let out those guidelines for
• 7:28
  their reviewers, the attorney who reviewed the material, and I
• 7:32
  believe some of it. The protocol is listed in the
• 7:35
  memos as well. Question are you aware of whether the
• 7:38
  DOJ employees tasked with conducting redactions whether they had to
• 7:41
  undergo any kind of training? Answer? I don't recall. I
• 7:44
  believe so, I'm not certain. Question and I recognize that
• 7:49
  you may have briefly touched on this, but were there
• 7:52
  any criteria for the attorneys that were selected to make
• 7:55
  the redactions? Answer? Criteria about the attorneys themselves as far
• 8:00
  as the five hundred attorneys that were selected to contribute
• 8:03
  to the effort. Answer yeah, as our recall, we used
• 8:06
  many from our National Security Division because they're highly qualified
• 8:10
  and also deal with protecting victims and confidential information on
• 8:14
  a routine basis, but as well as prosecutors from multiple jurisdictions.
• 8:18
  But how they were specifically chosen, I'm not sure. Question
• 8:22
  Attorney General Bondie, did you yourself ever redact documents produced
• 8:27
  under the Epstein File Transparency Act? Answer no. Question were
• 8:31
  you consulted as to whether or not something should be redacted? Answer?
• 8:35
  I don't believe so. Emmer. I would now like to
• 8:38
  introduce what will be marked majority Exhibit five, and I'll
• 8:42
  give you a moment to review. Question. This is the
• 8:46
  Department of Justice memorandum dated January fourth, twenty twenty six,
• 8:51
  entitled Attorney Review Protocol for Epstein Files. Bondi, Yeah, and
• 8:56
  this is from the Deputy Attorney General's Office. Yeah. Question
• 9:00
  Attorney General Bondi, do you recognize the document? Answer? Yes,
• 9:04
  I have not read it in its entirety. Question is
• 9:07
  this document that you were referring to when I asked
• 9:10
  you whether there was a process for DOJ employees to redact?
• 9:13
  Answer yes, you asked about training. Yes, and this is
• 9:17
  a very detailed memo as to what specifically under the
• 9:19
  law can be released and what should be redacted. Question
• 9:23
  According to the document, and specifically, on the top of
• 9:26
  page six, there is a highly confidential list of victim
• 9:29
  names that must be redacted. Are you aware of a
• 9:32
  list of victim names that needed to be redacted? BONDI yeah,
• 9:36
  not specifically what victim but I believe that list kept
• 9:39
  growing as well. Question, and I believe that you mentioned
• 9:42
  this before. This was one of your main concerns as
• 9:45
  part of producing the documents under the EFTA. Is that right,
• 9:49
  Bondy Yes. Question or any victims or their attorneys contacted
• 9:53
  for the creation of this list? Bondi I believe so.
• 9:57
  Question was a Department of Justice contacted by victory or
• 10:00
  their attorneys to create the list? Answer? I believe so.
• 10:05
  I also believe the list was ongoing and while the
• 10:07
  redactions were being done, I recall, we would receive more
• 10:11
  victim names. Therefore, the attorneys doing the redactions would have
• 10:14
  to go back and search for the additional names as well. Question.
• 10:18
  What information would have been used to inform the list
• 10:21
  of victim names after the redaction? Bondy, I don't recall. Question.
• 10:27
  Is it safe to assume that Todd Blanche would have
• 10:29
  been the individual who would have approved the list? Answer? Yes.
• 10:33
  Question understanding the time constraints related to thirty days of
• 10:37
  redacting millions of pages of documents. It seems that there
• 10:40
  was some redaction mistakes. Is that correct? And these redaction
• 10:45
  mistakes were both under inclusive and overinclusive? How did that happen? Answer?
• 10:51
  I believe given the volume of documents, and again the
• 10:53
  intense short time frame in which hundreds of lawyers were
• 10:56
  working around the clock, even on holidays to get these
• 10:59
  documents out, there were mistakes. I believe Todd Blanche said
• 11:03
  it was about one percent error rate. But I would
• 11:06
  say we all believe that if one victim's name is
• 11:09
  inadvertently released, that's a failure. Question If the department was
• 11:14
  made aware of a mistake, how did it respond? Answer
• 11:17
  by correcting that mistake as fast as we could. Question
• 11:20
  and again, would that have been fall into then Deputy
• 11:23
  Attorney General Todd Blanche Answer yes, question did he brief
• 11:27
  you on certain mistakes? Answer? Not specifically, just that I
• 11:32
  recall when a victim's name. Everyone was upset when a
• 11:34
  victim's name got released. Inadvertently. Question as far as the
• 11:39
  victims themselves and those that may have been inadvertently unredacted
• 11:43
  in the files, Did they reach out to you? Answer?
• 11:46
  I don't believe so, and I believe I saw online
• 11:48
  one victim's name and she said she her name had
• 11:52
  been released, and that was really the extent of my
• 11:54
  involvement on that. I called Todd right away instead of
• 11:57
  victim is saying her name was released, and it should
• 12:00
  have been, but it would have been something that I
• 12:02
  saw online. Question did the Department of Justice have any
• 12:06
  avenues for individuals whose names may have been redacted or
• 12:10
  unredacted in the files to reach out to the department
• 12:13
  and remedy the situation. Answer I don't recall that process,
• 12:17
  how that process worked, and that could have been done
• 12:20
  with the FBI. Question was there a team in charge
• 12:24
  of checking for and correcting any errors made in the
• 12:26
  release of the files? Answer? Yes, done in the direction
• 12:30
  of Todd Blanche. Question do you have any idea of
• 12:34
  how many corrections were made? Answer? I don't. All right, folks,
• 12:39
  we're going to wrap up right here and in the
• 12:40
  next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
• 12:43
  up where we left off. All the information that goes
• 12:45
  with this episode can be found in the description box.