🚨 Pam Bondi’s secret Epstein scheme REVEALED

This is Democracy Watch. Mark, we have spoken quite a bit about the Epstein files. We now know that it has passed the House, passed the Senate, signed into law by Donald Trump. There is this one big question that still lingers that's going to determine whether or not Pam Bondi actually releases all of the files as she's supposed to do in just a few weeks from now. I think we're roughly 25, 26 days from now. And that is this idea of being able to lean on the ongoing prosecution against Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, JPMorgan Chase and any other Democrats who might have been involved with Jeffrey Epstein that might preclude Pam Bondi from releasing all of the files because then, of course, she can just lean on this idea that we can't release everything because there's this ongoing prosecution. So to what extent can she lean on this excuse to prevent the full release of the files? Yeah. So, look, I am fully expecting that the Department of Justice will play games. And I do not believe that when we hit the magic 30-day window, all of a sudden, all the Epstein files will be turned over to Congress. I don't believe that. I have never believed that the Department of Justice is going to act in good faith. The Department of Justice mostly doesn't act in good faith. So why would they start here? And after all, Donald Trump controls the Department of Justice and Pam Bondi does whatever he wants. So if Donald Trump says that the statute doesn't say anything, it's just a blank piece of paper, Pam Bondi will say, oh, you mean the blank piece of paper? And then Caroline Leavitt will take the podium in the White House and hand out a bunch of blank pieces of paper and say, this is the statute, right? So we just have to expect that they're going to obstruct and they're going to lie and they're not going to comply with their obligations. But you're exactly right that there is a lot of concern in Washington, D.C., where I am, that they are going to lean on this one particular provision that essentially says they don't have to release any files that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that that withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary. And look, here's the thing. If they are, in fact, investigating the three individuals you mentioned, none of whom, by the way, there is any evidence, as far as I know, had any inappropriate contact or connection with Jeffrey Epstein. But if, in fact, there is an investigation ongoing of the former president and Larry Summers and Reid Hoffman and a bank, which I never fully understand how that is somehow. I mean, I've never heard J.P. Morgan being a Democratic bank, but whatever. If, in fact, that is ongoing, what the statute says is that the withholding needs to be narrowly tailored, which means that the Department of Justice can't release any files relating to Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, or J.P. Morgan. But none of that would prevent them from releasing records related to Donald Trump, right? I mean, there's nothing in the statute, unless the Department of Justice is going to say Donald Trump is under a criminal investigation, which that would be something, there is no basis to withhold records relating to Donald Trump. I mean, that would be an interesting play to say that Pam Bondi is so independent and judicious that she's actually opening up an investigation into Donald Trump, but therefore she can't release any files into Donald Trump until she concludes her investigation, which I presume would happen sometime around January of 2029. Yeah, look, I think that there are a thousand reasons why that's not going to happen. First of all, I can't imagine Pam Bondi is going to say that she is criminally investigating Donald Trump in connection with Jeffrey Epstein. So let's start with that. Number two, the president has, you know, some types of immunity that he claims are broader than they probably are. And though I don't believe that immunity would apply to him as it relates to Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump seems to think immunity applies to him and everything. And so, you know, again, it would be a weird thing for him to be like, oh, I'm now under criminal investigation, and this is a real investigation. I mean, it causes them a lot of messaging problems and legal problems. And finally, I think if it was challenged in court, like that would just disappear. And, you know, I think a judge would not construe this statute to mean that. And it's important to note that the people who are pushing for a narrow interpretation of this law, the people who are serious about getting their hands on the Epstein files include not just Democrats, they include a number of high profile and powerful Republicans. Remember that the bill winds up coming out of the House with unanimous support other than one Republican, and it is passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. And so even if you had some Republicans who were originally interested in perhaps trying to keep it from being voted on, or, you know, protect Donald Trump, once that dam breaks, it becomes very hard for these mega Republicans who have now all come forward and said, you see, I've always been in favor of the Epstein files to say, oops, it actually, this bill that I just told you I voted for didn't mean anything. And that's before you get to the fact that you've got people like Congressman Tom Massey, who's a Republican, who clearly doesn't give a ---- whether Donald Trump, you know, is happy with him or not. Yeah. I'm going to throw a clip of Pam Bondi up here on the screen when she was asked specifically about this idea of leaning on the ongoing investigations excuse as a way to not release all of the files. Epstein files. Does the new investigation by the Southern District of New York U.S. attorney prevent the department from releasing all of the remaining files? So we have released 33,000, over 33,000 Epstein documents to the Hill, and we'll continue to follow the law and to have maximum transparency. Also, we will always encourage all victims to come forward. So that was Pam Bondi saying that she is going to follow the law, and of course, is going to offer up maximum transparency. In what way are those carefully selected words, we're going to follow the law, in what way can she still adhere to those words while also suppressing any files that might, that might harm Donald Trump? She can't. I mean, but, but here's the thing is she didn't mean it when she said she was going to follow the law and she didn't mean it when she said she was going to be transparent. Right. I mean, I guess any more than she meant it when she said that the Epstein files were on her desk and ready to be released. That's exactly right. That's exactly right. I mean, we have to stop assuming that the other side is actually has any ounce of shame. Like, is it all concerned about being consistent or is all, you know, is paying at all attention to the words that Congress passed? I mean, they have shown contempt about congressional enactments on things much less important to Donald Trump than this. And, you know, so they are, they are going to play games. They're not going to release the files. They are, they may just say that they don't think that the statute allows for it, or they may just say that Donald Trump is the chief executive of the, of the government. And he has instructed the Department of Justice to take more than 30 days. I mean, remember, Brian, there was reporting going back now, I think maybe in July or August that the FBI was like working 24 hours a day in shifts, going through all of these records, redacting Donald Trump's name or image or whatever from these files. Like, like they, they're, they're not going to unredact those files. Yeah. I should also note for folks who are watching right now, Mark, you've been doing excellent coverage of this whole scandal on Democracy Docket, which is the news outlet you founded to focus on everything voting elections. For those who are looking to support fearless independent journalism, the best kind of independent journalism, I'm going to put the link to Democracy Docket right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. If you are not yet signed up, please do yourself a favor and sign up. Mark, is there a way that in the event Pam Bondi and Donald Trump decide not to release these files, even though the law now is that they would, where do we go from there? I mean, at, at what point, at what point do you send, send somebody in to retrieve the files from the DOJ? Like what, what do we do if, if, if physically Pam Bondi via Donald Trump just won't release the files, despite the fact that it is law? Yeah. So look, I think that you could see litigation to try to enforce the statute. That's one option. The second is it's certainly possible that Pam Bondi will say she'll be in violation of the federal law. And certainly the president doesn't care what the federal law is, but you know, there are line prosecutors, there are FBI agents, there are U.S. attorney's offices that have these files and they are under an obligation, a legal obligation. And, you know, and we'll see how many of them are going to be willing to, you know, put themselves in harm's way by willfully violating a federal law. And one of the reasons why I think we have seen more documents come out than people have expected we would ever see, right? We saw the, the, the sketch that Donald Trump made and that surprised people. We then saw the 23,000 emails, I think it was, come out and that I think really surprised people. And what happens is in something like this is that each one of these steps begets another, right? Each one of them creates momentum for some other stakeholder. I think the emails, as I understand them, came from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. And so, you know, they have shown willingness to cooperate. And what that does is that then puts pressure for others to then follow laws, follow subpoenas, follow because, because they see it's not, you know, there's already some breakage in the dam. Plus, you know, a lot of, I think these government lawyers have to keep in mind that we are likely to see Democrats retake control of the house. And at that point, the dynamic around this will shift, you know, immeasurably. And I don't think some of these government lawyers are going to want to be caught in that crossfire. Well, you know, everybody who's watching is going to hear that and say, okay, even if Democrats take control of the house, how can you have any confidence? I mean, notwithstanding whether Democrats win or not, how can you have any confidence that what's released by Pam Bondi is actually going to be the real thing? I mean, you and I have spoken about all of the redactions that were, that took place, that we should expect to see if these files do get released. But more broadly, I mean, how do you trust this administration that spent 10 months suppressing these files? Because clearly there's something damaging enough to warrant all that suppression. How do you trust that when they finally do release something, it'll be trustworthy? I asked that question to Ro Khanna, and he basically said, you know, there are a lot of FBI agents, there are folks in the Epstein estate, there are victims who know what should be in those files. And so how does that all strike you? Does hearing all of that, former FBI agents, even somebody like Maureen Comey, the victims, the Epstein estate, does that give you confidence that we will get to a place where we can trust whatever is released by the DOJ? No, it doesn't get me there. I mean, as I said, I don't think Donald Trump ever intends to have Pam Bondi release these files in their entirety. Kash Patel was picked to be a loyalist of Donald Trump. Pam Bondi has proven herself a sycophant of Donald Trump. Like, we need to keep that in mind. What I do think, though, and this is what maybe I'm not conveying as articulately as I should, is that individual FBI agents will have a piece of that puzzle. And if they are subjected to subpoena, or they face potential liability, you could see pieces of this coming out from individual offices of the FBI, individual U.S. attorney's offices. And by the way, courts, right? I mean, there are a number of judges that have access to some of these records in their courthouses. We found out just months ago that the Trump administration asked the grand jury to unseal its testimony. So clearly they have that in their possession. Yeah. So I think that what this is going to look like is less in 30 days, we get the complete Epstein files. I just, you know, I'll be thrilled if I'm proven wrong, but I don't think that's right. I think that they will release some files and none of them will mention Donald Trump. And then they will say, you know, that's either that's everything, or it's where we had to start somewhere, and this is where we started, right? Like, they'll do something like that. But I think what's going to happen over the course of the next year is once we started to see the state produce records, and then you saw Republicans in the House vote the way they did, there is just a lot more momentum for these secondary and tertiary players, whether it is individual U.S. attorneys or assisted U.S. attorneys, whether it's FBI agents, whether it's other companies, you know, JPMorgan presumably has JPMorgan's records, right? Or for that matter, whether it's the victims who have, you know, been victimized throughout this process and are no doubt scared of, you know, of coming forward. But, you know, bravery begets bravery. And once the dam starts to break, you know, it tends to break more. So I'm not saying we're going to get everything, but I think we're in for getting a lot more. Well, there's also the reality that if we do see other sources start to release those files, then the Trump administration, by virtue of not releasing something, feels like they're still engaged in a cover-up. And so they have to make that calculation where they're seeing that the files are released. And so if they're not helping, they're opposing. Like, if they're not in support of this effort to get some transparency, then they are actively engaged in a cover-up and preventing transparency. It's binary. So they have to choose which side they want to be on. If these files are getting released anyway, would they rather be the ones releasing them themselves so that at least they have some plausible deniability that they're not continuously engaged in a cover-up? Or is it fine and they want to continue just to oppose any chance they get, even if they look like they're doing the cover-up that they are doing? Yeah. And I think you raise a really important point because I suspect somewhere in the White House right now, they are trying to make a decision with Pam Bondi around two sets of documents that they just have to make a call on. The first is the sketch. Now, remember, the sketch is something that Donald Trump has sued the Wall Street Journal over saying it is fake. It does not exist. It is not accurate. Well, the Department of Justice almost certainly has that document, right? It is hard to believe that the Department of Justice would not have subpoenaed that birthday book and wouldn't have it. So the first question that the Department of Justice has to decide is, does it just produce that because it's already out there? And on the one hand, you would say, yeah, they would do that because if they don't, it's like a glaring red siren that they did not comply with this law. But the flip side is that they humiliate Donald Trump. The flip side is they humiliate Donald Trump, right? So that's the first. The second is the 23,000 emails. I mean, every one of those emails, there's a hundred percent chance the Department of Justice has. I mean, those emails that the estate has are copies or originals, you know, electronic copies or electronic originals. But there's another set of those in the possession of the Department of Justice. So the question is, do they then just produce those 23,000 and somehow argue, well, there wasn't one more or one less email than exactly the ones that the state put out, which is kind of unbelievable, right? But if they don't put them out, that's also unbelievable. So I think that those two productions are going to put the White House and the Department of Justice in a box immediately because there's not going to be the grounds to say that those can't be released under any exception because they're already out in the But as you say, authenticating them, which is the technical legal term, authenticating the sketch would be humiliating to the president. And even authenticating the emails, I think, would have a, you know, would have a real impact on the White House. Well, as I mentioned, we're going to get some resolution here because by law, everything has to be released within about three and a half weeks from now. So this is fast moving. But as soon as we have any updates, we'll bring them to you. Mark, as I mentioned, is doing excellent coverage of this in Democracy Docket. So I'm going to put the link to Democracy Docket right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. So if you want to follow along with the coverage that way, that is an excellent option. And of course, we'll be doing more videos of Democracy Watch as well. So I'm going to put the link to this channel on the screen also. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen. I'm Mark Elias. This is Democracy Watch.