Like former Prince Andrew, Donald Trump attended multiple social events with Jeffrey Epstein.

So the question raised during the hearing was simple — and direct:

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

Instead of a clear answer, what followed was immediate deflection.

“This is ridiculous,” Pam Bondi responded, accusing critics of trying to distract from “all the great things Donald Trump has done.” She insisted there was no evidence Trump committed a crime and framed the question itself as political theater.

But the exchange didn’t stop there.

Because moments later, Representative Ted Lieu escalated the situation dramatically — accusing Bondi of misleading Congress under oath. He referenced a witness statement submitted to the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center. According to that statement, a limo driver claimed he overheard conversations between Trump and Epstein, and later encountered a woman who alleged she had been assaulted by both men.

Lieu stated that the witness had never been interviewed by the Department of Justice and demanded that the DOJ immediately follow up.

The room exploded in tension.

Bondi pushed back forcefully, telling Lieu not to accuse her of crimes. The chair cut off debate as time expired. But the damage was done.

The central question remained unanswered.

And critics argue that it was a perfectly reasonable question.

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

Instead of engaging directly, Bondi pivoted into defense mode, portraying Trump as the real victim and touting his supposed transparency.

But the optics became even more uncomfortable.

During the same hearing, survivors of Epstein’s trafficking operation were present. They were asked to raise their hands if they had been contacted by the Department of Justice.

None had.

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

All had.

And when asked how many were denied or ignored by the DOJ — again, all hands remained raised.

The image was striking.

Survivors standing, hands raised, saying they had not been interviewed — while the Attorney General defended the President from scrutiny.

Bondi continued insisting that Trump had been the “most transparent president” on Epstein-related matters. That same talking point surfaced later on CNN, where panelists debated what transparency actually means.

Reporters pointed out that Trump has dismissed questions about Epstein, mocked journalists who asked about the files, and criticized media coverage — behavior critics argue contradicts claims of openness.

Supporters counter that millions of documents have been released.

But others ask: what about the documents that haven’t?

The broader controversy centers on how the DOJ has handled the Epstein files — from partial releases, to redactions, to delays.

Critics argue that the pattern appears defensive rather than investigative.

Supporters argue the legal process is ongoing.

What remains undeniable is this:

The issue is not going away.

Because when a witness statement alleging criminal conduct exists within DOJ files — whether credible or not — the expectation from many Americans is that it be investigated thoroughly.

And when survivors say they have not been contacted, it fuels suspicion.

The larger debate now isn’t just about Trump.

It’s about institutional trust.

Is the Department of Justice operating independently?
Is it protecting the integrity of investigations?
Or is it prioritizing political considerations?

Those questions are growing louder.

And regardless of political affiliation, the American public expects transparency when it comes to crimes of this magnitude.

The Epstein scandal has already shaken trust in powerful institutions.

How this administration handles the remaining files — and whether all relevant witnesses are interviewed — may determine whether that trust can ever be restored.