Pam Bondi drops SHOCK update on Epstein files

Pam Bondi sent another letter to the federal judge overseeing the Ghislaine Maxwell case, detailing ongoing record review efforts. The hosts dismiss this as 'excuses,' noting that the December 19th deadline for file release was missed, and only 12,000 out of millions of records have been produced despite previous claims of extensive review.

Pam Bondi's letter to the federal judge; prior statements by Pam Bondi and Cash Patel about reviewing 300 gigabytes of records.

The hosts argue that judges are traditionally bound by assumptions of good faith when the Department of Justice makes statements, even when court orders or federal statutes are disregarded. This deference prevents judges from imposing consequences like sanctions or appointing a special master, allowing the DOJ to continue delaying.

Discussion of judges 'disregarding orders' and 'disregarding a federal statute' without imposing consequences; the judiciary's 'traditions of assuming' DOJ statements are in 'good faith.'

Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie suggested appointing a special master, likely a retired, respected judge, to take over the review and release of the Epstein files. This solution was presented as non-punitive and capable of leveraging resources the DOJ claims it lacks, but the judge did not agree to it.

Congressman Kana and Congressman Massie 'gave the judge a pretty good solution'; 'hire a special master, appoint a special master, you know, probably a retired judge.'

The hosts assert that the White House and Department of Justice are deliberately preventing the public from seeing the Epstein files because they know the content would be incriminating. They suspect a 'semiparalysis' within the DOJ, where higher-ups are reviewing records to control what is released and in what sequence.

'The White House and Department of Justice that clearly don't want you, the people watching this video, to see the Epstein files'; 'I think it's because... the Department of Justice is in a state of semiparalis.'

The DOJ is criticized for claiming insufficient resources for the Epstein files while actively pursuing other projects, such as demanding voter files from 24 states. The hosts predict that even when files are released, they will be inappropriately redacted beyond just victim names, especially videos, to conceal incriminating information.

DOJ 'trying to get voter files'; 'the legality of which is suspect at best'; 'many records were redacted in like really extensive ways that everybody was like pointing to the statute and being like you're breaking the law because you're not allowed to redact anything other than victim names.'