Pam Bondi Ran From April 14th. Contempt Was Filed. She Had to Come Back on 19 May.

Added: 2026-05-19

[00:00:08]Introduction. The room she could not run from. There are moments in a long accountability chain when everything that has been building finally arrives at a single point. May 29th, 2026 was one of those moments. Pam Bondi sat in a closed door room before the House Oversight Committee. She was no longer the Attorney General of the United States. She had no office. She had no department behind her. She had no ability to invoke institutional positions or redirect questions to spokespersons or cite pending prosecal decisions as reasons she could not discuss specific facts. She was a private citizen sitting across from a bipartisan committee that had filed contempt charges against her when she tried to avoid this exact moment by not showing up on April 14th. The questions waiting for her in that room had been building for more than a year across five hearings conducted by Ted Leu and other members of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees. across a formal perjury accusation sent in writing on February 25th, 2026 to the deputy attorney general by two sitting members of Congress, who are both former prosecutors. across a watchdog complaint documenting that only a handful of Bondi's own communications appeared in over 2 million released pages of Epstein documents despite her central and documented role in deciding what got released and what did not. across Brian Driscoll's CNN interview with Anderson Cooper 3 days before May 29th in which the former acting FBI director said Kos Patel told him directly that his own job security depended on removing agents who had worked on cases involving the president and across the documented gap between what Bondi said on live television early in her tenure that Epstein's client list was sitting on her desk right now to view and what the DOJ's official memo said months later that there was no such list. All of that was in the room on May 29th. This video is the complete documented account of what that moment was, how it got there, and what the record now shows after it happened. We are going to go through the full timeline, every prior evasion, every documented contradiction, every hearing exchange, every watchdog complaint, and every piece of new information that arrived in the days before Bondi sat down. No conclusions drawn for you, no verdicts before any jury has spoken, just the record in sequence exactly as it exists. Let's start at the beginning. how we got here, the full timeline. To understand what May 29th meant, you need to understand the full sequence of events that produced it, not just the last few weeks, the entire documented chain from the moment Bondi first made a specific public claim about the Epstein files to the moment she sat in that closed door room. Early in her tenure as attorney general, Bondi appeared on Fox News and said she had Epstein's client list sitting on her desk right now to review.

[00:03:37]That statement created a specific, verifiable public expectation. The list existed. She had it. She was looking at it. Then the DOJ's July 2025 memo arrived. The memo concluded that an extensive internal review found no credible evidence sufficient to charge any third party. It said there was no client list in the form the public had been led to expect. No list, no names, no new charges. The distance between sitting on my desk right now to review and there is no list is not a nuance. It is the distance between two contradictory statements about whether a specific document exists. Both are documented. Both are in the public record. They cannot both be accurate. In September 2025, Cash Patel appeared before the House Judiciary Committee.

[00:04:34]Democratic lawmakers played his own prior media appearances on the screens in the hearing room while he sat in the witness chair and watched himself demanding transparency about the Epstein files before he had the power to act on that demand. Then he had the power and the files were not fully released. Ted Louu took the microphone. He pushed Patel on whether the FBI had subpoenenaed journalist Michael Wolf's taped interviews with Epstein. Patel said he did not know if the FBI had subpoenaed those tapes. The FBI director did not know whether his own agency had subpoenenaed material in the most significant sex trafficking case in American history. Leu said that's just false. You're the freaking FBI. Thomas Massie, a Republican, cited FBI form 302, witness interview summaries and asked Patel whether he had personally reviewed the victim testimony he had been publicly characterizing. Patel said, "If I personally know, but the FBI has." The FBI director had not personally read the victim testimony he was publicly characterizing as noncredible.

[00:05:49]In November 2025, Massie forced a 427 to1 vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, one of the most lopsided votes in recent congressional history. Trump signed it. The December deadline was missed. The redaction technology failed publicly. Blacked out text could be revealed by copying and pasting it into another application. The January 30th, 2026 release followed. 3.5 million pages, approximately 2,000 videos, 180,000 images. Victims names were exposed without consent. Co-conspirators names were redacted.

[00:06:35]Attorney Brad Edwards described the failures as thousands of mistakes. On February 11th, 2026, Bondi testified before the House Judiciary Committee for 5 hours. Epstein's survivors sat directly behind her. Lou presented a 21page internal DOJ slideshow summarizing witness testimony and said on the record that he believed Bondi had just lied under oath. Bondi said, "Don't you ever accuse me of a crime." She did not retract the statement. She did not explain the discrepancy.

[00:07:14]Representative Primila Gyipol asked Bondi to turn around and face the survivors sitting directly behind her.

[00:07:22]Bondi said she was deeply sorry for what they had suffered. She did not turn around. Massie confronted Bondi about Les Wexner's name being redacted from FBI documents that labeled Fim as a co-conspirator.

[00:07:37]Bondi testified that the name was added back within 40 minutes of them raising the issue. Massie said, "Within 40 minutes of me catching you red-handed."

[00:07:47]Bondi called Massie a failed politician with Trump derangement syndrome. Massie said, "This is bigger than Watergate.

[00:07:56]This goes over four administrations.

[00:07:58]This coverup spans decades and you are responsible for this portion of it." On February 25th, 2026, Lou and Representative Dan Goldman sent a formal perjury referral to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch requesting a special counsel to investigate whether Bondi had committed perjury. No special counsel was appointed. No formal response was issued. On March 4th, 2026, the Republican-led House Oversight Committee voted 24-19 to subpoena Bondi. Five Republicans voted with every Democrat. The subpoena was bipartisan. On April 2nd, 2026, Trump said, "I think it's time." Bondi was fired. Four words, 14 months of authority, gone. The DOJ argued the subpoena was moot because she was no longer attorney general. Committee members from both parties said the subpoena followed the person, not the office. April 14th arrived. Bondi did not appear. Democrats filed a civil contempt resolution. 45 minutes later, Republicans announced May 29th. And on May 12th, 2026, three days before this recording, Brian Driscoll sat across from Anderson Cooper on CNN and said Patel told him his own job depended on removing agents who had worked on Trump cases. The lawsuit, naming both Patel and Bondi as defendants, contained the same allegation under oath. That is the complete timeline. every step documented, every evasion recorded, and every piece of it waiting in the room on May 29th.

[00:09:45]The contempt that forced the date. The 45minut sequence on April 29th, 2026 is the most revealing moment of this entire accountability chain because it shows exactly where the power was. Democratic Representative Robert Garcia announced the civil contempt resolution at a specific time. He said publicly that Bondi had illegally defied the committee, had skipped her legally required deposition, and had refused to cooperate. He said the committee was beginning the formal process to hold her in contempt and compel her testimony in federal court. He called it what it was, illegal defiance of a congressional subpoena. 45 minutes later, Republicans on the same committee announced May 29th. The Republican response characterized the contempt resolution as theater and completely unnecessary. The committee's Republican social media account posted that Democrats could only talk about Epstein while Republicans were working on important legislation.

[00:10:50]That response is documented. It called the contempt process theater, and it announced the very outcome the contempt process was designed to produce within 45 minutes of the theater beginning.

[00:11:02]Garcia said clearly we are being effective. He said it is interesting how it is only when we take action when we actually have to force Republicans to do anything that they actually ever do anything. That statement is in the public record. It is a specific and documented observation about what produced the May 29th date. not cooperation, not good faith scheduling, a contempt resolution that made the alternative to May 29th something nobody on either side of the aisle wanted.

[00:11:37]Representative Melanie Stansbury said Bondi had repeatedly engaged in manufactured lies to the American people over the Epstein case. She said based on what she had seen in the unredacted files, there are dozens of potentially prosecutable crimes in the Epstein files that were never investigated.

[00:11:56]Dozens of potentially prosecutable crimes not investigated by the attorney general, whose testimony was compelled by a contempt resolution. Representative Ro K Connor compared Bondi's situation to Hillary Clinton's congressional testimony, saying if Congress could pursue Clinton, who hadn't been in office for 20 years, they could certainly get Bondi to explain why she covered up documents and why there had been no prosecutions.

[00:12:26]All of those statements are in the documented public record. They established the documented basis for what May 29th was before it even happened. What was waiting in that room?

[00:12:38]The complete documented record. The room on May 29th contained more than committee members and a witness. It contained a year's worth of documented contradictions, formal accusations, watchdog complaints, and unresolved questions that had never been put directly to Bondi as a private citizen without institutional protection. The first thing waiting in that room was the Fox News statement. sitting on her desk right now to review versus the DOJ memo.

[00:13:10]There was no list. That contradiction has never been resolved in any formal accountability setting on May 29th. It had to be. The second thing waiting was the February 11th exchange with Lou. her statement that there is no evidence that Donald Trump committed a crime versus the 21-page internal DOJ slideshow that Lou said directly contradicted that statement. The formal perjury referral sent to Blanch on February 25th citing that specific statement and that specific document. None of that had been resolved. On May 29th, she had to address it. The third thing was the watchdog complaint. The Democracy Defenders Fund had documented that only a handful of Bondi's communications appeared in over two million released pages of Epstein documents. The DOJ's response had called the complaint a tired narrative. That response was not an explanation of where the communications were. It was a characterization of the allegation. On May 29th, she had to explain where her communications were. The fourth thing was the Maxwell transfer. 6 days after Gileain Maxwell's two-day interview with Todd Blanch, in which she described Trump cabinet members in connection with Epstein, Maxwell was transferred to a minimum security prison not designed for sex offenders. When Adam Schiff asked Patel who made that decision, Patel said, "The Bureau of Prisons." and I am not in the weeds on the everyday movements of inmates. Bondi was the attorney general. The Bureau of Prisons operates under the DOJ. On May 29th, she had to say what she knew about that transfer. The fifth thing was the Less Wexner redaction. Massie had documented that Wexner's name was redacted from FBI documents that labeled him as a co-conspirator.

[00:15:15]Bondi had testified at the February hearing that the name was restored within 40 minutes of them raising it, but she had not answered who made the decision to redact it in the first place or whether that decision reflected a systematic policy. On May 29th, she had to answer those questions. The sixth thing was the victim exposure. The January release had exposed the identities of thousands of Epstein survivors while redacting the names of co-conspirators.

[00:15:46]Attorney Brad Edwards called it thousands of mistakes. Survivor Annie Farmer said there was no explanation for how it could have been done so poorly.

[00:15:57]Bondie's department made those decisions. On May 29th, she had to explain them. And the seventh thing waiting in that room, the newest and most specific was Brian Driscoll's CNN interview 3 days before May 29th.

[00:16:14]Driscoll's bombshell 3 days before. On May 12th, 2026, 3 days before this recording and 17 days before Bondi sat in that room, Brian Driscoll sat across from Anderson Cooper on CNN. Driscoll briefly served as acting director of the FBI before Cash Patel was confirmed. He was a 20-year veteran, Medal of Valor recipient, Shield of Bravery award recipient, special agent in charge of the FBI's Newark field office. He told Cooper that during the vetting process for the deputy director position, he was asked who he voted for in the 2024 election, whether he had donated to the Democratic party, and whether he was active on social media. He said Patel told him directly the vetting would go smoothly as long as he was not active on social media, had not donated to the Democratic Party, and had not voted for Kala Harris. Driscoll said, "It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up."

[00:17:20]Then he described the list. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Boove asked him to produce a list of all FBI employees who had worked on Trump investigations. All of them, 6,000 names. Driscoll asked why. Bove said cultural rot in the FBI. Driscoll said I was telling them this is wrong. He did not produce the list. Instead, he sent a bureau email to all 38,000 FBI employees informing them of what had been requested. Then, Bove gave him a list of eight specific field leaders and executive assistant directors to fire.

[00:18:01]All had worked on January 6th investigations. Several were close to retirement. Driscoll pleaded with Bove to let them reach retirement to protect their pensions. He received termination memos days later. Patel fired Driscoll in August 2025 without explanation. A month later, Driscoll filed a federal lawsuit against Patel, against Bondi, against the FBI, against the DOJ, against the executive office of the president. The lawsuit alleges that Patel admitted his ability to keep his own job depended on the removal of agents who had worked on cases involving the president. The DOJ has moved to dismiss the case. Bove, who made the list request, did not respond to CNN's request for comment. He is now a federal appellet judge confirmed to a lifetime appointment. But the allegation is in a sworn federal lawsuit. It is in the CNN interview. It is in the public record.

[00:19:05]And it was waiting in the room on May 29th in the form of a direct documented connection between the firing of FBI agents and the attorney general who oversaw the institution where those firings occurred. Driscoll told Cooper, "You take all of these highly experienced people with the perspective gained through that experience through success and failure alike and remove them. It is devastating to the workforce, not just for the morale, but also the stability of the organization and the faith in it from the people inside of it and the people outside of it. That statement is now in the public record. It is the most direct firstp person account yet of what the federal lawsuits have been alleging for months, and it arrived 3 days before Bondi had to sit in a room and explain what she knew about it. Ted Lee's five hearings and the questions that were never answered. Ted Leu built a documented record across five consecutive hearings between September 2025 and February 2026. His methodology is the foundation of what May 29th was designed to produce. He finds a specific statement.

[00:20:20]He finds a specific document that contradicts or complicates it. He asks a specific question in a hearing room on the record. He notes when the question is not answered and he moves to the next document. Over five hearings that method produced a cumulative record that no single answer or deflection resolved and each unresolved element of that record was waiting on May 29th. At the September 2025 House Judiciary hearing, Leu established two foundational contradictions that connected directly to Bondi. He established that Patel did not know whether the FBI had subpoenenaed specific evidence in the Epstein case. The FBI director, the person who reported to the attorney general, did not know the details of specific investigative decisions within his own agency. Bondi was overseeing that agency. She was responsible for the institutional environment in which the FBI director did not know basic facts about his own bureau's investigative activity. He established that Patel had not personally reviewed the victim testimony he was publicly characterizing. The FBI director had made specific public statements about the content of evidence he had not read.

[00:21:42]that happened within an institutional structure Bondi ran. At the February 11th hearing, Leu produced the exchange that led directly to the formal perjury accusation against Bondi herself. He presented footage of Trump and Epstein together. He asked Bondi a direct question. Bondi said there is no evidence that Donald Trump committed a crime. Leu presented the 21page internal DOJ slideshow. He said, "On the record, I believe you just lied under oath."

[00:22:16]Bondi said, "Don't you ever accuse me of a crime." She did not explain the discrepancy. She did not retract the statement. She challenged the accusation. On February 25th, Leu and Goldman sent the formal perjury referral to Blanch. two sitting members of Congress, both former prosecutors, formally accusing a sitting attorney general of perjury in writing with documentation on the record. No special counsel was appointed. The referral sits in the permanent congressional record.

[00:22:51]It was waiting in the room on May 29th.

[00:22:55]Leu also documented a specific late night message from Patel's office sent 3 days after he became director. It read, "The two files we discussed will be under administrative review by tomorrow morning as promised. Is there anything else expected from me?" "As promised."

[00:23:14]Leu asked who that promise was made to.

[00:23:17]Patel said nothing for 47 seconds. A Republican colleague asked the same question on the record. Patel declined to answer whether the promise was made inside or outside the government. That exchange connects to Bondi because the secure message was sent from Patel's office to the senior advisory division of the Department of Justice, the department Bondi ran. The question of whether Bondi knew about communications between Patel's office and senior DOJ officials about placing specific investigation files under administrative review is directly relevant to her May 29th testimony.

[00:23:58]what Bondi had to answer as a private citizen. The May 29th transcribed interview was a closed door proceeding.

[00:24:06]The transcript may or may not be made public depending on committee decisions, but the questions that committee members had the documented basis to ask are specific and grounded in the public record. on the client list statement.

[00:24:21]You said publicly on Fox News that Epstein's client list was sitting on your desk right now to review. Was that accurate? If yes, why did the DOJ's subsequent official memo state there was no such list? If no, what were you referring to? On the February 11th testimony, you said under oath that there is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime. Representatives Leu and Goldman subsequently sent a formal perjury referral to the deputy attorney general citing a specific DOJ document that they said directly contradicted that statement. Is your February 11th statement accurate? And if so, how do you reconcile it with the document they cited? on the missing communications. A formal watchdog complaint documented that only a handful of your communications appear in over two million released pages of Epstein documents despite your central role in the release process. Where are those communications? Were they withheld, excluded, destroyed? On the Maxwell transfer, Gileain Maxwell was transferred to a minimum security facility not suitable for sex offenders.

[00:25:36]6 days after her interview with Todd Blanch during which she described Trump cabinet members in connection with Epstein. Were you consulted about that transfer? Did you approve it? Were you informed about what Maxwell said in the interview before the transfer was made?

[00:25:53]on the Driscoll lawsuit. You were named as a defendant in Brian Driscoll's federal lawsuit alleging that FBI agents were fired based on their work on Trumprelated cases in violation of federal law. The lawsuit alleges that Patel told Driscoll his own job security depended on those removals. Were you aware that Patel was making that statement to senior FBI officials? Did you know that the vetting process for the deputy director position included questions about who candidates had voted for? On the 6,000 name list, were you informed that acting deputy attorney general Emil Boveve had requested a list of all FBI employees who had worked on Trump investigations? Did you approve that request? Did you direct it? Did you know about it? on the victim exposure.

[00:26:47]The January release exposed the identities of thousands of Epstein survivors while redacting the names of co-conspirators. Your department made those decisions. Who authorized the approach that produced those results?

[00:27:02]Did you personally review the protocols for victim protection before the release? On the Less Wexner redaction, who made the decision to redact Wexner's name from FBI documents that labeled him as a co-conspirator? Was that a systematic policy decision? Did you know about it before Massie raised it in the February hearing on the survivors? At the February hearing, Representative Gyipal asked you to turn around and face the survivors sitting behind you. You declined. What was the basis for that decision? On the missing 2.5 million pages, approximately 2.5 million pages identified by the DOJ as potentially responsive to the Transparency Act remain unreleased. What happened to those pages? What was the basis for not releasing them? Were your communications with Blanch and Patel about those decisions included in the release? Those are 10 specific documented questions, each grounded in the public record, each one waiting in that room on May 29th.

[00:28:07]Cash Patel's role in everything she was asked. Cash Patel is still the FBI director and his documented record is inseparable from everything Bondie faced on May 29th because they ran the two most senior institutions in this story simultaneously and the decisions they made were intertwined. Patel privately told officials that Trump's name is in the Epstein files according to the Wall Street Journal. Under oath, he declined to confirm whether Trump's name appears in the files. He said publicly, "There is no credible information connecting Epstein to anyone other than Epstein himself." He sent a late night secure message saying, "As promised," and then refused to tell Congress who he made that promise to. A Republican colleague asked the same question on the record.

[00:28:58]Patel declined to answer. He admitted under oath that he had not personally reviewed the victim testimony he was publicly characterizing. He fired Driscoll without explanation. He asked Driscoll who he voted for during the vetting process for deputy director. He told Driscoll, according to the federal lawsuit, that his own job depended on removing agents who had worked on Trump cases. He used a government jet to fly to Scotland to play golf to Italy for the Winter Olympics to see his girlfriend perform. a 27-year FBI veteran who oversaw the jet fleet was fired the day after the girlfriend story broke. He fired counterintelligence agents responsible for monitoring Iranian espionage days before the war with Iran began. Senator Durban said on the Senate floor that Patel had deliberately undermined the FBI's ability to counter Iranian threats and had become a national security risk. The Atlantic published a report citing more than two dozen sources describing him as erratic, often unreachable, and visibly drunk around administration staff. His $250 million defamation lawsuit against the magazine is pending. Ted Leu said publicly that Patel is next. Tucker Carlson said Patel was making a huge mistake by promising to reveal things and then not revealing them. Dan Bonino, his own deputy director, reportedly considered resigning over the refusal to release the full files. Patel's documented record is the context for every question Bondi faced about the FBI's handling of the Epstein files, about the firings of decorated agents, about the institutional damage Senator Durban described as a national security risk. Because Patel ran the FBI and Bondi ran the DOJ and the FBI operates under the DOJ.

[00:31:01]Every decision Patel made happened within an institutional structure that Bondi oversaw. She was responsible for what happened in the institution her director was running. And on May 29th, she had to explain what she knew about all of it. The watchdog investigations running in parallel.

[00:31:22]May 29th did not exist in isolation from the broader accountability apparatus that was running simultaneously. The DOJ Inspector General announced it was investigating the AY's compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. That investigation is examining the decisions made during Bondi's tenure. What was released? What was withheld? What protocols were followed? What protocols were not followed? Its findings will be measured against whatever Bondi said on May 29th. Senator Jeff Mkeley announced that the Government Accountability Office, Congress's Independent Watchdog, would also probe the DOJ's handling of the Epstein files. Two separate watchdogs, two separate investigations, both examining the same decisions, both running in parallel with Bondi's testimony. The Democracy Defenders Fund watchdog complaint remains in the public record. Only a handful of Bondi's communications appear in over 2 million pages. The DOJ called it a tired narrative. That characterization is not an explanation of where the communications are. Approximately 2.5 million pages remain unreleased.

[00:32:40]Massie's 30-day warning to Blanch is documented and public. The clock is running. The prison guard on duty the night Epstein died is still scheduled for congressional testimony. The date remains uncertain, but the scheduling exists. Driscoll's lawsuit is active in federal court. The DOJ has moved to dismiss it. Whether that motion succeeds will be determined by a federal judge.

[00:33:08]The specific legal claims that FBI agents were fired based on their case assignments in violation of federal civil service protections have not been adjudicated. And the formal perjury referral from Lou and Goldman sits unanswered in the public record. Blanch, to whom it was addressed, is now the acting general attorney responsible for responding to it. He has not responded publicly.

[00:33:36]All of those parallel processes were running on May 29th. Bondi's testimony does not resolve any of them, but it adds a new layer to the documented record that all of them will eventually measure their findings against. What the record now shows and what comes next.

[00:33:57]Here is the complete documented picture as of May 17th, 2026.

[00:34:02]Pam Bondi sat in a closed door room on May 29th. She was a private citizen. She had no office. She had no institutional protection. She had a transcribed interview with a bipartisan committee that had filed contempt charges against her when she tried to run. Whatever she said in that room went into a permanent transcript that will be compared against every prior statement in the documented record. The contempt resolution that produced May 29th established formally and permanently that Bondi defied a legal subpoena that is in the congressional record regardless of what she said on May 29th. The perjury referral from Lou and Goldman is in the congressional record regardless of what she said on May 29th. It identified a specific statement. It cited specific documents. It requested a special counsel. It has not been responded to.

[00:35:04]The watchdog complaint about her missing communications is in the public record regardless of what she said on May 29th.

[00:35:12]The DOJ called it a tired narrative. The communications are still largely absent from over 2 million released pages.

[00:35:22]Driscoll's lawsuit is in federal court.

[00:35:25]It names her. It alleges that the firings of FBI agents based on their case assignments violated federal law and that she bears legal responsibility.

[00:35:36]The DOJ has moved to dismiss it. A federal judge will rule. Driscoll's CNN interview is in the public record. The former acting FBI director said Patel told him his own job depended on the purge of agents who worked on Trump cases. That statement is documented. It has not been formally disputed by Patel or the FBI. Patel is still FBI director.

[00:36:04]The Atlantic's report is standing. His defamation lawsuit against the magazine is pending. Durban called for his immediate replacement on the Senate floor. Leo said publicly that he is next. The pattern documented by MSN now under fire then fire someone is in the public record across multiple specific documented instances. Two and a half million pages remain unreleased. The prison guard who was on duty the night Epstein died is still scheduled for testimony. Two watchdog investigations are ongoing. And the question that has been at the center of this entire accountability chain, who knew what, when they knew it, and what decisions they made based on what they knew, is the question that May 29th was designed to answer. Whether the transcript of Bondi's testimony is made public, whether it produces new documented contradictions, whether it resolves any of the unresolved questions in the prior record, or whether it opens new questions that feed the next phase of the accountability chain, all of that is part of the documented story that continues. This is not over. The watchdogs are still investigating. The lawsuits are still in court. The missing pages are still missing. Patel is still at the FBI. Blanch is still the acting attorney general. Massiey's clock is still running. Leu's perjury referral is still unanswered. And the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's documented crimes are still waiting for answers that the full record has not yet produced. May 29th was not the end of this story. It was the moment when the person most responsible for what happened at the DOJ during the most consequential period of Epstein file accountability had to sit in a room without institutional protection and answer the questions that have been building for more than a year.

[00:38:11]What she said in that room will become part of the permanent record. And the permanent record is what this accountability chain has been building toward from the beginning. Subscribe and turn on notifications. This channel covers every development with verified sources and documented evidence. We will be here when the May 29th transcript is released, when the watchdog findings come, when the federal courts rule and when whatever comes next arrives.

[00:38:41]Because this story does not end when someone sits in a room. It ends when the questions get answered. And the questions are not done