Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 10) (6/8/26)

Transcript

The Pam Bondi Congressional Oversight Committee Epstein Related Transcript (Part 10) (6/8/26) · 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 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.