Pam Bondi faces CONSEQUENCES for Epstein coverup

The Department of Justice, specifically under the supervision of Pam Bondi, is accused of violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act by redacting and suppressing documents containing accusations against Donald Trump. The Act explicitly states that no documents could be redacted based on embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.

We now know that there were accusations against Trump that were redacted... Donald Trump, of course, is a political figure, meaning that those documents were clearly suppressed to protect him.

While the DOJ's violation of the Act seems 'undeniable,' prosecuting individuals like Pam Bondi is legally challenging. Prosecutors would need to prove specific knowledge and intent to suppress files, which would require extensive investigation, grand jury proceedings, and testimony from potentially hundreds of witnesses. Additionally, the Epstein Files Transparency Act itself lacks a specific penalty for its violation.

Prosecutors would have to prove that she knew that there were files responsive to the Epstein Files Transparency Act required to be disclosed and she specifically suppressed them. And there is no penalty attached in the federal law to a violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Despite the lack of direct penalties in the Act, potential criminal statutes like accessory after the fact or conspiracy (e.g., 371 conspiracy to defraud the United States) could apply if the suppression was intended to help someone avoid criminal responsibility. Whistleblowers, particularly former federal prosecutors like Maurene Comey, who oversaw the Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution, are vital for exposing suppressed information, but they require congressional subpoenas for legal protection against retaliation.

If you violate a federal law... and you do it to try to help somebody else avoid criminal responsibility, then you could be an accessory after the fact... You could be in a conspiracy to cover it up. I would urge members of Congress... to subpoena the Moren Comey's of this... affair because she is now in private practice. There's nothing preventing her from testifying about what she knows as long as she doesn't compromise grand jury secrecy.

Glenn Kirschner argues that if there isn't an aggressive 'scorched earth accountability mission' against the Trump administration's alleged abuses, the republic is at risk. He cites historical failures to prosecute figures like Richard Nixon and Donald Trump (regarding classified documents and election interference) as precedents that emboldened subsequent bad actors, warning that continued inaction will lead to the destruction of democracy.

If we don't go on a scorched earth accountability mission when the Trump administration falls from power, then I don't believe we deserve to keep our republic... all we're doing is giving permission, indeed encouragement for the bad actors like Trump and company to just make sure next time around they are successful in destroying our democracy.

For most crimes, the statute of limitations is five years from the completion of the crime. However, for a conspiracy, which is considered an ongoing crime, the clock does not start ticking until the very last co-conspirator commits the very last act related to that conspiracy. This means many alleged crimes within the Trump administration could still be prosecuted.

The good news about a conspiracy is it's an ongoing crime. So until the very last co-conspirator commits the very last act that could be perceived as part of that ongoing conspiracy, the the clock doesn't start to run.