INVESTIGATION: Bondi Blames Blanche for the Chaos Surrounding the Release of the Epstein Files

A discrepancy of three million pages that remains to be explained

According to the New York Post, the Department of Justice had initially identified approximately six million potentially relevant pages, of which only three million were ultimately made public. Bondi explained this discrepancy by stating that the remaining documents were either “duplicates,” “protected by legal privilege,” or “completely unrelated to Jeffrey Epstein.”

This explanation failed to convince some Democratic lawmakers, including Representative Robert Garcia of California—the highest-ranking member of the opposition on the committee—who publicly stated that “50% of the Epstein files” were still being withheld by the government, according to the New York Post.

What the Transparency Act Specifically Says

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, enacted on November 19, 2025, required the Department of Justice to release all documents related to the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein within 30 days, according to the official transcript of the hearing available on the committee’s website.

I note—though I cannot settle the matter myself—that a gap remains between the clear text of the law passed by Congress and the Department’s interpretation of what should and should not be made public, and it is precisely this type of gray area that fuels the public’s legitimate mistrust.

“He was in charge of the entire process”

According to the transcript made public, Bondi told investigators that Todd Blanche “was in charge of the process and the entire release of the Epstein files,” a statement echoed and confirmed by several media outlets, including CNN and The New York Times, after reviewing the official document.

This wording led several Democratic lawmakers present in the room to conclude, according to their own statements reported by The Guardian, that Bondi had shifted the blame for all the errors identified—including editorial issues and the protection of victims—onto her former deputy.

A Public Denial on Social Media

After her hearing, Bondi posted a message on social media calling the idea that she had sought to shift blame onto Blanche “FALSE,” describing him instead as “one of the most principled” people she knows and asserting that he was doing “Herculean work,” according to Politico and The Guardian.

I note this contradiction between the documented content of her sworn testimony regarding her recollection of the facts and her immediate public denial, without being able to say which of the two versions best reflects the internal reality of the department; only further clarification from Blanche himself would shed more light on the matter.

A prison transfer that raised questions

When asked about the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted accomplice, to a lower-security prison, Bondi stated that she “learned about it from the press or online after it happened,” denying any personal involvement in the decision, according to the New York Post.

She added that she did not want to “speculate,” but suggested that the transfer was likely due to “security reasons,” while referring specific questions to the Bureau of Federal Prisons, the agency responsible for such decisions.

A Firm Stance on the Possibility of a Presidential Pardon

When asked directly about the possibility of a presidential pardon for Maxwell, Bondi responded in the negative, stating, “I believe she should die in prison,” and calling her “a monster, just like Jeffrey Epstein,” according to the transcript cited by the New York Post.

I think this unambiguous statement on Maxwell’s fate stands in stark contrast to the vagueness surrounding other aspects of the case, which clearly illustrates the difficulty of this matter: some answers are clear-cut, while others are carefully sidestepped depending on the political stakes involved.

A systematic refusal to discuss communications with the president

Bondi has repeatedly refused to answer questions about any conversations he may have had with President Donald Trump regarding the Epstein case, citing executive privilege, according to the New York Post and Representative Garcia, who said he asked five separate questions on the matter without receiving a response.

This lack of response constitutes, at this stage, a factual limitation of the public record: no source consulted for this investigation allows us to confirm what the president knew or did not know about the contents of the Epstein files, nor whether he gave specific instructions regarding their publication.

What the White House Says

When asked about these details, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson stated that the president had been “completely exonerated of any involvement with Epstein,” according to remarks reported by The Guardian on June 4, 2026.

I note that this statement from the White House was not accompanied, in the sources consulted, by a specific report or document that would allow for independent verification; I prefer to state this clearly rather than present this statement as an established fact.

A Testimony Without an Oath Deemed Problematic

Several Democratic lawmakers strongly criticized the agreement that allowed Bondi to testify without taking an oath and without video recording, arguing that this format weakened the evidentiary value of her testimony to the American public, according to remarks reported in a video by the local news outlet affiliated with the committee.

Committee Chairman James Comer, however, defended the arrangement, stating that the committee would still release the full written transcript—which it did on June 4, 2026.

A Political Battle That Goes Beyond the Epstein Case Alone

This procedural controversy is part of a broader context of tensions between the Republican majority and the Democratic opposition within the committee, with each side accusing the other of exploiting the case for political gain, according to several video reports reviewed for this investigation.

I believe that this battle over the format of the hearing—as legitimate as it may be in terms of democratic transparency—must not overshadow what really matters: Jeffrey Epstein’s victims have been waiting for years for clear answers, not another chapter in the usual partisan warfare in Washington.

A wait for justice that has dragged on for years

Several attorneys representing alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein have publicly responded to Pam Bondi’s testimony, arguing that the administration’s promise of full transparency made at the start of its term had still not been fulfilled more than a year later, according to reports by several U.S. media outlets on June 4, 2026.

Attorney Bradley Edwards, who has represented several plaintiffs in civil cases related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, stated that her clients continue to await concrete answers regarding the identity of anyone who may have benefited from the secrecy surrounding this network—and not merely procedural explanations regarding the Department of Justice’s handling of documents.

The Political Weight of a Case That Refuses to Close

Lawmakers from both parties serving on the House Oversight Committee acknowledged, in separate statements, that the Epstein case continues to weigh on the institutional credibility of several successive administrations, far beyond Donald Trump’s single term in office.

This bipartisan pressure—even if it comes from a minority on the Republican side—illustrates just how much the demand for transparency in this case now transcends the usual partisan lines in Washington, and why even the slightest contradiction in Bondi’s testimony attracts such sustained attention from the media and Congress.

I believe the voices of the victims’ attorneys deserve more prominence in this media coverage, as they are the ones who have borne the real burden of this case for years, long after the cameras turned away from the more spectacular congressional hearings.

What We Know for Certain Today

At this point, the established and documented facts are as follows: Bondi testified on May 29, 2026, for approximately four hours; she explicitly identified Todd Blanche as the person responsible for the operational management of the release of the Epstein files; approximately three million of the six million identified pages have been made public; and she refused to comment on her communications with President Trump.

What remains unclear, due to a lack of sufficient public documentation to date, is the exact nature of the three million unpublished pages, as well as the precise content of any conversations between Bondi and the president regarding this matter.

The demand for transparency remains absolute

Faced with a case of such grave human significance, involving hundreds of victims of sex trafficking, the only responsible course of action is to demand the complete and verifiable release of all legally required documents, without succumbing either to unfounded conspiracy theories or to the convenient downplaying of what remains factually unresolved.

I conclude this investigation by emphasizing a simple principle: until a report or document has been made public and verified, I refuse to affirm its content or existence, and I urge every reader to demand the same rigor from all those who comment on this case, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist