Pam Bondi backpedaling? Breaking down her Epstein files testimony

[0:00] It was a busy day Friday on Capitol Hill because lawmakers say former Attorney General Pam Bondi [0:05] attempted to distance herself from the DOJ's handling of the Epstein files during testimony [0:09] before the House Oversight Committee. In a closed-door meeting on Friday, Bondi, who was [0:14] fired in April, declined to answer questions from members about the president's involvement in [0:18] anything connected to the documents. She told committee members her former deputy, now acting [0:23] AG Todd Blanche, was actually the one responsible for determining which documents would be released, [0:28] along with repeatedly punting to FBI Director Cash Patel. Democrats say they're going to subpoena [0:33] both of those officials next, or at least that they want to. It might be difficult given the fact that [0:38] they're still in the minority. Bondi also conceded the documents released had redaction errors, [0:43] which included victims' names and other identifying information, but said the department, quote, [0:47] has been committed to accountability and transparency. I want to bring in former litigator and MS Now [0:53] legal reporter, Lisa Rubin. Lisa, I was struck by the ways that Bondi, behind closed doors, [1:00] tried to punt to Patel, tried to punt to Todd Blanche, effectively saying, yeah, I was the one [1:05] in charge, but I really let them handle a lot of the specifics around the release. I think there's a [1:11] few reasons why she might have done that. I wonder if that was one of your central takeaways, what you [1:15] think of that strategy, and if it actually even helps anyone get to the goal, which is actually [1:20] accountability here. Well, let's start in reverse, Ali. It certainly doesn't help anyone get to the [1:25] goal of accountability because members of the committee knew what Pam Bondi was saying to be [1:30] true in part, that Todd Blanche was in fact the person who captained the ship of the response to [1:36] the Epstein Files Transparency Act. But two things can be true. It can both be that Pam Bondi was a [1:42] little bit obstreperous with respect to the committee, and it can also be true that Todd Blanche and [1:48] Kash Patel were primarily responsible for marshalling the two agencies' response to the act. [1:54] I think that the committee understood well before Pam Bondi walked into the room that if you want to [1:59] talk to someone at the Department of Justice who understood the ins and outs of how documents were [2:04] reviewed, how documents were redacted, how documents were withheld from Congress, and more importantly, [2:10] the public, the person to ask would have been Todd Blanche. It remains to be seen, however, [2:16] whether the committee has the votes to compel Mr. Blanche to come before it and talk about what [2:21] that experience was like. Yeah, I was going to say, that's one of the next steps. I had a member [2:25] on with me on Friday afternoon who was basically saying, we want to subpoena these two individuals [2:30] now. And frankly, that's what the Epstein survivors themselves would like to see happen. But the realities [2:35] in Congress make that really difficult. And so I guess for those who are wondering, all right, [2:39] will we ever know what we don't know in terms of the files that haven't been released? [2:43] What's the answer? Well, I think conversations with Robert Garcia are always illuminating because [2:49] it suggests to us what might happen with this probe if Democrats were to retake the House. [2:55] And when you talk to Mr. Garcia, he will absolutely say that this for him doesn't end with the midterm [3:01] elections, that he has an interest in continuing to try and get at the truth, irrespective of whether [3:07] it leads to further criminal investigations or not. And so in that respect, after November, [3:12] we may have a better sense of whether Todd Blanche and Kash Patel are subpoenaed to come before the [3:17] committee. But I would hope that one way or the other, the committee does subpoena Mr. Blanche, [3:23] because I do think that he has a much more granular understanding than Ms. Bondi does of how this [3:29] process went down. At the same time, Ali, you and I both know Buck stops with the attorney general. [3:33] Certainly somebody else handled this was not a sufficient answer, for example, when Eric Holder [3:38] or Merrick Garland were called to come before the committee. I think you're absolutely right to [3:42] bring in both the context and also the reality check. The other thing that I'm interested in [3:47] is the fact that DOJ is basically getting a chance to review the transcript of what Bondi said [3:52] before the committee puts it out. We're not quite sure the timeline on this yet. We're hoping that it's [3:57] quick. But when you see that DOJ is able to do that, what does it tell you potentially about what's [4:03] happening behind the scenes? And the fact that also two DOJ officials were actually in the room [4:07] with Pam Bondi, my understanding from sources is that they didn't say a ton, but they did sort of [4:11] keep the guardrails on in terms of what they felt Bondi was and wasn't able to talk about. [4:16] Well, I think it's important here that we sort of express to our viewers that what that process is [4:21] going like, even though it involves the Department of Justice as opposed to private counsel, [4:24] that's not unusual. That's a prerogative that's given to other people who come before the committee [4:29] for a transcribed interview. For example, it was given to Howard Lutnick. It was also given to [4:33] Sarah Kellen, who is accused of being someone who helped Epstein accomplish his deeds. But that, [4:38] you know, that prerogative was given to them as well. I don't expect that it will affect [4:42] the outcome of what we actually see in the transcript. On the other hand, [4:46] if when the transcript is released, we see it replete with redactions, that's a note to us [4:51] that the majority on the committee, meaning the Republicans led by Jim Comer and the Department [4:57] of Justice, were both supportive of some broad-based redactions that will just fuel [5:02] the conspiracy theories about whether or not the Trump administration or Republicans in Congress [5:07] really are genuine in their interest in getting to the bottom of the Epstein matter. [5:12] Yep. And it's a reminder that majority power in Congress wins in terms of who gets to control what [5:18] the state of play actually looks like. And then, of course, what I've had Democratic members on the [5:23] committee say to me is, whatever they end up redacting, we were in that room, and we'll be able [5:26] to tell you what was actually said, whether or not it was agreed on in the transcript or not. [5:31] MSNOW senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin, thank you as always.