Pam Bondi CAUGHT in Epstein BOMBSHELL

This is Democracy Watch. Mark, we have a really interesting update here as far as the Epstein files are concerned that, in a way, kind of pits Kash Patel against Pam Bondi and, of course, implicates Donald Trump in a broader way and the Department of Justice. Can you explain what this news is? Yeah. So, you know, I wrote something for Democracy Docket recently about Donald Trump and the Epstein files and that it is possible that the old Washington axiom that it's not the crime, it's the cover-up, that in this instance, actually, Donald Trump may be saying, no, no, no, I'll live with the cover-up. I don't want the underlying conduct to come out. And in the course of doing it, you know, I went back and I dug to try to find the origin of the request for the Epstein files in this administration. And we all remember the right-wing activists holding up those binders. Pam Bondi, on February 27th, this is, you know, a month after Donald Trump takes office, she's the new attorney general, sends a letter to Kash Patel, who had just become the FBI director, and complains that, essentially, she had asked for all the Epstein files and had only gotten 200 files, and that she now understands there are a lot more, and she wants all of them, all of the Epstein files, the full set, delivered to her office, to her personally, by the next day, by February 28th. And in that letter, she says she wants the, quote, full and complete Epstein files. And she describes them as the following, all records, documents, audio and video recordings, and materials related to Jeffrey Epstein and his clients, regardless of how such information was obtained. And then she adds, for emphasis, there will be no withholdings or limitations to my or your access. So this is what she says. And, you know, now here we are in January, and we are all being told that there are now, like, 5 million records, literally, 5 million records that have not yet been reviewed. And the Department of Justice is, you know, spinning a tale of, whoa, we just found these, we didn't know, we had to collect these because of, you know, this new law. But that's not true. I mean, that just isn't true. Pam Bondi, the attorney general, had ordered the entire department to collect and deliver these records to her a year ago. And as you know, Brian, this is an administration that takes an all-of-government approach. If they really meant get me all the records, maybe they wouldn't have had it the next day, but sure as hell before we got to now, Pam Bondi would have had all of those records, which leads you to believe that either Pam Bondi never really wanted all the records, Kash Patel defied her and not provided all the records, or maybe, just maybe, someone in the White House read that same letter that I just quoted from and said, hey, everybody, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, this is not the plan. And so if all of those records were delivered to her, which presumably they were, if the attorney general of the United States asks for all the records pertaining to an investigation that the DOJ itself conducted, presumably those records would have been delivered. Is there a way to find out if indeed they were? And I ask that because ultimately, you know, as we watch this cover-up play itself out and the facts ultimately come to bear and we find out who knew what, when, this would be something that I think would be especially helpful in terms of figuring out, you know, whether something was, you know, whether these people were being transparent or whether they were suppressing information that they knew full well. Yeah, this is a potential bombshell that could blow up the entire cover story that this administration has had for months. Because as you point out, you know, Pam Bondi is not just some government official. She is the attorney general. If she says, I want these records, what that means is that every FBI agent in the country, every federal prosecutor in the country, in all the U.S. attorney's offices, in main justice, they all have to give her the record. And so we're left with really just a couple options. Like I said, number one, they somehow defied her, right? Cash Patel just said, no, not doing it. We're not giving you the records. Number two, she never really meant it and she didn't want the records. Or number three, the White House called it off. Now you point out another possibility, which is that they actually did collect all the records. And this is all a bit of ruse. And look, I think one way or the other, we need to get to the bottom of this. One way or the other, the American people deserve to know why it is that a federal law was enacted that said the records had to be produced in their entirety to Congress by December 19th. And they weren't. And not only weren't they, we are now being told by the Department of Justice that only a fraction of them have been produced. That is because they have found records they didn't know that exist. Honestly, Brian, that in and of itself is nearly impossible. I mean, it's not like there are unmarked boxes of Epstein records strewn around federal government offices. I mean, this was a high profile case. These records would have all been logged. They would have all been entered into databases. They'd all be cataloged. I mean, none of this has ever made sense. But the bombshell here is what you suggest is, you know, what was the cover up? Is this something Bondi has had? Is this something Cash Patel has had? Is this something the White House called off because they didn't want them collected? We have to get to the bottom of this. And by the way, I should note that the only outlet that's covering that, this situation right here, is yours, is Democracy Docket. I have not read anything about this in any legacy media outlet. So for everybody who's watching right now, if you want to support fearless, independent journalism that actually holds power to account, there is no better outlet than Democracy Docket. 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, trust me, as it relates to Epstein files, voting rights, corruption, whatever it may be, you're going to want to sign up for and follow Democracy Docket. Mark, it's worth asking here, in terms of actually getting some transparency on the answers to this bombshell, what's the way to do that? Is the only way for Democrats to take control of Congress and then basically have investigative power and subpoena power and bring the Cash Patels and Pam Bondis of the world in front of the committee to actually answer these questions? Yeah. I mean, look, I mean, in the olden days, as in like a few years ago, we would have the before times. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we would have said that, you know, democracy dies in darkness and that therefore the media would have run with this. The legacy media outlets, the same media outlets that, you know, pestered Barack Obama over the color of his suit. Yeah. Literally the color of the suit he was wearing, legacy media was after him. The same media that would not let Joe Biden, you know, slip a word out of context or transpose a one word with another without breathlessly covering it as if it was a national scandal. Yeah. In the old days, Brian, those people would be pressing and pressing and pressing to get an answer to this. Right. Rather than just being stenographers and saying, oh, the Department of Justice found new records. Oh, they're trying to get lawyers to work over the Christmas holidays. Oh, you know, that poor, poor DOJ is overburdened. Right. They would be investigatively looking into this and they would not let the White House stonewall them. They wouldn't move on to another topic until they got this answer. But we're not going to get that. So it is left to people like you and me and Democracy Docket to sort of press this independent media. But ultimately, you're right. Ultimately, it will only be when Democrats take control of the House and the Senate and they have subpoena power that they will be able to get to the bottom of this. Do you have confidence that we'll actually get this information exposed? The reason I ask this is because there is this there's this worry that I that I have that because the DOJ, Pam Bondi's DOJ, is in control of all of this information anyway, and kind of the the foxes are guarding the hen house. How do we know that any of these documents aren't ultimately being destroyed? For example, I know that we've gotten assurances from Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey that there are, you know, that there are victims, that there are attorneys who have a lot of this information. But I mean, we're talking about more than five million documents right now. And so if anything was destroyed at the hands of this DOJ, maybe maybe we would have somebody come out in the future and say that a document existed. But ultimately, it's kind of tantamount to he said, she said. And so the question remains, do you have confidence that what this DOJ has, notwithstanding how how incriminating it may be, that we'll get all this information? You know, look, that's, of course, the you know, the five million record question, right? I mean, you know, it's very hard to prove the negative. It's hard to prove that you got everything. I commend, you know, Congressman Khanna and Congressman Massey for being tenacious about this. But they're not in a position right now to know absent a whistleblower coming forward. They're not in a position to know whether or not, you know, they have gotten the full scope or not. And so, you know, we don't know for sure. And even worse, we don't know what's beneath all the redactions. And so, yeah, I worry that the records may get, you know, tampered with or destroyed. But honestly, Brian, almost more than that, I worry that everyone just tires of this. And they stretch out the productions for a long enough period of time. And they redact enough materials that kind of people just give up. And, you know, there is not this sort of tenacious follow up that I think we need for this scandal. So, look, that's the reason why you are and I are talking about this. It's the reason why I continue to write about it for Democracy Docket. I don't think we can fully understand the Trump presidency and part and a lot of its motivations without understanding what's going on. Well, look, as you mentioned, you have been relentless in terms of covering this stuff, oftentimes in the absence of what legacy media should be doing. So a small step everybody who's watching right now can take to keep this issue in the news, if you recognize how important it actually is, is to sign up for Democracy Docket. So I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. It's an outlet that I use on a daily basis. And it's an outlet that shows some support for the invaluable work that Mark and his team are doing, both in the courts and in the media. So again, that link is right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. And of course, if you'd like to watch more episodes of Democracy Watch, I'm going to put the link to this channel as well. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen. I'm Mark Goliath. This is Democracy Watch.