In a scorching takedown that sent shockwaves through Washington, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t mince words, accusing former Florida Attorney General-turned-AG Pam Bondi of deliberately gutting Jeffrey Epstein’s explosive files to shield pedophiles, princes, and other elite predators from accountability. Just days after the Justice Department’s December 19 release—a trove riddled with heavy redactions, including a jaw-dropping 119-page grand jury transcript entirely blacked out—AOC blasted Bondi for “protecting a bunch of rapists and pedophiles because they have money, power, and connections,” demanding her immediate resignation amid bipartisan threats of contempt, fines, and impeachment. Critics say the black ink hides far more than victim identities, potentially burying ties to royalty and power players long rumored in Epstein’s orbit. As survivors rage and lawmakers vow to force full disclosure, whose damning secrets are those redactions really guarding?
In a fiery takedown that reverberated through Washington, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) unleashed a no-holds-barred assault on Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing her of deliberately sabotaging transparency by releasing heavily redacted Jeffrey Epstein files designed to protect “pedophiles, princes, and other elite predators” from scrutiny.
The outburst came days after the Justice Department’s December 19, 2025, release—the first mandated by the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump on November 19, 2025. The legislation required near-total disclosure of all unclassified Epstein-related documents within 30 days, with redactions limited primarily to victim identities. Instead, the initial trove featured thousands of pages marred by extensive blackouts, including the complete redaction of a 119-page New York grand jury transcript tied to investigations into Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
AOC took to X with unrelenting fury: “Now the coverup is out in the open. This is far from over. Everyone involved will have to answer for this. Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, whole admin. Protecting a bunch of rapists and pedophiles because they have money, power, and connections. Bondi should resign tonight.” Her post, viewed millions of times, crystallized accusations that the redactions concealed ties to royalty, politicians, celebrities, and other power players long rumored in Epstein’s sex-trafficking orbit.
Bipartisan condemnation erupted swiftly. The bill’s co-sponsors, Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), accused Bondi of flouting the law and began drafting resolutions for inherent contempt of Congress, a rare mechanism imposing daily fines until full compliance. Massie warned that a future DOJ could even prosecute Bondi for obstruction, while Khanna highlighted missing pivotal documents, such as a 2007 draft federal indictment.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer branded the release a “blatant cover-up” and introduced measures to sue the DOJ. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) joined the outrage, with impeachment threats circulating if obstructions persist.
Epstein survivors and advocates expressed deep anguish. Victim attorneys decried the rollout as a “cruel betrayal,” recycling old material while burying potential revelations about enablers. One advocacy group noted “abnormal and extreme redactions with no explanation,” far exceeding victim protections and risking eternal concealment.
Bondi and DOJ officials defended the redactions as necessary for privacy and grand jury secrecy, promising ongoing releases into 2026 amid discoveries of over a million additional pages. Deputy AG Todd Blanche emphasized compliance, but critics dismissed delays as excuses, noting the act’s intent to override traditional barriers.
Unredacted portions offered glimpses: photos of former President Bill Clinton with Epstein, flight logs, and investigative notes. References to President Trump were sparse. A follow-up release partially unredacted the 119-page transcript, but inconsistencies—like temporarily removed files—fueled suspicions of selective protection.
Survivors raged at the perceived shielding of elites, while lawmakers vowed escalated oversight, including contempt votes and audits. The controversy underscores enduring distrust in handling Epstein’s network, where promises of accountability clash with layers of ink obscuring the full truth.
Leave a Reply