Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 11) (6/10/26)

Transcript

The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 11) (6/10/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to
• 0:06
  the Pam Bondie interview with Congress. Question. I'd like to
• 0:10
  ask about a woman who was interviewed by the FBI
• 0:13
  four times and who accused mister Epstein and President and
• 0:16
  Trump of sexual misconduct. The January thirtieth production contained one
• 0:21
  of her interview summaries, but not the other three interview summaries,
• 0:25
  and in those other interviews, the woman had accused President
• 0:28
  Trump of sexual assault. The Department subsequently released those other
• 0:33
  interview notes on March fifth and said that they had
• 0:36
  been incorrectly coded as duplicative. Do you have any understanding
• 0:40
  of how these interview summaries came to be incorrectly coded
• 0:44
  as duplicative, Bondie, other than Deputy Attorney General Blanche's statement
• 0:49
  that it was I believe he said incorrectly labeled because
• 0:52
  they were already mentioned in a summary, so it popped
• 0:55
  in as duplicative, and then they were in fact put
• 0:59
  back online. And that's the best of my recollection from
• 1:01
  his statements. Question, Thank you, And is it your perception
• 1:06
  that if we wanted to get more granular and try
• 1:08
  to understand what exactly happened with these documents that mister
• 1:12
  Blanche would be a logical starting point. Answer, well, I
• 1:15
  believe he came to this committee, and I think he
• 1:18
  answered that question. I believe that he addressed that in
• 1:21
  front of this committee already. Question do you have any
• 1:24
  knowledge of any documents related to this woman and the
• 1:27
  claim being withheld from a DOJ production due to political considerations?
• 1:32
  Answer no question. Do you have any understanding of the
• 1:35
  extent to which this woman's allegations were investigated by the
• 1:39
  FBI or the DOJ? Answer no question. Our best understanding
• 1:44
  is that there are still a few more documents linked
• 1:47
  to this woman's serial number that have not been released.
• 1:50
  Do you have any understanding of those documents and their
• 1:53
  release status? Answer that is not my understanding, so no question.
• 1:59
  The woman's friend was also interviewed, and her interview was
• 2:02
  linked to different serial number. There's only one interview summary
• 2:06
  of the friend as far as we know, that's been released.
• 2:08
  Do you have any knowledge of any other documents under
• 2:11
  the friend's serial number being withheld? Answer no. Mister Ginn
• 2:16
  hold on, counsel, Can I just ask you a question,
• 2:19
  and I don't know if it's possible to do this
• 2:21
  appropriately on the record, given the nature of the person
• 2:23
  you're talking about. But I'm not sure the Attorney General
• 2:26
  knows the identity of the person you're referring to. BONDI,
• 2:30
  I don't Gin, and so I think it's hard for
• 2:32
  her to make sure that she's correctly answering the questions
• 2:35
  about that person's status and the like her meet Dylan, Yeah, redacted. Yeah,
• 2:41
  it's just the witness best understanding, whatever the understanding is, Dylan.
• 2:46
  We're not playing a game here, are we? Redacted? I
• 2:49
  think only you are? Dylan ask her the answers. She
• 2:53
  gets cut off. I think you're the only one who is, Dylan,
• 2:56
  Or do you just want to play a shell game? Redacted?
• 2:59
  So the question and every question is to the best
• 3:02
  of the witnesses understanding, and if the witness lacks the
• 3:04
  understanding that you're describing, that's the answer. Dylan. If there's
• 3:09
  a lack of foundation in this question, that would be
• 3:12
  a basis not to answer it. BONDI, do you have
• 3:14
  the document redacted? We may. I think I'm willing to
• 3:18
  limit it to do you have an understanding of any
• 3:20
  document related to the woman or any friend of the
• 3:24
  woman being with hell by the DOJ. Dylan, what woman
• 3:27
  lack of foundation? Mister Ginn, who is the woman redacted? Redacted?
• 3:33
  We don't have the rules of evidence here, but I
• 3:35
  think the witness understands the initial discussion gets cut off
• 3:38
  by gin I think the witness might think she understands,
• 3:42
  but I don't know if she does because we don't
• 3:44
  know who the woman is. BONDI I believe that the
• 3:47
  Department of Justice released everything legally that they could release
• 3:50
  under the law. I don't know who you're talking about
• 3:53
  specifically redacted? Okay, answer, but I believe the Department in
• 3:57
  good faith complied with the Epstein Act. Question. Thank you
• 4:02
  one more? Which is similar category and to the best
• 4:05
  of your knowledge or awareness. There was an interview in
• 4:08
  January thirtieth production of an Epstein's survivor who said that
• 4:11
  when she was thirteen, Epstein took her to meet President Trump,
• 4:15
  and Epstein said to Trump not president at the time,
• 4:18
  so then Donald Trump. But the interview reflects that Epstein
• 4:21
  said to Trump, this is a good one. Huh. That
• 4:24
  document was taken down and then put back up. Do
• 4:27
  you have any knowledge of why that document I just
• 4:29
  described would have been taken down and putting back up. Answer,
• 4:33
  not that specific document unless it was what we discussed earlier,
• 4:37
  one that was already in a summary, listed in a summary.
• 4:40
  Therefore it was duplicative. Consider a duplicative but then put
• 4:45
  back up question. Thank you, Bondie, and I believe the
• 4:48
  Deputy Attorney General at the time discussed that already. With
• 4:51
  this committee redacted, we're going to turn it over to
• 4:54
  some members who have questions of their own. Mister min
• 4:58
  thank you very much. I appreciate you being here, and
• 5:00
  again I'm sorry about your circumstances of your current situation.
• 5:04
  I wanted to first just ask about the scope of production,
• 5:07
  something you touched on earlier. As you've said, the DOJ
• 5:10
  received approximately six million documents, and under your and possibly
• 5:15
  then Deputy ag Attorney Blanche's direction, the DOJ released roughly
• 5:20
  three million of those documents. And I think you said
• 5:22
  earlier that three million documents that were not released were
• 5:25
  withheld because quote much of it was duplicative, some was privileged,
• 5:30
  and some material had nothing to do with Epstein. Does
• 5:33
  that sound accurate, Bondy, I believe there. I've answered this previously.
• 5:37
  God She's literally one of the worst human beings ever.
• 5:40
  All the people that cried about Merrick Carlin, I was
• 5:43
  one of them. Where are you at now? Nothing to
• 5:47
  say here, mister Min. I'm just recharacterizing what you said earlier.
• 5:50
  Does that sound familiar to you, that basically three million
• 5:53
  documents were not produced because it was duplicative, privileged, and
• 5:57
  had nothing to do with Epstein, Bondy on the list
• 6:00
  that we discussed that Deputy Attorney General Blanche released. As
• 6:04
  to the reason, Min, do you mind speaking into the mic?
• 6:07
  I can't really hear you too well, Bondie, I would
• 6:10
  rely on the list that Deputy Attorney General Blanche at
• 6:13
  the time released, given the reasons why things were withheld.
• 6:18
  Min actually just quoting what you said earlier to the
• 6:21
  best I was able to transcribe it. But again you've said,
• 6:24
  much of it is duplicative, some of it was privileged,
• 6:27
  and some had nothing to do with Epstein. And I
• 6:29
  guess I'm just curious how many fell into each bucket,
• 6:33
  you know, how many were duplicative, how many were privileged,
• 6:36
  how many had nothing to do with Epstein? Dylan. This
• 6:39
  has already been asked and answered. Min. Okay, maybe I
• 6:42
  missed it? Would you mind answering the question? Dylan, This
• 6:45
  has been asked and answered repeatedly. If you want to check, Min,
• 6:49
  if you don't know, I think I missed it, and
• 6:50
  sometimes it's hard to hear. So if you don't want
• 6:52
  to answer, Dylan, well you may have missed it because
• 6:55
  you aren't here. Yo. Are these people okay? Seriously? Has
• 7:01
  professionalism just went out the window? Act accordingly, Miss Dylan,
• 7:09
  I believe you were out doing an interview and missed it.
• 7:11
  But what happened? We discussed it, and I said, I'm
• 7:13
  not sure the exact number of documents, but that is
• 7:16
  listed somewhere. Maybe she was busy looking at the doll Again, Min, okay, BONDI,
• 7:24
  I believe it's been released to you. Min, So I
• 7:26
  want to drill down on the privileged aspect of that.
• 7:28
  Do you know what type of privilege was being asserted?
• 7:32
  Or is that a question for mister Blanche Dylan? Again,
• 7:35
  this has been asked and answered, Min. Okay, Dylan, Again,
• 7:38
  you were not in the room redacted. The witness can
• 7:41
  answer that. Min. I'm a member. I'm asking my own questions. Dylan,
• 7:45
  you're not on this side of the table. Redacted. Let
• 7:47
  her figure it out, Bondie. I've answered that multiple times, Min,
• 7:51
  would you mind answering again, BONDI know it's in the transcript.
• 7:55
  Min Okay. I guess I just wanted you had said
• 7:57
  earlier that the prosecution memo be the type of evidence
• 8:01
  that's privileged. Would the documents of evidence assembly by the
• 8:05
  collected by the FBI and DOJ that went into the
• 8:09
  decision to prosecute or not prosecute? Would that also be
• 8:12
  considered privileged under the DOJ's view of what was produced? Bondi,
• 8:17
  somehow your microphone is echoing, Min okay when we're talking
• 8:21
  about what is privileged. You said earlier that a prosecution
• 8:24
  memo would be the type of document that's privileged. Would
• 8:26
  that document or evidence collected by the FBI and DOJ
• 8:30
  that went into a decision to prosecute or not prosecute,
• 8:33
  Would that also be considered privilege when the DOJ was
• 8:36
  deciding whether or not to produce evidence to produce any
• 8:39
  of the Epstein files, Bondy, I'd have to look at
• 8:42
  the specific document, Min. I'm just asking a general question.
• 8:46
  Were the documents withheld and specifically, I guess I want
• 8:50
  to get to the question the three h two witness
• 8:52
  statements which do not seem to have been produced, and
• 8:55
  we have had a lot of survivors as noted, was
• 8:57
  noted as for those three h two witness statements for theirselves,
• 9:01
  the ones that were transcribed that they took many years ago,
• 9:05
  those apparently were withheld. What's the basis for that withholding
• 9:09
  and why were they not produced? Bondi, As I said earlier,
• 9:13
  I would rely on the basis for any withholding of
• 9:15
  documents in the memo that Deputy Attorney General Blanche released
• 9:19
  laying out all the reasons. Men. So you have no knowledge,
• 9:23
  Bondi continues items not being released. Men, you have no
• 9:27
  knowledge or you were not in charge, You had no
• 9:29
  direction on these decisions on what to withhold, Bondi. I
• 9:32
  did not do the review. I've said that earlier. Men, right,
• 9:36
  but there seems to have been a systemic policy in
• 9:38
  place to have withheld certain documents related to the decision
• 9:41
  to prosecute or not prosecute. I'm just trying to clarify
• 9:44
  if that was the case, Bondie, Well, I don't agree
• 9:47
  with your assessment of systemic. She gets cut off by men.
• 9:51
  How would you characterize what was allowed to be produced.
• 9:53
  Then in this case, BONDI, I believe that the Department
• 9:57
  of Justice acted in good faith in releasing all the
• 10:00
  documents permissible under the law, and I would refer you
• 10:03
  it again to the Deputy Attorney General's memo, and he
• 10:06
  came in here before this body to discuss all these
• 10:09
  topics and all of you walked out. Min So, we
• 10:13
  will have to ask mister Blanche that I appreciate it. Dylan,
• 10:17
  please don't talk over the witness. Min I'm sorry. I
• 10:20
  have one minute left, so I'm going to reclaim. They're
• 10:23
  just going through all these fights now and it's stupid,
• 10:25
  a waste of time, exactly what we don't need. Who
• 10:29
  cares about Dave min whatever his name is and Pam
• 10:32
  Bondy in their stupid little fight. Min So, I'm just
• 10:36
  going to I apologize for the interruption, but this is
• 10:39
  the nature of this. Unfortunately, I have a question about
• 10:41
  the redactions or non redactions of survivors personal information. I
• 10:46
  know you have described this as a situation where you
• 10:48
  had a lot of documents to produce. I know you
• 10:50
  have said that mister Stanley Woodward, who was primarily responsible
• 10:54
  for the review and production of these documents. I guess
• 10:57
  my question is this. First of all, there were a
• 11:00
  number of nude photos allowed to be produced, and again
• 11:03
  I know that was not under your purview. That seems
• 11:05
  to me to be shocking, like this does not seem
• 11:08
  like something that should ever be produced, and any attorney
• 11:11
  in a law firm that allowed something like that to
• 11:13
  be produced in public in this context would be fired.
• 11:17
  So I guess my question is were there any disciplinary
• 11:19
  proceedings taken against any attorneys or otherwise who allowed for
• 11:24
  improper identifying information about the victims to be produced or
• 11:28
  nude photos to be produced? Bondy. As I said earlier,
• 11:32
  the Department of Justice, under the law that you voted for,
• 11:35
  gave us thirty days to release approximately thirty million Dylan
• 11:39
  three million, Bondye, I'm sorry, thirty days to release approximately
• 11:43
  three million documents. Six million were reviewed, and during that
• 11:46
  time we were very concerned that there would be errors,
• 11:50
  and that's why we produced on a rolling release of documents.
• 11:53
  But I believe everyone acted in good faith. I hope
• 11:55
  they did in doing the best they could. But yes,
• 11:58
  there was human error. Yes we've discussed that multiple times. Men.
• 12:02
  I will just note that it took you much longer
• 12:04
  than thirty days to produce, and these were nude photos.
• 12:07
  These were not like a line that was missed. It's
• 12:10
  really hard for me to imagine that this was done
• 12:12
  in good faith. But with that I yield back. All right, folks,
• 12:15
  we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
• 12:17
  episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
• 12:19
  we left off. All the information that goes with this
• 12:22
  episode can be found in the description box.