[0:00]Kentucky is recognized. >> May I respond very briefly to her statement? >> Well, I think we can do that probably on uh one of our one of our members. >> Okay. Thank you. I don't want that to get away. Thank you.
[0:11]>> Y Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Behind me, I have three documents from the DOJ production that are emblematic of the massive failure of the DOJ to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
[0:23]To my right is an email that was sent by the victim's lawyers to the DOJ. It was a list of names not to redact or sorry, a list of names not to release. What did
[0:35]the DOJ do with this email? They released this email in the document production. Literally the worst thing you could do to the survivors, you did.
[0:46]And they're getting phone calls. A lot of these people didn't want to be known. And we know you touched the document because you redacted one name and you redacted the lawyer's name, but you left
[0:56]the survivor's name there. The next document I want to show you in that was in the title, the victim's survivors names. All right. The title of this one
[1:06]is child sex trafficking co-conspirators fully redacted. And by the way, I'm going to unredact
[1:16]them here. Les Wexner is in this now. Your assistant de your deputy attorney general said, "Oh, well, he appears
[1:26]hundreds of times in the files, but he doesn't appear in this file until I forced you to release it." Where he's listed as a co-conspirator,
[1:36]not to tax evasion, but to child sex trafficking, not to prostitution, not to money, child sex trafficking.
[1:47]And then finally, what we have here is the third exhibit that I have is emblematic of the FD302 release. These are the documents that we need that
[1:59]you're holding on to and overredacting because they have the names of the men who are implicated. How do we know?
[2:08]Because the the survivors gave testimony to the FBI and it's in there. And what happens when you go to the portal at the DOJ to look at what's behind this
[2:19]redaction? Another redaction. So, we can't even see them. And then there's some of these files you've pulled down from the website that we will never see
[2:30]because we can't search the redactions. So, I have several questions for you. Who's responsible? Are you able to track who in your organization made this
[2:41]massive failure and released the victim's names? Are you able to track who it was that obscured Les Wexner's name as a co-conspirator in an FBI
[2:52]document? Do you have that kind of accountability? >> I believe Wexner's name was listed more than 4,000 times about I have
[3:02]>> Yeah, I already told you that this is where he's listed as a >> coin finish my answer. Come on, let me finish my answer. We corrected that within 40 minutes. He was already You're
[3:14]acting like everybody's trying to cover up Wexner's name. Reclaiming Reclaiming my time. I'm gonna answer this question. Reclaiming my time. He was Mr. Chairman. This is how this works. >> Can I have my time? >> He was He was Mr. Chairman.
[3:25]>> The gentle lady can can give her answer. The time belongs to the gentleman from >> All right. I'm reclaiming my time. Can I give my answer? >> I'm going to put the language of the bill up on the screen. >> Chairman
[3:36]on that political joke and I need to give my answer on that. Let we'll let the we'll let the attorney general respond and then the gentleman can move to his next question. It's my time. >> Within 40 minutes, you asked me a
[3:46]question. Within 40 minutes, >> Wexner's name was added back. >> Within 40 minutes of me catching you red-handed.
[3:54]>> Red hand. There was one redaction out and we invited you in. We This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. He needs to
[4:05]get You're a failed politician. >> I want you to watch Mr. Chairman. Please restore his time and remind the witness of the rules here. >> There is no credible information. >> None. If there were, I would bring the
[4:17]case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. >> Is that your position as well? >> My position is any victim who comes
[4:28]forward, of course, we would love to hear from them. 1 800 call FBI. Did you ask Merritt Garland that the last four years? Did you talk about Epstein?
[4:40]>> I am reclaiming my time. I'm glad you're asking about Mary Garland. >> This is bigger than Watergate when I don't answer a question. >> This goes over four administrations. You
[4:50]don't have to go back to Biden. Let's go back to Obama. Let's go back to George Bush. This cover up spans decades and you are responsible for this portion of it. And that's where the
[5:01]>> I want to know at what point at what point >> did the FBI and the DOJ decide that Lex Westerner was not a co-conspirator? Because our Epstein Files Transparency
[5:13]Act requires you please put it back on the screen. >> He's to release the internal decision about whether to prosecute him or not. And it's not in the files. And it's not
[5:24]in the files for any of these other men. I'm of the gentleman has >> May she answer >> and he's a hypocrite because he voted against the ban that we were talking
[5:34]about on deep fake AI porn. Only two people voted against it and you were one of them hypocrite. >> The uh the gentleman's time has expired. The
[5:44]>> she didn't answer the question. >> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, could she answer the question? Chairman, I was wondering >> the gentle lady's allowed the attorney general is allowed to respond the way she wants to respond to any member's questions. Republican, Democrat.
[5:56]>> All right. I have unanimous consent request. >> Gentleman's recognized for a UC. >> All right. This is an example. I'm I'm submitting these 302 forms that are entirely redacted even when you go to
[6:07]look at them. >> Without objection. >> I'm submitting a a witness statement that implicates Les Wexner. >> Without objection. >> I'm submitting an article from the New
[6:17]York Times. The DOJ released nude photos and identifiable pictures of the victims. I'm submitting a letter from AG Bondi to
[6:27]Cash Patel imploring him to quit keeping the files when you found out that they were keeping files from you >> because they're still redacting files that you
[6:39]>> chairman. Are we going to recess for votes? >> Yes, we are. >> I'm submitting for unanimous consent a document of 17 individuals who've resigned because of the Epstein files.
[6:49]>> Without objection. Just want to check on what time what time uh how much time we have left in
[7:00]votes. But one thing I've learned here of late that they'll wait on us. >> Uh how much time do we have?
[7:10]>> Oh, they just called. Okay. Uh the the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland. >> And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I want to start by saying I appreciate what you said, Attorney General Bondi, and you
[7:21]said it to me personally, uh, that you take the personal security of every member of Congress seriously and that people can contact you about that. And in these times, that's a very serious
[7:31]matter. So, I thank you for that. Um, article 2, section 1, clause 7 of the constitution is the domestic imalments clause. And it says that the president
[7:41]is limited to his salary in office and cannot receive any other money from the federal government while he's in office. It cannot be inc increased by $1. This
[7:52]president is the first president in US history who has repeatedly sued the federal government, sued the federal government for $230 million uh for the judicial search warrant at Mara Lago,
[8:04]which was perfectly lawful and was never struck down. But now he's suing the IRS for10 billion dollar. He's suing the IRS for $10 billion, which I think is around
[8:14]80% of its annual budget. Um because his tax returns were leaked and they were illegally leaked by a private contractor who actually is in prison now, Charles
[8:25]Little John. But he wants $10 billion. Now, um, well, I I want to I want to ask you the question of whether you think it would violate the domestic emolments clause for you to settle that $10
[8:37]billion case or any of the other, uh, claims that the president has made against the government. He himself has remarked, uh, it's interesting because I'm the one that makes the deal, right?
[8:48]And he says, I kind of have to work it out with myself. Do you think it would violate the domestic emalance clause for the president to work out a deal from people or his subordinates under his
[8:59]unitary executive theory to get money in one of these cases? >> I'm not going to discuss pending litigation. >> Okay. So, theoretically, you're saying
[9:09]uh because his uh privacy rights were violated uh in that tax case, and they were. I'm with the president on that. I mean, his Mara Lago thing is ridiculous, but there's no doubt that his tax
[9:20]returns, despite the fact that he promised to release them, despite the fact that every other president released the tax returns, uh, he suffered embarrassment when it showed that he hadn't paid taxes for several years, and he had a right for that not to happen.
[9:32]Now, I want to turn back to the Epstein survivors because President Trump may have been a little bit embarrassed by
[9:41]the release of those uh, tax returns. How much do you think the claims of these survivors are worth? As um the
[9:52]good congressman from Kentucky just pointed out, there were lots of survivors who had decided for reasons of their own never to release their names.
[10:02]That determination was represented to people in Congress and we built it into our federal law that their names could not be released. And yet you published their names, their phone numbers, their
[10:13]addresses, personally identifying information. If Donald Trump can get 10 billion dollars theoretically from the Department of Justice, how much should these people get for a far worse
[10:25]violation of their privacy rights and a far greater danger established to them in their lives? >> Do you even know who Chase Mulligan is?
[10:37]You're so obsessed with You don't do you. >> I'm going to teach you the rules again. You're the attorney general of the United States. We have rules here with him. >> You're the attorney general of the United States. The rules obsessed with Donald Trump. You have Trump derangement syndrome.
[10:48]>> Mr. Chairman, I'd like my time restored. I'd like my time restored. >> In your district in your district, you don't even know about it about keeping children predators. >> Time belongs to the gentleman from
[10:59]Maryland. Gentleman can proceed. >> Yeah. And I I just I want the whole country to look at this because this is the attorney general of the United States whose job is law enforcement. We've never had a witness who has
[11:10]misunderstood our rules and been unable to conform his or her conduct to our rules before. We have only five minutes and so we use our time to ask you specific questions.
[11:22]>> How long are you giving me? >> Excuse me. I I'm not yielding to you right now. I'd like that second restored too. So, Miss Bondi, the way it works is we ask you a question and you answer it.
[11:33]And if you go off on a wild goose chase, another tangent, you start reading statistics or you start talking about stuff going on our district. And by the way, I invite you to my district. Come to my district. But that's not what
[11:43]we're here to do today. Okay? So, and you do that, then we're allowed to say we reclaim our time. At that point, you have to be quiet. You have no choice. You got to be quiet. So, I hope you
[11:54]understand the rule at this point. Now, here's what I want to ask you. You're law enforcement. We've seen all kinds of evidence of crimes. And when we go over to the Department of Justice for the four computers for every member of
[12:06]Congress, we see more evidence of crimes. Will you create a joint task force of the Department of Justice and governors and state attorney generals and district attorneys across the
[12:18]country to investigate the crimes that have taken place against these victims and more than a thousand like them. The DOJ is not doing its job. Will you create a task force with state and local
[12:29]law enforcement to make that happen? >> Gentle lady can respond if she wants to. >> Thank you, chairman. He called Chase
[12:40]Mulligan a wild goose chase and didn't even know who he was. He is a defendant in your own district who prayed on girls. >> Mr. Chairman, >> well, you know what? If he were part of the Epstein investigation, you wouldn't
[12:52]do anything about it. online chat rooms and committed sexion. Yet he didn't even know in your tiny little district who he was. Mr. >> Chairman, she's embarrassing you. >> About to be
[13:03]>> This is your committee and she is embarrassing me on you. >> The time of the gentleman has expired. I would >> recognizes the gentle lady from California. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would note
[13:13]that Mr. Nadler's question has not yet been answered, but I want to start by asking that out of respect for the American public and the Epstein survivors, some of whom of course are
[13:25]here today, that we can have a transparent conversation and get uh the public the answers they deserve. I want to briefly direct your attention to two
[13:35]documents I'm hoping we will put up on the screen. Um, in the first, an individual emails Jeffrey Epstein asking
[13:45]whether a woman identified as M was pro or civilian, and Epstein responds that she was a civilian, Russian, and fun. In
[13:54]the second email, Epstein writes to Steve Tish about a Ukrainian girl, noting that she was quote, "a little freaked out by the age difference and
[14:05]stating that he would try to convince her not to return to Ukraine." He then instructs Mr. Tish to call him, adding, "I don't like records of these
[14:14]conversations, so I'd like to ask a straightforward question that really is either a yes or no answer. Do these emails constitute credible evidence? Not
[14:25]proof, but credible evidence warning further investigation into whether Steve Tish was involved in Epstein's criminal
[14:35]conduct. Do you think yes or no? >> I'm not going to play a yes no game with you, but I will answer the question to the best of my ability. As I said, we
[14:45]will look and investigate any case involving any victim. I'm not familiar. There were 3 million pages of course with that email but of course we will look into anything. The documents have
[14:57]been released 3 million the redacted versions we left them open for all of you to come view. Have you I believe you view them. If not will you have some copies? I'd like to can I finish please?
[15:08]I'm not being rude. >> I only have five minutes. >> No. Yeah. And I only have 30 seconds based on your filibuster. >> You didn't give a yes or no answer. So let me just uh go further. Director
[15:20]Patel testified in this uh committee room that there was no credible information indicating that Epstein trafficked victims to anyone else. And
[15:30]glancing at the documents, that's proves that's not the case. Um in July, your department issued a memo stating that it had conducted an exhaustive review of
[15:40]the Epstein files and concluded that no additional individuals would be charged. So, I did go over to the Department of Justice yesterday. I would note that 400
[15:51]and all our 35 members are in the house and there's four computers. So, um it would take many months to actually have
[16:02]the time. I, you know, I only had a few hours. I think the transparency argument is really kind of a sham because it's not really Whoa, whoa, whoa. Did you have to wait?
[16:11]>> It is not possible to to really go in. I did however see a US attorney information for the Southern District of New York indicating that there were
[16:21]additional survivors and uh probable co-conspirators. Other members of Congress have uncovered likely co-conspirators whose names were
[16:31]blocked out. Now, the the the Epstein File Transparency Act, which all but one member of this House voted for and the president signed, requires the
[16:42]department uh to release everything except that uh it needs to be redacted to protect the victims uh or an ongoing uh prosecution, which apparently there
[16:54]is none from the testimony we have received. I am concerned that this uh act has not been fully complied with. When director Patel came to the
[17:04]committee, he admitted that up to a thousand FBI agents had gone through the files and redacted President Trump's name from them. And it's pretty clear
[17:15]that what has been transmitted from the FBI continues to redact President Trump's name even though he is mentioned, you know, thousands of times
[17:25]in these files. So I think the credibility of the department in terms of complying uh with the act has been damaged and I think the department's
[17:35]credibility has been damaged in other ways. I think we all saw the horrible video of American citizens uh being
[17:44]killed by ICE agents in Minneapolis. And I think how the department has handled these cases uh raises a lot of doubt about the department. State and local
[17:54]police in Minnesota got a court order to get access to the crime scene to be sure evidence would be properly preserved by federal agents. But they took the the
[18:06]agents defied the court order and in a depart uh departure from general policy. The DOJ is not collaborating with state
[18:15]and local law enforcement uh on these homicides. So, I I really think that is a disgraceful approach uh to the homicides of American citizens and uh
[18:26]really does uh nothing to bring credit to your department. And Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. >> Gentle yields back. >> May I answer? >> Attorney General can respond. I >> I find it interesting that she keeps
[18:36]going after President Trump, the greatest president in American history. And and if they could maintain their composure, this isn't a circus. This is a hearing. Uh, I find it interesting she
[18:47]keeps going after Donald Trump. She doesn't say how much money she took from Reed Hoffman. Did you? >> And nor Mr. Chairman, regular order, please.
[18:58]>> Nothing on her ex account on her Twitter account during the Biden years. >> Gentle lady, now question. There was no question. The attorney
[19:10]general, she doesn't just get to >> Committee will be in order. >> I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. >> Committee will be in order. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. >> Lady can state her point of order. >> Uh,
[19:20]when a witness attacks, >> not a valid point of order. You got to state. >> She hasn't completed her point of order yet. Please let her speak, Mr. Chairman. Let's have some regular order. >> Regular order is you got to state the rule. And >> I am trying I am trying to make a point
[19:31]of order that the witness >> and what rule are you referring to? >> Without responding to a question has attacked me personally. I think it's pathetic that she can't answer the questions and instead attack. >> That is not even close to the point.
[19:43]Gentleman from California. >> Great. Thank you, Madam Attorney General. You acknowledged earlier to Mr. Johnson that President Trump was mentioned and the release countless
[19:53]times. You said in the Epstein files. I I just want to play a video though for you that I think speaks to the frustration that many of these victims have victims have
[20:04]>> of times Trump's name appears in the files. So, it could at least be a thousand times. Is that right? >> The number is a total misleading factor. We have not released anyone's name that
[20:15]we have not released anyone's name in these files that has not been credible. >> Director, could it release every piece of legally permissible information? You can characterize the numbers however you want it.
[20:26]>> Claim me my time. Director, >> it sounds like if you don't know the number, it could at least be a thousand times, which >> it's not. >> Is it at least 500 times? >> No. >> Is it at least 100 times? >> No. >> Then what's the number?
[20:38]>> I don't know the number. I understand why the victims are frustrated and the attorney general acknowledged what Mr. Patel would not acknowledge that it was way more than a
[20:49]thousand times. But I I want to move madam attorney general to weaponization of government. And yesterday it was reported that six members of Congress had indictments sought against him and they were not
[21:01]returned by a grand jury. My colleagues have spoken about their frustration of being in subpoenas and having cell phone records uh combed through. Well, in 2017
[21:11]and 2018, Adam Schiff and I had our cell phone records and email records combed through, not by you, but a different department of justice under the president. It was in retaliation for our
[21:22]role in the Russia interference campaign. An inspector general report would find this improper and that the predicate for it was absurd. In 2020, after sitting on two committees that were a part of the president's first
[21:34]impeachment, an FBI agent leaked my cooperation in a national security case where my campaign was targeted. The president's FBI senior leadership authorized two statements to the press
[21:45]that said I was never suspected of wrongdoing and only helped the investigation. But that didn't stop the death threats or my GOP colleagues from referring me to an ethics investigation where Kevin McCarthy's chairman on the
[21:56]ethics committee would find the same thing as the FBI. Our current FBI director would then write a book called Government Gangsters and identify a long list of enemies. About a quarter of them have been either investigated or
[22:07]indicted. He listed me at the very top along with Adam Schiff and during that same testimony refused to recuse himself when asked if he would recuse if any
[22:18]case came across his desk involving me or people on that list. Since that testimony, his department has put me under investigation with Senator and Schiff for the nonsense mortgage fraud
[22:29]cases that we've seen. I get it. This is what the president does. I've priced it in. We have a bingo card at home that my kids have made of what will come next. I expected that the president would come
[22:41]after his enemies, but what I want to talk to you next is serious, and I did not expect this would happen, and I'd like your help on it. The president has inspired death threats against me and
[22:50]many sitting up here with me. In June 2025, an individual left 11 voicemails at my district office. On the voicemails, they said, "Get the message to him. I'm going to hunt him down, that
[23:02][ __ ] and toss his ass over the Golden Gate Bridge by my [ __ ] self." Donald Trump's Department of Justice in the Northern District of California
[23:10]declined to prosecute. On May 14, 2025 on Twitter, responding to something I posted, an individual said, "No, it wasn't, Eric, and now I'm going to kill
[23:20]you." The Department of Justice from the Southern District of Texas declined to prosecute. May through December of 2025, we received messages at my office that said, "I hope somebody shoots you and
[23:32]your children and your wife in the head." Pew pew, [ __ ] Pew pew. I would stay indoors as much as possible and my children unfortunately have to do that. The Department of Justice has not
[23:43]charged this individual and cited that he's a prolific caller and has health conditions. Although what we have found in our own investigation and his voicemails is that he has said he will employ others to do this. The president
[23:54]can come after me. It's fine. I'm in the arena. So are these folks. But we never expected that the Department of Justice would not seek to prosecute and
[24:04]investigate those who are making threats against us. And that would include those on that side of the aisle. And I h I'm just asking for your help to protect life because life is at risk with the
[24:15]environment we're in right now. >> Congressman, I completely agree with you. Uh I I know about several of those personally involving you. Um, I believe
[24:26]one has been charged publicly and there's something I would be happy to talk to you about um, off camera. Um, but I can assure you that they are very
[24:36]serious. They are being looked into and I I can give you more details on those. None of you should be threatened ever. None of your children should be
[24:46]threatened. None of your families should be threatened. And I will work with you can come into my office any day. I will work with all of you on both sides of the aisle if you are ever threatened and
[24:57]and I would gladly talk to you after this hearing about your cases, but I can tell you some of them are very active. >> Appreciate that. And yield back. >> Gentleman yields back and we're sorry for what the gentleman and his family
[25:08]have had to go had had to go through. We appreciate what the attorney general said. Um and I think some of the things that Are you up next? Gentleman from New York is recognized.
[25:19]>> Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by acknowledging the survivors of Jeffrey Epste's horrific abuse who are in the room with us today. I want to thank all of you for your bravery and speaking
[25:29]out. And I want to say that you and the other survivors of these heinous crimes deserve better from this Department of Justice. In particular, it is shocking that the department did not redact the
[25:40]names of Epstein's victims, but it did redact the names of their abusers. I don't know whether this was done out of incompetence or whether it was deliberate and malicious, but either
[25:51]way, it is completely unacceptable. Even more troubling, the DOJ has failed to bring any of these perpetrators to justice. Instead, it has engaged in a relentless pursuit of Donald Trump's
[26:03]perceived enemies. I want to focus on just one example. The attorney general of my home state of New York, Tish James. This DOJ has been hellbent on securing an indictment against Miss
[26:14]James for something, anything, simply because she held Donald Trump's companies accountable for years of financial fraud. And indeed, the department manufactured an investigation
[26:25]against her for alleged quote mortgage fraud. But the US attorney leading the investigation, Eric Sbert, a Trump appointee, refused to bring charges against Miss James because there was
[26:36]simply no evidence. Unfortunately, a prosecutor who refuses to do Trump's bidding has no place in this DOJ. So, Mr. Sbert was forced out. Trump could
[26:48]not contain his fury. Fury that he expressed to you in a social media post addressed to you by name. I'm sure you've seen it. Quote, "I fired him and there is a great case he wrote to you
[26:59]about Mr. Sbert. Then we moved down. We can't delay any longer. It's killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice and indicted me five
[27:08]times over nothing. Justice must be served now. And obviously you followed that order. Lindseay Halligan, Trump's former defense lawyer who had never p
[27:19]prosecuted the case in her life was installed to replace Mr. Sbert and it was clear that part of her mandate was to go after Miss James. Halligan immediately saw an indictment which the
[27:30]court dismissed because Halligan was illegally put into the role. But your department was undeterred and not once but twice it tried to indict Attorney
[27:40]General James in separate courts. Both grand juries rejected you and refused to indict her. It is practically unheard of for a grand jury to refuse an
[27:49]indictment. In 2016, it happened in just six cases out of over 150,000 offenses. And you had it happen twice in the same
[27:59]week in two different courts. That must have been humiliating. And now there are reports you are continuing to investigate her. The amount of resources that have gone into targeting Attorney
[28:10]General James, months of investigations, multiple failed indictments is astounding. Since your own prosecutors told you that there is not enough evidence to support a conviction, it's
[28:21]clear that you are going after her simply because she held President Trump accountable and he wants to punish her. And she is just one name on a long list of Trump political enemies that DOJ is
[28:32]reportedly targeting. From Jerome Powell and Lisa Cook at the Federal Reserve to James Comey, numerous Democratic members of Congress, John Brennan, Jack Smith, Democratic officials in Minnesota, Chris
[28:44]Krebs, Mile Taylor, and more. And those are just the ones we know about. In contrast to these politically motivated investigations grasping at something they can charge their enemies with, we
[28:55]now have concrete evidence of disgusting criminality revealed in the Epstein files. So I have just so I really have just one question for you. How many of Epstein's co-conspirators have you
[29:06]indicted? How many perpetrators are you even investigating? First,
[29:18]>> you showed it. You I I find it. >> How many have you >> Excuse me. I'm gonna answer the question. >> I answer my question. >> No, I'm gonna answer the question the way I want to answer the question. Your theatrics are the way I ask it.
[29:30]>> Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people, but I'm going to answer the question. >> How many of you indicted? Again, the time belonging my time. >> The time belong. >> I think it's very interesting my time. I
[29:40]think it's very interesting. And you can he talks about they indicted. The president said they had indicted him. >> Mr. Chairman, please stop the clock and stop the clock and restore his time. The
[29:50]committee will order the times. Gentleman from New York. We will give you a few more seconds. We will do that. But when you ask a question, the witness gets to you may not like the answer, but she gets to answer.
[30:02]>> The question was, how many of >> They don't like the answer. Chairman >> because it's honest. >> So he asked a four minute question.
[30:11]>> Restore 45 seconds. Mr. Nab, please, Mr. You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch. >> Not on our time. No way. And I told you about that, Attorney General, before you start.
[30:23]>> You don't tell me. >> Oh, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate. >> You're a lawyer. You're not even a lawyer. >> Committee will be in order. >> Time and I should get back at least 45 seconds. >> We will give you a few more seconds. I said that already. >> 45 seconds.
[30:35]>> Okay, I will. I'm timing right now. Mr. Nat, >> you'reing my time. The answer to my question, how many of Epstein's co-conspirators is she indicted? is zero. You have been the attorney general
[30:46]for a whole year and your DOJ fired the lead prosecutor of this case, sat on evidence this entire time and claimed falsely last July that there were no more leads. It took an act of Congress
[30:58]for you to finally release part of the Epstein files. And when you did, you included personal information about the victims while protecting the names of abusers. Time of the gentleman has been brought to justice but enormous
[31:10]resources gentleman has expired and obviously >> clear that under your leadership the department of justice no longer works question in there Trump I yield back
[31:20]>> the gentleman yields back uh >> may I answer >> I think our next our next uh questioner uh madam attorney general is going to give you time to respond to >> thank you chairman >> all kinds of things so we will turn to
[31:32]the gentleman from Texas for five minutes >> bond you go right ahead I'm over here. The time is yours. >> Thank you. First, he brought up the
[31:43]president saying they indicted me twice. They sure did. They tried to impeach him twice. And you, Mr. Nadler, were one of the leads on the impeachment. I was on the other side. I lived that with you.
[31:55]During impeachment, you said the president conspired, sought foreign interference in the 2016 election. Robert Mueller found no evidence, none,
[32:06]of foreign interference in 2016. Have you apologized to President Trump? Have you apologized to President Trump? All of you who participated in those impeachment hearings against Donald
[32:18]Trump, you all should be apologizing. You sit here and you attack the president and I am not going to have it. I'm not going to put up with it. You know, all they want to do, all the the
[32:29]American people need to know this. They are talking about Epstein today. This has been around since the Obama administration. This administration
[32:39]released over 3 million pages of documents. Over three million. And Donald Trump signed that law to release
[32:48]all of those documents. He is the most transparent president in the nation's history. And none of them none of them
[32:59]ask Merrick Garland over the last four years one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why?
[33:09]Because Donald Trump the Dow the Dow right now is over the Dow is over $50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. You're a great stock trader as
[33:21]I hear Raskin. The Dow is over 50,000 right now. The S&P at almost 7,000
[33:29]and the NASDAQ smashing records. Americans 401ks and retirement savings are booming. That's what we should be talking about. We should be talking
[33:41]about making Americans safe. We should be talking about what does a Dow have to do with anything? That's what they just asked. Are you kidding? >> Mr. Jordan, am I Mr. Jordan.
[33:52]>> Committee will be in order. >> Mr. Jordan, am I going to get an extra 45 seconds added to my time? >> The committee will be in order. The time belongs to the gentleman from Texas,
[34:02]Miss Bondi. The attorney general can respond. >> Thank you. The DAO has shattered 50,000 for the first time. This is crazy. They said it
[34:14]couldn't be done in four years, yet President Trump has done it in one year. National median rents have fallen to a
[34:23]4-year low thanks to Donald Trump. That's why they want to focus on Epstein and our most transparent president in
[34:33]the nation's history. The murder rate, as I said, has plummeted to a 125 year low thanks to
[34:43]Donald Trump. For an unprecedented unprecedented nine straight months,
[34:52]there were zero illegal border crossings at the southern border. That's what we should be focused on. all the great work that this president has
[35:03]done and will continue to do to keep America safe and to make Americans safe.
[35:11]>> Thank you. Uh Attorney General Bondi, that man works for you now, right? >> Who was that congressman?
[35:22]>> The man in that video, >> the one who was in the police warn body cam footage. The one allegedly yelling kill him at police officers on January 6th. >> His name is Jared Weise.
[35:34]>> He does work for us. >> He works for you at the Department of Justice. >> He does. >> This is an individual whom a federal grand jury indicted for two felonies and four misdemeanors related to his
[35:46]participation in the attack on January 6th. One of those charges was forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, and interfering with police with the intent to commit another
[35:57]felony. This is who you choose as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America to hire the Department of Justice. Someone on video
[36:08]yelling kill him at police officers. Right. >> I believe he was pardoned by President Trump. >> Oh, he was pardoned. You're right.
[36:18]You're right. Kill them at police officers. And yet
[36:28]you expect hardworking police officers across the country to believe that you take law enforcement seriously. You could imagine the reaction of so many
[36:39]folks across the country hearing the chief law enforcement officer of the United States refuse to even condemn what that individual
[36:50]whom you've now hired did. But in any event, let's talk a little bit about some of the other divisions within the Department of Justice and what's happened over the last year. You're familiar with the
[37:01]public integrity section of the DOJ's criminal division. I think it's referred to as PIN. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you know which presidential administration
[37:11]under which the PIN was first created? >> I can tell you what administration that the weaponization was ended under. >> I'll reclaim my time. This wasn't a trick question. >> You don't get to reclaim your time. >> Madam Attorney General,
[37:21]>> because I don't like Mr. Chairman, you explain to the witness that that he does reclaim his time >> because I don't answer a question to your satisfaction. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Madam Attorney General, the time belongs to the gentleman from Colorado. The
[37:33]president under which pin was created was Gerald Ford. It was created after Water. I'm not asking a question, Madam Attorney General. The administration under which it was created was Gerald Ford. When you first started as the
[37:43]attorney general of the United States, there were 35 people working in that office. There are now two people working in that office because you have gutted it. How many people work for the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team
[37:54]in the criminal division today? >> Can I answer the question about PEN? >> I've asked you a question. How many people ask you a question but you don't >> how many people work for the national
[38:06]cryptocurrency enforcement team. >> You won't answer how many. >> I'll answer pen. >> You will not be actually you know what this I'll say to the chairman. >> What's funny about this chairman? You
[38:17]know what the answer is? And I think the I understand why panel does not want to answer the question because you eliminated the national cryptocurrency enforcement team last year. So I understand why you don't want to tell the American people who works there.
[38:29]understand why you don't want to talk about Mohamad Solomon in your district. >> In any event, Mr. Chairman, will you stop the clock so his time is not wasted by the witness? >> Be very generous with allowing extra time when we have these little disputes.
[38:40]>> I understand >> you got the time. >> I might as well ask the chairman these questions because what what's profound the questions I've asked
[38:50]>> the crime in your asked, Mr. Chairman, are not trick questions. They're not gotcha questions. They're actually basic questions about how the Department of Justice functions and the unwillingness
[39:02]of this attorney general to answer them in good faith. When a member of Congress asks how many people work at the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team and the attorney general refuses to
[39:13]answer it, it is not a coincidence. It's because she eliminated the team. Why? Because her boss, the president of the United States, is making money hand
[39:25]over fist. 1.4 4 billion over the course of the last year through cryptocurrency holdings. I think what is happening at the Department of Justice is a disgrace,
[39:35]Mr. Chairman, and I would urge you to gain control of this hearing. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. >> Yeah, I I I would ask the gentleman,
[39:46]does he agree with the standing up of the deputy attorney general for gentle lady from Washington's recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Attorney General Bondi. Right here, uh
[39:58]we are joined in this room by some of the thousands of survivors from Jeffrey Epstein's horrific sex trafficking ring. They have shown such incredible courage
[40:09]in speaking out, in demanding accountability to bring the predators and pedophiles to justice. The Epstein Files Transparency Act required your
[40:19]Department of Justice to disclose the perpetrators connected with Epstein's criminal activities and to redact the information of survivors to protect
[40:29]their identities. Let me show you what actually happened. First, in violation of the law, your department has shown a pattern of redacting the names of
[40:40]powerful predators. Here behind me is one example of an email from Epstein to a man whose name was redacted. The email
[40:51]reads, quote, "Where are you? Are you okay? I loved the torture video." Only after members of Congress demanded
[41:02]that we see the unredacted files did the world learn the name of this individual, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulam, the chairman and
[41:12]CEO of a company that had financial ties to President Trump's business and personal ties to Trump's adviser Steve Bannon. Second, the survivors were not
[41:24]similarly protected, also in violation of the law. Here is another email titled Epstein victim list. We have blurred the names of the survivors for their
[41:35]protection, but your Department of Justice initially released this list of 32 survivors names with only one name
[41:44]redacted along with numerous files that disclose not only the names, the emails, and the addresses of survivors, but also nude photographs and even the identities
[41:56]of Jane Doe's who had been protected for decades until your department released their names. Survivors are now telling us that their families are finding out
[42:07]for the first time that they were trafficked by Epstein. In their words, quote, "This release does not provide closure. It feels like a deliberate
[42:18]attempt to intimidate survivors, punish those who came forward, and reinforce the same culture of secrecy that allowed Epstein's crimes to continue for
[42:29]decades." To the survivors in the room, if you are willing, please stand. And if you are willing, please raise
[42:42]your hands if you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice. Please know for the record that every
[42:53]single survivor has raised their hand. Attorney General Bondi, you apologize to the survivors in your opening statement for what they went
[43:05]through at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Will you turn to them now and apologize for what your Department of Justice has
[43:15]put them through with the un absolutely unacceptable release of the Epstein files and their
[43:24]information. Congresswoman, you sat before
[43:35]Mer Merritt Garland sat in this chair twice. Attorney General Bond can finish my answer. No, I'm going to reclaim my time because I asked you attorney specific question.
[43:46]>> Attorney General to answer, which is will you turn to the survivors? This is not about anybody that came before you. It is about you
[43:56]taking responsibility for your department of justice and the harm that it has done to the survivors who are standing right behind you and are
[44:06]waiting for you to turn to them and apologize for what your department of justice is >> members members get to ask the questions the witness gets to answer in the way they want to answer the attorney general
[44:17]>> that's not accurate Mr. Chairman >> because she doesn't like the answer so um >> Mr. Chairman, I have asked and she asked Merritt Garland this
[44:28]reclaiming my time and when I will my time the gentle reclaimed get in the gutter for her theatrics. >> The time belongs to the time belongs to the gentle lady. The gentle lady has 17 seconds.
[44:39]>> Thank you. You're not going to answer this question. So, let me just I'll direct it to >> What a massive No, I'm answering a question. >> Will you restore her time? The witnesses interrupted better with this woman that
[44:51]she's doing theatrical and let me have my >> gentle lady. The gentle lady from Washington controls the time. The gentle lady has 17 seconds. You can you can uh proceed with your final 17 seconds. >> What a massive cover up this has been
[45:02]and continues to be. Donald Trump made the release of the Epstein files the center of his political campaign because he thought it would benefit him. Then you got into office attorney general
[45:13]claimed to have a client list only then say that there was no list. Your deputy Todd Blanch met alone Maxwell. Time of the gentle lady has
[45:23]expired to a minimum security prison and now you continue the conversation that you would turn around to the survivors who are standing right behind
[45:34]you and on a human level now recognizes the chair for what you have done. >> Time is the time of the gentle lad. You have no time to yell back. We appreciate
[45:44]that. We appreciate the thought. Um the um >> thank you so much. Donald Trump's approval rating implodes on his strongest issue. This is from Newsweek
[45:53]today. It says 40% of people approve of the article to us and border security while 60% disapprove. >> Without objection admitted now I
[46:03]recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Lou. Thank you, Attorney General Bondi, for
[46:16]being here today. I'm going to show you two photos. >> Thank you. >> I'm going to show you two photos of former Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew
[46:24]attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein. Under the law Congress passed, you were allowed to redact photos to
[46:35]protect the victims of Epstein's sex trafficking operation. You redacted the photos of this victim's face because you were following the congressional law. Is
[46:46]that correct? >> I'm sorry. That we redacted the victim's >> because you following the congressional law. Correct. >> Yes.
[46:57]>> Okay. You have now established that we please put the photos back up. that we are looking at a sex trafficking victim.
[47:07]Under the Federal Victim's Trafficking Protection Act, not only is Jeffrey Epstein guilty, but anyone who patronizes Epstein's sex operation is
[47:18]also guilty of a crime. That's why I find it absolutely despicable that you sought to protect Epstein's clients like former Prince Andrew. Last July, you
[47:30]closed the case on Epstein's abusers. The July 2025 memo from your Department of Justice stated, quote, "We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an
[47:41]investigation against uncharged third parties." These two photos, please put the photos back up. These two photos staring you in
[47:51]the face are evidence of a crime and more than enough evidence to predicate an investigation against former Prince Andrew. So I ask you, Attorney General
[48:02]Pam Bondi, why did you shut down this investigation last July? And why have you not prosecuted former Prince Andrew? >> I don't believe you asked Merrick
[48:11]Garland these questions when he was um attorney general and set before >> I agree with you. I reclaim my time. I agree with you. I agree with you. During the B during the Biden administration,
[48:23]>> I called for people looking at Epstein files. Merrick Garland dropped the ball as did Attorney General Bill Barr, as did Alex Aosta. A whole string of
[48:32]failures, but you are in charge. You have the power to change things to hold these men accountable. And you're doing the opposite. You're protecting them. So, I want to move on to another man. Can I answer Donald Trump? I want to move on to another question.
[48:44]>> Answer your question about protecting. >> You answered the question. >> You're saying no. I love this. >> I want to discuss another man, Donald Trump, who is all over the Epstein files. Like former prince. Here's a
[48:55]video. >> Like former Prince Andrew, Donald Trump
[49:13]attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein. I want to know, were there any underage girls at that party or at any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey
[49:24]Epstein? This is so ridiculous and that they are
[49:34]trying to deflect from all the great things Donald Trump has done. There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime. Everyone knows that. This has been the
[49:46]most transparent presidency. He's the one that those files reclaim my time. I got your answer. You said there's no evidence. Please stop the clock. My time
[49:56]the legislation. This This is my time. Time belongs to the gentleman from California. >> Okay. >> I'm going to put up another document
[50:05]from a witness who called the FBI's National Threat Operation Center because I believe you just lied under oath. There is ample evidence in the Epstein phone.
[50:15]>> Don't you ever accuse me of a crime. >> I believe you just lied under oath and this is all on videotape. You said there's no evidence of a crime. I'm showing you here is >> a witness statement who called into the
[50:27]FBI's threat operations center. He drove Donald Trump around in a limo. He overheard what Donald Trump said to Jeffrey on his cell phone. He was so angry he was going to stop a limo and
[50:37]hurt Donald Trump. and he met a girl who said she was raped by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. She later had her head blown off and officers at the scene said that could
[50:47]not have been suicide. No one No one at the Department of Justice interviewed this witness. You
[50:57]need to interview this witness immediately. Epstein should rot in hell. So should the men who patronize this operation. And as we say here today, there are over
[51:08]1,000 sex trafficking victims, and you have not held a single man accountable. Shame on you. If you had any decency, you would resign right after this hearing concludes.
[51:19]>> Gentlemen, has expired. Uh, >> May I respond? >> Yeah. I don't know how you respond. No one can. I did not ask a question, Mr. Crime in California. He does not want to
[51:31]talk about >> I did not ask a question in his state. You can't live. I did not ask a question. Biddy will be in order. The gentleman has yielded back his time.