Pam Bondi showed America exactly how much she cares about Jeffrey Epstein’s victims.

And here’s a hint: not very much.

With the Epstein files continuing to dominate public conversation — largely because so many figures in Trump’s orbit once socialized with Epstein — Bondi appeared on Capitol Hill to testify. What followed was less of a routine hearing and more of a political spectacle.

On the Republican side, the tone was celebratory. Congressman Michael Baumgartner practically congratulated Bondi for how she was handling the situation, praising her in a way that felt more like a campaign rally than congressional oversight.

But Democrats came with a very different approach.

One lawmaker asked a direct question:

Were there any underage girls at parties that Donald Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein?

Instead of answering clearly, Bondi dismissed the question as “ridiculous.” She framed it as an insulting insinuation and an attempt to distract from Trump’s accomplishments. She portrayed the suggestion of wrongdoing as outrageous.

Yet critics argue the question itself was reasonable.

If the sitting President attended events hosted by a convicted sex trafficker, it is not unreasonable to ask whether criminal activity occurred at those events — and whether he was aware of it.

As the hearing continued, Bondi appeared increasingly defensive, at times redirecting attention toward unrelated crimes or political opponents. Observers noted that she seemed more interested in counterattacking than clarifying.

Then came one of the most striking moments of the day.

Bondi was asked whether she believed President Trump is honest.

Her answer: “He is the commander-in-chief of the United States.”

That wasn’t exactly what was asked.

Throughout the hearing, Bondi repeatedly emphasized Trump’s transparency, claiming he had been the most transparent president in history regarding the Epstein files. Supporters echoed that point in media appearances, arguing that millions of documents had been released.

But critics countered with a simple question: if millions of files exist, why have only some been released? And why are so many names redacted?

The debate intensified when attention turned to the survivors in the room.

Bondi expressed sympathy for Epstein’s victims and encouraged anyone with information to contact the FBI.

Then lawmakers asked the survivors to raise their hands if they had been contacted by the Department of Justice.

Not a single hand went up.

They were asked how many had reached out offering testimony or evidence.

Every hand went up.

And when asked how many had been ignored or denied — again, all hands remained raised.

The optics were difficult to ignore.

Survivors standing silently while the Attorney General defended the administration’s handling of the case.

Critics described the scene as emblematic of a broader pattern — one in which deflection and political framing overshadow direct engagement with victims.

At several points, Bondi pivoted to economic achievements — citing stock market records, the Dow surpassing 50,000, the S&P climbing, retirement accounts booming.

To some, it felt like an attempt to change the subject.

Because while economic performance matters, it does not directly address questions about accountability in a trafficking case involving one of the most infamous figures in recent history.

The broader frustration expressed by critics is this:

The Epstein scandal was never just about one man.

It was about networks of power, access, wealth, and protection.

And many Americans — across party lines — believe that anyone connected to those networks should be fully investigated, regardless of status.

Polling suggests widespread dissatisfaction with the amount of information released so far.

Few people believe the public has seen the full picture.

The expectation wasn’t necessarily that Bondi would unseal every document on the spot. But critics argue it would not have been unreasonable to see more direct engagement with victims — perhaps even a symbolic gesture of turning around, acknowledging them, or committing publicly to meet with them.

Instead, what many saw was another day of partisan combat.

Another day of defending allies.

Another day where the focus shifted away from survivors and back to political loyalty.

And that is the heart of the controversy.

Is the Department of Justice operating as an independent institution pursuing truth and accountability? Or is it perceived — fairly or not — as shielding powerful figures?

That perception matters.

Because in scandals of this magnitude, public trust is fragile.

And once it erodes, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild.

Before wrapping up, the commentator urged viewers to subscribe and support independent media — noting concerns about potential suppression on social platforms and emphasizing the importance of direct communication through newsletters.

But beyond the call to subscribe, the underlying message was clear:

This issue is not fading.

And the questions surrounding transparency, accountability, and justice are only growing louder.