Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 12) (6/9/26)

Transcript

The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 12) (6/9/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:02
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
0:06
where we left off with Pam Bondi and her chat
0:10
with the Congressional Oversight Committee, and we're picking up with
0:13
questioning being done by Miss Stansbury. Will I get started.
0:20
I'm going to ask if staff can pass out Exhibit F,
0:23
which is the Epstein File Transparency Act, because I'm going
0:26
to refer to a section in my later question. But
0:29
former Attorney General, I want to ask about some more
0:32
specific individuals who are named in the files as potential
0:35
perpetrators of crimes associated with Epstein. And I want to ask,
0:40
during your tenure as the AG, to your knowledge, did
0:43
the DOJ investigate any of the following individuals and so
0:48
if you would answer yes or no, I'd appreciate it.
0:51
Prince Andrew Bondie, I'm not sure if he's subject of
0:54
appending investigation. I'm not sure who is or who is
0:57
not subject to an investigation. As I stated earlier, Jay
1:01
Clayton had opened an investigation in New York, so I
1:04
wouldn't be able to give you any names whether they
1:07
were or were not, are or are not being investigated
1:11
or have been Stansbury. I appreciate that, Bondy. I'd refer
1:15
that to Jay Clayton Stansbury. I appreciate that. I'm going
1:20
to go ahead and go through the names, notwithstanding the
1:22
comment you just made, because I do think that it's
1:25
important to have the record. Another prominent name is Leon Black.
1:29
Do you know if there was any investigation pending or
1:31
open during your tenure? Bondy, I would refer you again
1:35
to Jay Clayton, Stansbury. Glen Dubin, Bondy, do you want
1:42
to go through the list Stansbury. Yeah, I'm going to
1:44
go through the list, BONDI. Do you want to go
1:46
through it all? And then I can answer if any
1:48
of them Stansbury. Just for the record, let's do each one.
1:53
Glen Dubin please, Bondy, I would refer it to the
1:56
Deputy Attorney General or Jay Clayton Stansbury. Okay Day Bondie
2:01
Sam answer, Stansbury, Les Wexner Bondie, Sam Answer, Stansbury, Alan
2:06
Dershowitz Bondie, Sam answer, Stansbury. Paulo Zampoli Bondie, Sam answer, Stansbury,
2:14
Donald Trump Bondie Sam answer, Stansbury, when you left the
2:19
department in April. Had you been briefed on any investigation
2:23
or any open cases regarding the Epstein case at all? Bondie,
2:26
I can't answer whether there is or not appending investigation
2:30
into anyone and that includes all the names that you listed, Stansbury,
2:34
So is the sitting US Attorney General overseeing the case.
2:37
And I understand that you referred to Todd Blanche many
2:40
times as being the managing supervisor of the case and
2:43
the release of the files. You were not briefed on
2:45
any of the prominent names, including the President, and whether
2:49
or not anyone was investigating their appearance in the files. Bondi,
2:53
it's privileged and protected information. And I'm not going to
2:56
discuss that, Stansbury and which privilege, which privilege or you
3:00
asserting Dylan, Yeah, we're not having to assert privilege. This
3:05
is a transcribed interview. Stansbury. I'm sorry the AG just
3:09
asserted a privilege. Bondie. I'm not going to answer that. Stansbury.
3:13
You're not going to answer what kind of privilege you're asserting,
3:16
or you're not going to answer the question, Bondi. I'm
3:19
not going to answer whether there was or was not
3:21
pending investigations again into anyone We've said that I've asked
3:26
and answered. It's been asked and answered this question multiple times. Stansbury, Well,
3:31
Madam ag The reason why I'm asking is because of
3:34
Exhibit F, which is the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which
3:38
sets out what files were required under the federal law
3:41
to be released to Congress and the public. And it
3:45
specifically states in the second page of the Act, as
3:48
signed into law by the President, that all internal DOJ communication,
3:52
including emails, memos, meeting notes concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate,
3:58
or decline to investigate Epstein or's associates, were required to
4:02
be disclosed by the Epstein File Transparency Act. And then
4:06
it has a list of permitted withholdings. And there is
4:11
nothing in this law that allows the assertion of any
4:14
kind of privilege that you've discussed today. In fact, the
4:17
law was very explicit that those privileges could not be asserted.
4:21
And so part of why I'm asking you if there's
4:23
a pending investigation into some of the individuals is because
4:27
their names were adacted in the publicly released files, and
4:30
when we looked at them unredacted as members of Congress,
4:33
the only redactions that were permitted were for open cases.
4:36
So I'm asking were there pending investigations into any of
4:41
these individuals, Dylan. That's asked and answered Bondie. I've answered
4:46
the question, Stansbury. Okay, Well, I would assert then that
4:50
is a breaking of the law because the law is
4:53
very clear about what privilege and what material were supposed
4:56
to be released. And my final question is, you know
4:59
the survivors that made very clear the release of their names.
5:02
There are personally identifiable information, home addresses, phone numbers, photographs
5:07
of many of them when they were miners, we're talking
5:10
children were released publicly. How would you answer for that?
5:13
Do you personally feel responsible for that, Bondi? As I
5:16
said earlier, we were given thirty days to release three
5:19
million plus documents and our concern, our primary concern, was
5:24
protecting the identity of the victims. And I believe everyone
5:27
in the Department of Justice feels horrible when any victim's
5:30
name or identifying information is released. Stansbury, But do you
5:35
feel personally responsible at all? Bondie? I believe everyone who
5:40
was involved in the process would, and I believe you
5:42
should too, because you were pressing us to get three
5:45
million pages out in thirty days, and that was virtually impossible. Stansbury. Oh,
5:50
I'm not personally responsible for the Department of Justice. I
5:53
don't work there. Bondie, you were telling us she gets
5:56
cut off by Stansbury. Bondie cuts her off. If I
6:00
could finish, you were telling us to get Stansbury cuts
6:03
her off. My question is about you, as the sitting
6:05
Attorney General. You oversaw the implementation. Even if you delegated this,
6:11
you are responsible. You're the named human in the Epstein
6:14
Files Transparency Act. Do you have any remorse over the
6:17
release of Dylan jumps in? Okay, this verges on badgering BONDI.
6:25
I've she gets cut off by Dylan and tedious BONDI
6:28
back at it. I've answered this question multiple times that
6:32
we feel sorry for the victims whose names were released inadvertently. Stansbury. Well,
6:37
for many of the victims, these women, they will not
6:40
be able to reclaim their privacy. So I yield to
6:42
the next member. Now it's mister Walkinshaw. Miss BONDI add
6:47
my name to the list of folks wishing you a
6:49
speedy recovery. In March of twenty twenty five, FBI personnel.
6:53
And we've discussed this already a little bit reviewed one
6:56
hundred thousand Epstein documents. That was long before the Transparency
7:00
Act passed, of course, so there wasn't a statutory framework
7:04
for that review, at least not one specific to it.
7:07
Under whose authority was that review conducted? Bondy, I'm sorry?
7:11
What date were you? Lockinshaw picks up in March of
7:14
twenty twenty five the one hundred thousand documents? Was that
7:17
under your authority? Bondy? Yes, and I delegated that to
7:21
Todd Blanche Walkinshaw okay. And do you know what instructions
7:26
were given to those reviewers? Bondy? I believe we have
7:29
released the instructions that were given, but those may have
7:32
been given later. Lockinshaw. Have you released all because I
7:36
know that there was a Foyer request Bondy, Uh huh. Walkinshaw,
7:40
to your knowledge, have all of the instructions to reviewers
7:43
been released publicly? Bondy, I don't know, Lockinshaw, okay. Were
7:48
those reviewers instructed the flag mentions of Donald Trump? Bondy,
7:52
I don't believe so, Walkinshaw okay, Because it's been reported
7:56
there's a whistleblower who came forward. There are documents at
7:59
the has cited saying those reviewers were instructed to flag
8:03
mentions of Donald Trump. You don't have any knowledge of that, Bondie.
8:07
I have not seen, I have not heard of a
8:09
whistleblower saying that I have no knowledge of that. Walkinshaw, Okay.
8:14
Senator Durbin sent you a letter last year citing that whistleblower.
8:17
To your knowledge, have you responded or did the department,
8:22
Miss Dylan, You can feel free to jump in. Did
8:24
the department respond to that letter that Senator Durbin sent, Bondi,
8:29
we can ask Patrick Davis, who runs that department, Walkinshaw, Okay.
8:33
To your knowledge, were any records flagged flagged for whatever reason,
8:37
since you don't recall whether they were flags of mentions
8:40
of Donald Trump, any records that were flagged in the
8:42
process ultimately withheld or adapted from the Transparency Act release, Bondie,
8:48
I don't believe reviewers were asked to flag anything, to
8:50
my knowledge, Walkinshaw, Okay. All right, Bondie, there were over
8:54
five hundred attorneys at some point reviewing documents Walkinshaw, Uh
8:58
huh Okay, So there is no flag of mentions of
9:01
Donald Trump. No one came to you and said, we
9:04
reviewed these one hundred thousand documents and there are X
9:06
number of mentions of Donald Trump. No one ever said
9:09
that to you, Bondy, I don't believe anyone asked to
9:12
flag anything. Walkinshaw. Okay, you stated earlier that it's common
9:16
for the Bureau of Prisons to move prisoners, maybe based
9:19
on their safety. Is it common in your experience for
9:22
the Deputy Attorney General the personally interview prisoners. Is that common?
9:29
Can you recall any other instance of the Deputy Attorney
9:31
General personally interviewing prisoners? Bondi, We were in office for
9:35
a year, of course not. That was the only prisoner
9:38
to my knowledge that he interviewed, and that was because
9:41
she was living. Epstein's dead, and his intent was exactly
9:44
what this committee is trying to get at, to find
9:47
out if she had evidence of other crimes. Yo, she
9:51
was in prison, She's already convicted. What does that even mean.
9:54
That's the most bullshit of bullshit excuses I've ever heard.
9:58
It was about the cover up. It was about the
10:02
exoneration of Donald Trump. That's all it was, Walkinshaw. She
10:06
was in his inner circle, right, very close to it, Bondie.
10:09
And you can read the transcribed interview what he asked her,
10:12
and it's very clear why he asked it, to see
10:15
if there were other crimes that she knew about that
10:17
had been committed, Walkinshaw. One of the things our investigation
10:21
has revealed is that other individuals very close to Epstein
10:25
were never interviewed by the FBI across multiple administrations. Kahn Indite,
10:29
the accountant, the lawyer Les Wexner, whose money financed a
10:33
lot of Epstein's trafficking. I mean, in your professional opinion,
10:36
as a former prosecutor, do you find it strange that
10:39
the FBI never interviewed some of those figures very close
10:42
to Epstein? And do you think they should, Bondie, You're
10:46
gonna have to ask Obama and Biden administrations the exact
10:49
same thing. Nobody's asking them. They're asking you. God, she's disgusting, Walkinshaw.
10:56
I said, it's multiple administrations. I'm asking you across all
10:59
those administrations. Is it strange to you? Do you think
11:03
those individuals should have, perhaps still should be interviewed by
11:06
the FBI, Bondi, if there was evidence of wrongdoing, yes,
11:10
and I would direct that to the FBI, and I
11:12
would also direct that to the Biden administration, who had
11:15
four years Walkinshaw, But it was a memo while you
11:19
were Attorney General that said the case closed, nothing else
11:22
to be seen here, We're not going to investigate anything. Bondi,
11:26
you're mischaracterizing that. Can you read that to me? Where
11:29
I said case closed, Walkinshaw, those key figures close to
11:33
Abstein were not interviewed. Deputy Attorney General Blanche went and
11:36
spent a lot of time with client Maxwell, but other
11:39
figures close to Abstein never even got interviewed by the FBI.
11:43
Why didn't you say to the FBI, y'all need to
11:45
go and interview some of those folks. Bondie, you're a mischaracterizing, Walkinshaw.
11:50
I'm asking you a question. Bondy, No, you're mischaracterizing something
11:54
that you've stated was in the document. Can you read
11:57
it back to me, Walkinshaw. I'm asking why didn't you,
12:01
as a former prosecutor, a professional who understands these cases,
12:04
look at it and say, these folks who are in
12:07
the inner circle of Epstein's massive sex trafficking ring were
12:10
never investigated. My boss, Donald Trump ran on the issue.
12:13
I'm going to make sure that they're questioned and interviewed
12:16
so that we can get to the bottom of it.
12:18
Why didn't you do that, miss Bondi? Bondie Deputy Attorney
12:22
General Blanche interviewed Maxwell to see if she had evidence
12:25
of any other crimes. To the best of my knowledge,
12:27
that transcript is widely available. Walkinshaw, you asked me to
12:33
gets cut off by Bondie. You criticized him interviewing her,
12:36
but his interview to try to answer your question, Walkinshaw,
12:40
I'm asking why didn't y'all interview anyone else? You said
12:43
we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation
12:47
against uncharged third parties. Some people who might have had
12:51
evidence were Epstein's lawyer, his accountant, his financier at Wexner.
12:55
Why didn't you direct that they at least be interviewed
12:57
and questioned, Bondi. That's is very different from the one
13:01
you asked earlier. Walkinshaw, I'm asking you a question, why
13:07
didn't you direct that they be interviewed to uncover perhaps
13:10
evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.
13:14
Why didn't you do that, Bondie. I've answered that multiple times, Walkinshaw,
13:19
you haven't answered it. You don't have an answer, BONDI.
13:22
You also misrepresented something that I just had to read
13:25
it back redacted. All right, We've got a few last
13:28
questions and we're coming to an end. I'll be brief.
13:31
One question is some members have experienced that in the
13:34
reading room some documents that they go see on redacted
13:37
still have some redactions on them. Do you have any
13:40
understanding of how or why a document in the reading
13:43
room would still have redactions? BONDI, Yeah, I believe that's
13:47
because some of the documents were sealed redacted by SDNY.
13:51
When we receive them, we receive them redacted, is my
13:54
understanding of that. But I would have to look at
13:56
the specific document and see where it came from. Question
14:00
do you have any recollection of any other category of
14:02
redaction other than the one you just described? Answer? No. Question.
14:07
As Attorney General of Florida, did you ever look into
14:09
potential co conspirators of Epstein's crimes? Answer? That would have
14:13
been the state attorney in Palm Beach who had jurisdiction
14:16
over the federal authorities. I was only had the office's
14:20
statewide prosecutor. Question A few follow ups on the topic
14:23
that we discussed earlier of members going to DJ to
14:26
review files and records that may have existed of member searches.
14:31
It came up high profile at one of your hearings.
14:34
I just want to make sure I understood correctly. Was
14:36
your description that it was not deliberate change in policy
14:39
at DOJ, that was just a function of how the
14:43
DOJ system is set up. Is that fair or correct?
14:47
Bondy No. I believe this was unprecedented what we did
14:50
putting three million pages online, and part of the system
14:53
included monitoring sensitive information that was on there and people
14:57
reviewing it. It was built into the system and it's
15:00
still in that system. Question, And that's what I was
15:03
getting at, was a deliberate policy choice made to track
15:08
and monitor member searches under the EPSTEIN file. Answer not
15:11
to my knowledge. Question Okay, as far as you know,
15:14
if a member went to the DOJ to review some
15:17
other piece, some other document, some other piece of material
15:20
nothing to do with EPSTEIN, would that search typically be
15:23
tracked in the same way. Answer? I don't believe a
15:26
member can go look at anything online. The system was
15:29
set up with over three million to six million pages
15:32
of documents to protect victim's identity to the best we could,
15:36
and of course they all weren't protected. Question and so
15:39
your knowledge DOJ's usage of the member search history, it
15:43
sounds like, is restricted to protecting survivor's identities. Is that
15:47
your recollection? In other words, how did the DOJ use
15:50
that information? Answer? Can you rephrase the question? Question? Sure? So,
15:56
DOJ has or least had member search history when members
15:59
would come view different files and they choose which files
16:02
they wanted to review, how did the department use that
16:05
information to your recollection? Answer regarding Epstein question yes, specifically
16:11
tracking member Epstein searches. Answer I don't know. I don't recall.
16:15
Question as far as you know, if a member went
16:18
to review an Epstein file on redacted today at DOJ,
16:21
would their search records be tracked in the same way? Answer?
16:25
I believe that's part of the program and they had
16:28
to be tracked. I believe, I'm not certain. Question a
16:31
couple of last miscellaneous ones with respect to mister Epstein's death,
16:35
is your personal review that he committed suicide? Answer? I
16:39
would rely on the FBI's investigation. Question are you aware
16:43
of any information indicating that mister Epstein worked for a
16:46
domestic or a foreign intelligence service. Answer not personally. I
16:50
would rely on the FBI's investigation redacted. That concludes my questions.
16:55
I'll just state for the record that the minority did
16:58
have additional questions that would have fallen within one of
17:01
the parameters that you or your counsel described, specifically with
17:05
respect to conversations with the President. We withheld some of
17:08
those questions for your sake, but we want to note
17:11
for the record that those are important questions to us
17:14
and we think they deserve to be answered in the investigation.
17:17
With that, I will thank you for your time today
17:19
and we can go off the record. Miss Bondi, thank
17:22
you all right, folks. That's going to do it for
17:24
the Bondi interview with the House Oversight Committee. And next
17:28
up we're going to be diving in to the Sarah
17:30
Kellen transcript. All the information that goes with this episode
17:35
can be found in the description box.