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

Transcript

The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 9) (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 pick up
• 0:06
  where we left off with Pam Bondi and her interview
• 0:10
  with Congress. Question. All right, miss Bondie, we've got about
• 0:14
  maybe three minutes left in the round. I'm going to
• 0:16
  just try to efficiently hit a few straggling questions and
• 0:19
  then we'll take a break. Just one question globally, mister
• 0:23
  Blanche previously represented President and Trump in a personal capacity.
• 0:27
  To your knowledge, did anyone at the Department of Justice
• 0:30
  ever express concern about mister Blanche's management of the Epstein
• 0:34
  files process given his previous personal representation of the President? Dylan,
• 0:41
  you can answer that to the extent that it doesn't
• 0:43
  reveal internal deliberation of the Department of Justice, Bondi. I
• 0:47
  believe Attorney General Blanche follows all ethics rules. He's highly
• 0:51
  ethical and follow the rules of ethics. Question. Miss Maxwell
• 0:56
  has reportedly received preferential treatment at her new prison, special
• 1:00
  privileges in terms of meetings, private meals, a puppy. Do
• 1:03
  you have any understanding of why Miss Maxwell's receiving those perks. Answer?
• 1:08
  I was not aware of that until I read it
• 1:10
  yesterday somewhere. Question, would you tend to think that those
• 1:13
  perks are warranted given the gravity of her crimes? Answer?
• 1:17
  I would direct that to the Bureau of Prisons, including
• 1:19
  its accuracy. Question with respect to the committee subpoena, I
• 1:23
  think you used a phrase the committee can have what
• 1:26
  they're legally entitled to. I think the President has previously
• 1:29
  used that same phrase publicly. You know, what's your understanding
• 1:34
  of the scope of that, because I think from our
• 1:36
  point of view, essentially all three million pages of EFTA
• 1:39
  would certainly be covered by the subpoena, and I think
• 1:42
  probably more than that, because the terms aren't exactly the same.
• 1:46
  What's your understanding of what this committee is legally entitled
• 1:49
  to pursuant to as subpoena? Answer to be able to
• 1:52
  review an unredacted version of all the documents, which is
• 1:56
  what is in the reading room, including I believe the
• 1:59
  duplicative materi as well for you to review, and that's
• 2:03
  why the reading room was set up with unredacted material.
• 2:07
  Question to your recollection. At least during your time as
• 2:11
  Attorney General, was the reading room EFTA process viewed by
• 2:14
  the Department as a fulfillment of the Committee subpoena answer.
• 2:18
  Can you repeat the question? Question? Yeah, the reading room
• 2:21
  at DJ to your recollection when you were in office,
• 2:24
  was the reading room a completion of the department's obligation
• 2:28
  under the committee subpoena answer? To my knowledge, everyone was
• 2:32
  doing everything they could to comply with the Committee subpoena question. Okay,
• 2:36
  and one last question before we go off the record.
• 2:39
  You've mentioned mister Clayton's investigation in the Southern District of
• 2:42
  New York. I think in the build up to that
• 2:45
  there was some public back and forth. President Trump posted
• 2:48
  on truth Social that he was asking the Department to
• 2:50
  investigate Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, JP,
• 2:56
  Morgan Chase. And now this is a quote many other
• 2:59
  people an instantutions. You have already described your understanding of
• 3:03
  the investigation. I want to ask you again, do you
• 3:06
  have an understanding of who the many other people and
• 3:09
  institutions are that the President was referring to? Answer? No,
• 3:13
  but I do now recall that I did respond to that,
• 3:16
  and that's how it became public that Jay Clayton was
• 3:18
  assigned and looking into that question. Yes, totally agree, but
• 3:22
  you don't have a personal understanding of who those other
• 3:25
  people and institutions were. Answer no question. Do you have
• 3:29
  any sense of why the only individuals included on the
• 3:32
  President's list were Democrats despite the fact that prominent Republicans
• 3:36
  also appear in the Epstein files. Answer no question. Okay,
• 3:40
  thank you, and with that we can go off the record.
• 3:43
  Mister Emmer will go back on the record. I understand
• 3:46
  the witness would like to make a clarification, Bondie. I
• 3:50
  was asked by one of the members of Congress, I believe,
• 3:53
  Congressman Frost, whether I directed the President's name to be
• 3:55
  reviewed to see if his name was in the documents.
• 3:59
  I don't believe. I know I did not direct anyone's
• 4:02
  name to be reviewed to see if it was in there.
• 4:04
  But it was done because I remember now. I don't
• 4:07
  know the timeframe though, but I remember being aware, of
• 4:10
  course that his name was in it, along with hundreds
• 4:12
  or accountless countless other individuals, and I think the list
• 4:16
  ultimately came out as well, involving high profile individuals. So
• 4:20
  I'm aware that his name was searched, but that was
• 4:22
  among many many names that the department searched. I said hundreds.
• 4:26
  I'm not sure if it's hundreds, but many, many high
• 4:28
  profile names. And in fact, that list was ultimately released,
• 4:32
  so I was aware of that, but I did not
• 4:34
  direct it. Mister Emmer, thank you. Question. I would like
• 4:38
  to pick up where we left off during the majority's
• 4:40
  first hour. We were discussing redactions, the Department's practices as
• 4:44
  it relates to those redactions, and I want to discuss
• 4:47
  It's been reported that there were several documents that were
• 4:50
  produced pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act that were
• 4:54
  on the online interface on DJ's website that were subsequently removed.
• 4:59
  Are you aware of documents being removed? Answer? Yes, I
• 5:02
  believe there were errors where the victims' names were inadvertently
• 5:05
  released that shouldn't have been and those were removed, and
• 5:09
  the names or information regarding individuals was redacted that should
• 5:12
  have been released, and upon learning that the Department of
• 5:15
  Justice were redacted and corrected both measures. Question are you
• 5:19
  aware of any documents that were removed that were not
• 5:21
  subsequently produced in their redacted form? Answer not to my knowledge,
• 5:26
  unless you want to refresh my memory, but not to
• 5:28
  my knowledge. Questions starting on February fifth, twenty twenty six,
• 5:32
  the DOJ allowed members of Congress to go and review
• 5:35
  the unredacted versions of the Epstein files. I believe that
• 5:39
  you were asked during the previous hour. But you can
• 5:42
  elaborate on what the process was in place to allow
• 5:45
  members of Congress to review unredacted documents at the Department
• 5:48
  of Justice. Answer it's laid out. I believe it was
• 5:51
  put in writing the hours that they could go in
• 5:54
  what they could see which was unredacted. But there was
• 5:57
  a process, but I don't have all the details in
• 5:59
  front of me. Question were there any restrictions placed on
• 6:03
  members of Congress as far as what they could review? Answer?
• 6:06
  Not as what they could review. No, and again, even
• 6:09
  the duplicative material was included in there, to my knowledge. Question,
• 6:14
  when you and then a Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche
• 6:17
  appeared before this committee as part of the briefing that
• 6:20
  you provided in March, I believe you suggested and invited
• 6:24
  members of Congress that were present to come meet with
• 6:26
  you and Blanche personally. Is that right? Answer? Yes? Question
• 6:30
  how many members on our committee took you up on
• 6:33
  that offer? Answer? Initially, I believe almost all the members
• 6:36
  were here. Oh, I'm sorry, you mean here when we
• 6:40
  came to gets cut off by Emmer. How many members
• 6:44
  that you invited pursue into the briefing that you were at.
• 6:47
  How many members actually took you up on that offer? Answer?
• 6:50
  You mean come to our office? Question? Correct answer. I
• 6:53
  don't believe any did. Question and Bondie cuts them off. Oh,
• 6:58
  I'm sorry, yes, some, I'm sorry, sorry, some of the
• 7:00
  Republican members did. Yes, Representative Bobert, Cloud and Perry, maybe,
• 7:05
  Representative Birchet maybe, yeah, I'm sorry, yes, three, I was
• 7:08
  thinking on the Democrat side. No Democrats took us up
• 7:11
  on that. I did meet at one point, but she
• 7:13
  is not on the committee. Representative Jayapel Emmer question and
• 7:17
  to be clear, no Democrats on the committee took you
• 7:20
  up on that offer? Answer? No, okay, cool? How many
• 7:24
  Republicans showed up to talk to Les Wexner like, come on,
• 7:27
  stop with the games, this is bullshit? Question and during
• 7:33
  that briefing gets cut off by BONDI, to my knowledge,
• 7:37
  no to meet with anyone in my office, but not
• 7:40
  with me. Question, thank you? And during the briefing in March,
• 7:43
  did any Democrat ask you substantive questions as to relating
• 7:47
  to the Epstein and Maxwell matter. Answer the briefing that
• 7:50
  we had here in Congress. No, In fact, one of
• 7:52
  them yelled that they were mad at the c span
• 7:54
  wasn't there, and they got up and left. As Deputy
• 7:57
  Attorney General Blanche and I continue to brief you, I
• 8:00
  believe it was for an hour and a half and
• 8:02
  answer your questions. Yeah about the DOW, This lady's unbelievable,
• 8:07
  and I mean that literally and figuratively. Question and a
• 8:12
  couple questions, do you have any knowledge as to why
• 8:14
  the Biden administration did not release any files related to
• 8:18
  Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell. Answer No, I don't have
• 8:21
  any knowledge on that. Nor do I have any knowledge
• 8:23
  whether any of these members of Congress ask that they
• 8:26
  be released during the Biden administration. My understanding is none
• 8:30
  of them did to my knowledge. May be representative Conna
• 8:33
  that is such a weak ass out. So because the
• 8:36
  last team didn't do a good job, we're not going
• 8:38
  to do a good job either. Question Attorney General BONDI,
• 8:42
  given the number of times you testified on the subject
• 8:44
  and that you are no longer involved in DJ matters,
• 8:47
  is there anything that you have not been asked today
• 8:50
  or any other setting that you believe is relevant to
• 8:52
  this committee's investigation. Answer No, Chairman, Comer, Madam Attorney General,
• 8:58
  thank you for being here today answered questions. Going back
• 9:01
  to the briefing that we had, You've answered four hours
• 9:04
  worth of questions, been responsive from our requests. So we
• 9:07
  want to thank you for that. And I think that
• 9:09
  concludes the majority's questions. So thank you again for being
• 9:12
  here and answering our questions. BONDI, thank you, Comer. That
• 9:16
  concludes the majority's questions. Emmer, we can go off record. We'redacted, Okay,
• 9:22
  so we're back on the record, Miss Bondie. I understand
• 9:24
  you have a clarification you'd like to make. BONDI. Yeah,
• 9:28
  regarding the documents in the reading room, when I said
• 9:30
  all six million were available, I know I said the
• 9:33
  duplicative ones were, but I want to clarify, and I
• 9:36
  was just informed of this that the unresponsive documents that
• 9:40
  have nothing to do with the case are not in
• 9:42
  the reading room, nor is anything that contains privileged material,
• 9:45
  So if I could clarify that. And then one more
• 9:48
  point is Representative Garcia outside saying that I quote through
• 9:52
  Todd on placing the blame on Todd Blanche. That is
• 9:55
  one hundred percent incorrect. Todd Blanche is one of the
• 9:57
  most highly ethical individuals I know, and I think he
• 10:00
  is making an incredible acting attorney general. And he managed
• 10:04
  this investigation. It was a herculean task with very little error,
• 10:08
  and Todd did an excellent job in my opinion, and
• 10:10
  is doing an excellent job as Attorney General. I'm not
• 10:13
  blaming anything on Todd, but you are. We just read
• 10:16
  the transcript ourselves redacted. Thank you for the clarification, BONDI,
• 10:21
  thank you. Question. I will also clarify from the transcript
• 10:25
  that Congressman Congresswoman Lee was president at the previous round,
• 10:29
  although we neglected to announce her at the time. Question
• 10:32
  all right, miss Bondie, I would like to ask you
• 10:34
  a few questions about the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which
• 10:37
  has already been discussed to some degree today. As you know,
• 10:40
  on November nineteenth of last year, President Trump signed EFTA,
• 10:44
  and that's what we'll call it, EFTA into law. Just
• 10:47
  starting with a few questions about the law's passage. It
• 10:50
  was publicly reported that the week before the bill passed
• 10:52
  here in Congress. President Trump met with Congressman Lauren Bobert
• 10:56
  in the White House Situation Room in an attempt to
• 10:59
  convince her to vote against the bill. Were you present
• 11:01
  at that meeting? Answer? I was president at the meeting.
• 11:04
  I was president at the meeting. President Trump was not
• 11:06
  president at the meeting. Question. That's very helpful, thank you.
• 11:09
  What's your recollection of who was president at the meeting? Answer? Myself,
• 11:14
  Deputy Attorney General Blanche Legal Affairs, which would be James
• 11:18
  Blair and James Braid. I believe Cash Betel. Perhaps we'd
• 11:22
  have to ask Representative Bobert question. I understand. Thank you.
• 11:25
  The public reporting has characterized the meeting as an effort
• 11:28
  to persuade Miss Bobert to vote against the bill. Is
• 11:31
  that your recollection of the meeting? Answer? I recall the
• 11:34
  discussion with her was the concern about passing the bill
• 11:37
  would jeopardize the identity of victims, which is exactly what
• 11:41
  ended up happening. After the bill was passed, victims' names
• 11:44
  were inadvertently released. I recall the topic being protecting victims,
• 11:48
  and there may have been a couple more individuals in
• 11:51
  the meeting. I'm sorry. I can't recall. We can ask
• 11:53
  Representative Bobert for her recollection. Question. Thank you answer, But
• 11:58
  President Trump was not at the meeting. Question, got it?
• 12:01
  Do you recall any concerns being discussed in that meeting
• 12:04
  beyond survivor identity? Answer? Survivor identity. That's a good way
• 12:08
  of putting it. Survivor identity. Victim's identity was the only
• 12:12
  thing that I recall at this time. But we can
• 12:14
  ask Representative Bobert question. It was publicly reported that at
• 12:17
  least one of the members may have been pressured by
• 12:20
  the administration the vote against the act. Do you recall
• 12:23
  or are you aware of a similar meeting to the
• 12:25
  one we talked about? Answer? No, not to my knowledge. Question.
• 12:30
  Thank you answer, I don't recall. Question you don't recall
• 12:34
  you're not aware of such a meeting either? Away? Is
• 12:36
  that right? Answer? Yes? All right, folks. We're going to
• 12:40
  wrap up right here and in the next episode dealing
• 12:42
  with the topic, We're going to pick up where we
• 12:44
  left off. All the information that goes with this episode
• 12:47
  can be found in the description box.