WATCH: Sen. Schiff Demands Pam Bondi Testify Under Oath on Why DOJ Failed to Follow Law, Release Full Epstein Files

Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined MS NOW's Nicolle Wallace to discuss the Department of Justice's (DOJ) failure to follow the law by not releasing the full Epstein Files. Schiff demanded Attorney General Pam Bondi testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain the administration's willful and illegal delay of the full release of files in DOJ's possession.

Schiff highlighted that all possible remedies should be explored, including litigation if necessary, and reiterated his request for an independent audit into the DOJ's handling of these files to ensure accountability for the Trump administration's continued stonewalling of information.

Earlier this month, Schiff and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin requested an independent review of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation's handling of the Epstein files to ensure they were not tampered with ahead of their release.

View the full interview here.

Key excerpts:

On demanding Pam Bondi testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and requesting an independent audit into the handling of the Epstein Files:

[…] I think we ought to bring Pam Bondi before the Senate Judiciary Committee demand answers as to why the Department has violated the law. It's not just that they had 30 days to go through this, to do the production they've had the whole year to do it. They promise to release the files. They haven't done it. They could have been completely ready for this moment, and they're not, or they're just simply, willfully withholding the materials. I think the Judiciary Committee should do its real oversight and bring her in and demand answers. I also think we need an Inspector General's investigation of what they've done, and to ride shotgun on this, to make sure that they're producing everything they're required to. We should consider other remedies, including litigation, if necessary, but there needs to be accountability here.

On the administration's continued stalling on releasing the full Epstein files:

[…] The only one they really serve is Donald Trump, so they must see something in those files that they don't want to share with the American people. Now it may not be evidence of criminality on Trump's behalf, but it may be evidence that embarrasses the president, reflects poorly on the president, and of course, written into that legislation is very explicit prohibition on withholding anything for reasons of reputational harm to any elected official. So that is not a legal basis for them to withhold information. But I wouldn't be surprised if, as a practical matter, they have promised the president they won't release anything that makes him look bad, even if it comes at the cost of the victims getting the full information. And that's just not going to cut it. If we're going to do serious oversight, frankly, unlike what we've done so far, you know, Bondi needs to come in and actually answer questions, not just use her time to try to insult or attack members of the committee, but we need this on a bipartisan basis. The legislation passed on a bipartisan basis, both parties ought to insist on answers, and if not, I think the public needs to hold them accountable for this continuing cover up.

On the reasoning behind breaking of the law by the Trump Justice Department:

[…] I'm surprised by the magnitude of it. I'm not surprised that they're withholding information. Part of this is a consequence, I think, frankly, of Chief Justice Roberts giving the President absolutely, absolute immunity when it comes to his instructions to the Justice Department so he can pretty much order them to do what he wants, and knows that he will never be held, at least criminally liable. So I'm not surprised that they're withholding, I am surprised at the magnitude of it, the audacity of it, the plain statement by Blanche that they're withholding hundreds of thousands of documents, and indeed, that might be just the tip of the iceberg. So yes, that does surprise me. It's a kind of in your face. We will ignore the law as we choose. We will go at our own pace. Whether we provide things at all will be up to us. It's a kind of arrogance, a kind of drunkenness with power, that believes you can ignore the law without any peril.

###