Rep. Zoe Lofgren Questions Pam Bondi During Heated DOJ Oversight Hearing

Added: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00]Mr. Chairman, I would note 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 here today, that we can have a transparent conversation and get the public the answers they deserve. I want to briefly direct your attention to two documents I'm hoping we will put up on the screen. Um In the first, an individual emails Jeffrey Epstein asking whether a woman identified as M was pro or civilian, and Epstein responds that she was a civilian, Russian, and fun.

[00:00:42]In 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 stating that he would try to convince her not to return to Ukraine. He then instructs Mr. Tish to call him at "I don't like records of these conversations." So, I'd like to ask a straightforward question that really is either a yes or no answer.

[00:01:08]Do these emails constitute credible evidence, not proof, but credible evidence warranting further investigation into whether Steve Tish was involved in Epstein's criminal conduct? Do you think yes or no?

[00:01:26]>> 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 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 been released, 3 million, the redacted versions. We should left them open for all of you to come view. Have you I'm I believe you viewed them. If not, well, you have some copies.

[00:01:54]>> to If Can I Let me please? I'm not being rude. Sorry.

[00:01:57]>> 5 minutes.

[00:01:58]>> No, yeah, and I only have 30 seconds based on your filibustering.

[00:02:02]>> didn't give me a yes or no answer. So, let me just go further. Director Patel testified in this committee room that there was no credible information indicating that Epstein trafficked victims to anyone else. And glancing at the documents, that proves that's not the case.

[00:02:21]Um in July, your department issued a memo stating that it had conducted an exhaustive review of 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 and all our 35 members are in the house and there's four computers. So, um it would take many months to actually have 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 possible >> wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

[00:02:59]>> It is not possible to >> Hang on. Hang on.

[00:03:00]>> to really go in. I did, however, see a US attorney information for the Southern District of New York indicating that there were additional survivors and uh probable co-conspirators.

[00:03:13]Other members of Congress have uncovered likely co-conspirators whose names were blocked out. Now, the the the Epstein file transparency act, which all but one member of this house have voted for and the president signed, requires the Department to release everything except that uh it needs to be redacted to protect the victims uh or an ongoing uh prosecution, which apparently there is none from the testimony we have received. I am concerned that this act has not been fully complied with. When Director Patel came to the 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 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 in these files.

[00:04:13]So, I think the credibility of the department in terms of complying with the act has been damaged. And I think the department's credibility has been damaged in other ways. I think we all saw the horrible video of American citizens being killed by ICE agents in Minneapolis. And I think how the department has handled these cases raises a lot of doubt about the department. State and local 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 agents defied the court order and in a depart departure from general policy, the DOJ is not collaborating with state and local law enforcement on these homicides. So, I I really think that is a disgraceful approach to the homicides of American citizens and really does nothing to bring credit to your department. And Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.

[00:05:19]>> Gentlewoman yields back.

[00:05:20]>> May I answer?

[00:05:21]>> Gentlewoman can respond.

[00:05:22]>> I I find it interesting that she keeps going after President Trump, the greatest president in American history.

[00:05:28]And and they could maintain their composure. This isn't a circus. This is a hearing.

[00:05:34]I find it interesting she keeps going after Donald Trump. She doesn't say how much money she took from Reed Hoffman.

[00:05:39]Did you?

[00:05:39]>> None.

[00:05:40]>> And nor >> Mr. Chairman, regular order, please.

[00:05:44]>> She posted nothing on her X account on her Twitter account during the Biden years.

[00:05:50]>> Gentle lady >> And yet now all of a sudden the question >> Committee will be in order.

[00:05:55]>> We will be in order. Attorney General, she doesn't just get to >> Committee will be in order.

[00:06:00]>> I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[00:06:02]>> Committee will be in order.

[00:06:03]>> Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[00:06:04]>> Gentle lady can state her point of order.

[00:06:06]>> Uh When a witness attacks >> Not a valid point of order. You got to state >> completed her point of order yet. Please let her speak, Mr. Chairman. Let's have some regular order.

[00:06:15]>> Regular order is you got to state the rule and state the rule clearly.

[00:06:17]>> I am trying to make a point of order that the witness >> And what rule are you referring to?

[00:06:22]>> without responding to a question has attacked me personally. I think it's pathetic that she can't answer the questions and instead she's attacking >> That is not even close to the point of