Did Pam Bondi Lie Under Oath About Epstein Files?
“Pam Bondi testified that there was no evidence to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein”
Bondi used 'no prosecutable evidence' — a legal standard far higher than 'no evidence.' The distinction matters.
What They Are Saying
Social media claims that Pam Bondi “lied under oath” when she stated during her Senate confirmation hearing that there was “no evidence” in the Epstein case. The claim went viral with millions of views across platforms.
Outrage deserves accuracy. Here’s exactly what was said, and what the documents show.
What The Documents Show
The Actual Words
During her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Bondi was asked about the Epstein case. Her response referenced the standard of prosecutable evidence, not the colloquial meaning of “evidence.”
This distinction matters:
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| ”No evidence” (colloquial) | Nothing exists suggesting wrongdoing |
| ”No prosecutable evidence” (legal) | Evidence exists, but doesn’t meet the threshold for criminal charges under DOJ guidelines |
The DOJ Standard
Section 9-27.220 of the DOJ Justice Manual states that federal prosecutors should only bring charges when they believe the admissible evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. This is a deliberately high bar.
Evidence can exist, even compelling evidence, while not meeting the “prosecutable” standard. These are two very different statements. “Nothing happened” versus “We don’t have enough admissible evidence to guarantee a conviction.”
Why This Matters
This rhetorical technique is called a “non-denial denial.” Using a technically accurate legal phrase that the general public interprets as a much stronger statement creates the impression of full exoneration without actually saying nothing happened.
This is a manipulation tactic regardless of who uses it. Politicians across the spectrum rely on the gap between legal language and public understanding. Recognizing the pattern is more important than picking a side.
Bondi’s statement was technically defensible under legal standards but practically misleading to a general audience. She used professional jargon that carries a specific meaning in legal contexts but sounds like “nothing to see here” to everyone else.
That’s not “lying under oath” in the legal sense. It’s also not being straight with the public.
Read the transcript. Read the DOJ guidelines. The gap between “no evidence” and “no prosecutable evidence” is where accountability goes to die.
Sources & Documents
- View document
- View document
- View document
