Bondi Points The Finger

The former AG offers little new information at her appearance in front of the Oversight Committee.

This article is part six of a series called The Epstein Administration, in which we break through the noise of the Epstein files, report the truth, and demand transparency and accountability. Read parts one, two, three, four, and five.

On Friday, May 29, after months of anticipation and a high-profile rescheduling, Pam Bondi finally appeared before the House Oversight Committee to answer questions about the Department of Justice’s handling of the Epstein files. In her prepared opening remarks, Bondi wrote that “since day one of this process, this Department has been committed to accountability and transparency.”

It’s an unserious claim to kick off an unserious interview in an increasingly unserious investigation. A transcript has yet to be released, but Democrats on the committee told the press that Bondi answered few questions and largely attempted to shift blame onto Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who served as Deputy Attorney General under Bondi.

Bondi’s prepared remarks began with a full-throated deflection: “As the head of a large Department with broad responsibilities, I did not lead every aspect of this effort or conduct that document review myself. I delegated oversight over this process to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.”

Her fingerpointing was unquestionably self-serving, but the Oversight Committee should use it as a basis to bring in more DOJ officials for questioning. If she wasn’t overseeing the document review, bring in the people who were, as well as the agents and lawyers who reviewed the documents and made decisions about withholding and redacting information.

This, of course, assumes that the committee is interested in pursuing answers; the conduct of its members around Bondi’s interview casts doubt on that base expectation.

Even without Bondi’s testimony on Friday, the committee should have been planning to call Todd Blanche. As of now, he has not been subpoenaed or otherwise asked to speak to the committee. How could any investigation over the Epstein matter exclude one of the highest officials in the Department of Justice, who has been the administration’s most active spokesperson about the investigation, and who is now auditioning for the Department’s top job?

Bondi also reportedly referenced Kash Patel, dogged by scandals of his own, repeatedly. The New York Times reported that Bondi said several times that the committee needed to “ask Mr. Blanche and Mr. Patel” about the document review. In one such exchange, Bondi maintained that she was not involved in the drafting of the unsigned July 2025 memo in which the DOJ and FBI claimed Epstein had no co-conspirators and further disclosure would not be warranted. Additionally, Rep. Ro Khanna said that Bondi alleged that some FBI documents were “scrubbed” before even reaching her at DOJ.

If Bondi’s contention that she delegated the “document review” process to Blanche and Patel is correct, the committee should ask them about why DOJ failed to protect witness information and what is hiding behind its voluminous redactions. If she is correct that the FBI edited documents before they were sent to DOJ, Patel should explain what information was so sensitive it could not be shared even within DOJ.

But, even more than Bondi’s silence, perhaps the most telling aspect of her testimony: Chairman Comer was reportedly the only Republican member of the committee to appear at Bondi’s interview. That means at least half the committee did not attend Bondi’s hearing.

How is it possible that the Attorney General who kicked off this inquiry by claiming she had the Epstein list on her desk last year and subsequently oversaw the release of the Epstein files—the issue the committee claims it’s investigating—was not a significant witness in the eyes of half of the committee? The message the Republican members of the committee send with their absence is that the “investigation” amounts to partisan theatre.

Any serious investigation would be flagrantly incomplete without testimony from Bondi. Then again, this is not a serious investigation.

Home of the Brave exists to show Americans the real-world consequences of this administration’s policies, and to highlight what bravery looks like in defense of American democracy.