Pam Bondi Crossed A Line You Can’t Uncross

Oh, and I Almost Made The Biggest Mistake of My Journalistic Career.

I almost did the thing they count on.

I almost made the biggest mistake of my new life as a citizen journalist.

I almost published a post basically saying, “We must face the fact no one is going to prison over this… no one except one woman.”

That’s the sentence they count on. The sentence that lets everybody exhale and go back to brunch. The sentence that turns a crime scene into a weather report.

Then Rep. Pramila Jayapal walked in like a fire alarm.

It was the House Judiciary Committee’s DOJ oversight hearing on Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026, with Attorney General Pam Bondi under oath and multiple Jeffrey Epstein survivors in the room. Lawmakers were pressing DOJ on its handling of Epstein-related records, redactions, victim privacy, and whether anyone beyond Epstein is going to be held accountable.

Because what Attorney General Pam Bondi is doing up there is not testimony in any meaningful sense of the word. Over and over, members ask direct questions about accountability and investigations, and she redirects to the previous administration, scolds the questioner, or pivots to unrelated talking points, including the Dow and 401(k)s.

The clearest example of what this hearing is really about comes from Rep. Pramila Jayapal. She reads into the record an email she attributes to Jeffrey Epstein, and she puts the ugliest part in plain English so nobody can hide behind process.

“I loved the torture video.”

That is the line that snaps this out of politics and back into evidence. Jayapal uses it to argue the Department has been quicker to protect powerful men than to protect victims, and she demands an apology to the survivors sitting in the room.

So no, I’m not doing that numb post. Not today. Not after this hearing. Not while survivors were in the room and the Attorney General is trying to turn moral horror into a press strategy. I’m going to etch this into the record with quotes directly from the transcripts. What follows are the highlights. I watched this shit show and took notes so you don’t have to.

---

TLDR

Attorney General Pam Bondi sat in the hot seat with Epstein survivors in the room and still refused the most basic act. Accountability.

Key moments:

• Rep. Pramila Jayapal reads the email line that should stop your heart: “I loved the torture video,” then asks Bondi to turn and apologize.

• Rep. Jerrold Nadler asks how many Epstein co-conspirators have been indicted. The record presented today says: zero.

• Rep. Ted Lieu presses why “uncharged third parties” aren’t being investigated while names and faces sit in plain view.

• Rep. Becca Balint goes yes-or-no on senior officials named in unredacted material, gets evasion, then gets hit with a smear.

• Rep. Jasmine Crockett refuses to waste time questioning a witness she says won’t answer, and turns her minutes into a full indictment.

If this post helped you see the pattern, please restack it and share it. That’s how independent reporting survives the algorithm and the silence. If you don’t want to see more reporting like this, Bye. If you do, you know what to do just do it.

---

Rep. Jayapal Puts The Evidence On The Table

Rep. Jayapal does the one thing the whole machine hates. She drags the story out of the clouds and back into bodies. Back into names. Back into the room.

“We are joined in this room by some of the thousands of survivors from Jeffrey Epstein’s horrific sex trafficking ring.”

Then she says what everyone can feel but nobody in power wants to say cleanly. The redactions are not random.

“First, in violation of the law, your department has shown a pattern of redacting the names of powerful predators.”

And then she reads the line that makes every future pivot sound like an insult.

“The email reads, quote, ‘Where are you? Are you okay? I loved the torture video.’”

She tells you Congress had to squeeze the Department just to get sunlight.

“Only after members of Congress demanded that we see the unredacted files did the world learn the name of this individual, Sultan Alhmed bin Sulam…”

Then she flips the mirror. The people with power got the velvet treatment. The people without it got exposed.

“Your Department of Justice initially released this list of 32 survivors names with only one name redacted… disclose not only the names, the emails, and the addresses of survivors, but also nude photographs…”

She reads what the survivors said it felt like.

“This release does not provide closure. It feels like a deliberate attempt to intimidate survivors…”

Then she does the most devastating thing you can do in a hearing. She makes silence testify.

“Please know for the record that every single survivor has raised their hand.”

And then she asks the one question a decent person answers without consulting a communications team.

“Will you turn to them now and apologize for what your Department of Justice has put them through…”

Attorney General Bondi tries to hand the guilt to the previous administration.

“Congresswoman, you sat before Mer Merritt Garland sat in this chair twice.”

Rep. Jayapal will not accept the handoff.

“This is not about anybody that came before you. It is about you taking responsibility…”

Then she says the phrase that keeps detonating today.

“What a massive cover up this has been and continues to be.”

And she lands on the whiplash that has the public ready to revolt.

“You got into office… claimed to have a client list and then say that there was no list.”

The consequence is simple. A Department that looks like it protects predators and exposes victims does not get to ask the public for trust. Not after that. Not in that room.

---

Rep. Jerrold Nadler Tries To Drag Her Back To The Point

Nadler’s move is to strip the story down to its most damning contrast. Who got protected, and who got left open.

“It is shocking that the department did not redact the names of Epstein’s victims, but it did redact the names of their abusers.”

He frames it as either negligence or something darker, and either way he calls it unacceptable.

“I don’t know whether this was done out of incompetence or whether it was deliberate and malicious, but either way, it is completely unacceptable.”

Then he widens the argument to priorities. He alleges political energy for Trump’s grievances, and a different kind of energy when it comes to Epstein’s network.

“This DOJ has been hell-bent on securing an indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James for something, anything, simply because she held Donald Trump’s companies accountable…”

He reads Trump’s pressure into the record and says Bondi complied.

“Quote, ‘I fired him and there is a great case… We can’t delay any longer. It’s killing our reputation and credibility… Justice must be served now.’ And obviously you followed that order.”

Then he asks the question that doesn’t allow fog. It has a number attached to it.

“How many of Epstein’s co-conspirators have you indicted?”

Bondi answers with attitude, not clarity.

“Excuse me, I’m going to answer the question… Your theatrics are ridiculous.”

Nadler states what he believes the record shows.

“The answer to my question, how many of Epstein’s co-conspirators has she indicted, is zero.”

And then Bondi pivots to the stock market like the Dow is a moral defense.

“You know why? Because Donald Trump… the Dow right now is over $50,000… Americans 401Ks and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

The consequence is plain. In a hearing about sex trafficking and survivor harm, she chooses a campaign message about the economy. That tells the country what she thinks this is and it’s not about accountability, not about repentance, not about justice, but about messaging.

---

Rep. Eric Swalwell Tries To Pin Down The Numbers, Then Changes Lanes

Swalwell starts where victims are still stuck which is with the sense that the public is being managed, not informed. He tells Bondi he wants to show her a video that captures survivor frustration, then presses her on the one thing that should be easy for the Attorney General to answer if transparency is the point which is how many times does Trump’s name appear in the Epstein files.

He asks it in escalating steps, giving her every chance to choose a number.

“It sounds like if you don’t know the number, it could at least be 1000 times… it’s not. Is it at least 500 times? No. Is it at least 100 times? No. Then what’s the number?”

Bondi’s answer is the worst possible answer for a hearing like this.

“I don’t know the number.”

Swalwell makes the implication plain. If the Attorney General cannot tell the public whether it is 1000, 500, or even 100, then the Department is not leading with facts. It is leading with control.

From there he pivots to a second theme. The weaponization and selective enforcement. He names a report that indictments were sought against members of Congress and says he has lived through politically motivated scrutiny himself.

He describes having his own phone and email records “combed through” in 2017 and 2018, calling it retaliation tied to Russia interference oversight. He recounts an FBI leak in 2020 that he says put him and his family in the crosshairs, and he connects it to a broader enemy list culture inside the current FBI leadership.

Then Swalwell drops the most chilling part of his testimony. It is not about politics. It is about threats of violence that, in his telling, did not get prosecuted.

“In June 2025, an individual left 11 voicemails at my district office… ‘I’m going to hunt him down… and toss his ass over the Golden Gate Bridge…’ … declined to prosecute.”

He says another threat in May 2025 was also declined.

“‘…now I’m going to kill you.’ … declined to prosecute.”

And then he describes messages from May through December of 2025 that included explicit threats against his wife and children.

“I hope somebody shoots you and your children and your wife in the head. Pew pew, motherfucker, pew pew.”

His point is not that he is uniquely targeted. His point is that in a country this heated, refusal to prosecute credible threats becomes a policy choice with blood on it.

“So are these folks, but we never expected that the Department of Justice would not seek to prosecute and investigate those who are making threats against us… I’m just asking for your help to protect life because life is at risk with the environment we’re in right now.”

“I completely agree with you… None of you should be threatened ever. None of your children should be threatened. None of your families should be threatened… you can come into my office any day… I’ll gladly talk to you after this hearing about your cases.”

The consequence of the Swalwell exchange is twofold. First, it highlights the credibility problem: if DOJ is going to manage the Epstein story through controlled releases, then the Attorney General cannot afford basic “I don’t know” answers on simple factual questions. Second, it exposes the climate this administration is presiding over which is a political arena where threats have become background noise, and the fight isn’t just about power, it is about whether the state will protect people when the crowd starts hunting.

---

Rep. Ted Lieu Calls It Protection, Bondi Calls It Deflection

Lieu comes in like a prosecutor with exhibits. He puts up photos of Britain’s Prince Andrew with Epstein and starts by establishing that the Department knows how to redact in the right direction when it wants to.

“You redacted the photos of this victim’s face, because you are following the congressional law. Is that correct?”

Bondi agrees.

“Yes.”

Then Lieu moves to the part that makes the room boil. If the Department can protect a victim’s identity, why is it not using the same power to pursue the men who benefited from the trafficking operation.

“Not only is Jeffrey Epstein guilty, but anyone who patronizes Epstein’s sex operation is also guilty of a crime.”

“That’s why I find it absolutely despicable that you sought to protect Epstein’s clients like former Prince Andrew.”

He reads the Department’s own posture back to the Attorney General.

“The July 2025 memo from your Department of Justice stated, quote, ‘We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.’”

Then he points at the photos again and says the obvious part out loud.

“These two photos staring you in the face are evidence of a crime and more than enough evidence to predicate an investigation against former Prince Andrew.”

“So I ask you, Attorney General Pam Bondi, why did you shut down this investigation last July, and why have you not prosecuted former Prince Andrew?”

Bondi tries to punt by saying he didn’t ask Garland.

“I don’t believe you asked former Attorney General Merrick Garland these questions when he was Attorney General…”

Lieu doesn’t let her turn it into a partisan time machine.

“Merrick Garland dropped the ball as did Attorney General former Attorney General William Barr, as did former Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta… but you are in charge. You have the power to change things to hold these men accountable, and you’re doing the opposite, you’re protecting them.”

Then he changes lanes to Trump and asks what Bondi will not say out loud.

“Donald Trump attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein. I want to know whether there any underage girls at that party or at any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein.”

Bondi responds with dismissal and a defense of Trump.

“This is so ridiculous… There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime. Everyone knows that.”

Lieu escalates hard. He says she just lied under oath.

“I’m going to put up another document… because I believe you just lied under oath.”

Bondi snaps back.

“Don’t you ever accuse me of a crime.”

Lieu presses the accusation anyway, reading a witness statement into the moment and demanding action.

“No one, no one at the Department of Justice interviewed this witness. You need to interview this witness immediately.”

And he closes with the line that turns “policy disagreement” into moral indictment.

“Epstein should rot in hell, so should the men who patronize his operation.”

“…there are over 1000 sex trafficking victims, and you have not held a single man accountable. Shame on you… if you had any decency, you would resign right after this hearing concludes.”

Bondi uses her remaining space to counterpunch with a different script: California crime and sanctuary cities.

“This… is what Congressman Liu didn’t want to talk about… California refuses to honor detainees… released 4,561 criminal illegal aliens…”

The consequence of the Lieu exchange is that it makes the hearing legible. On the Epstein question, Democrats are asking for prosecution and names. Bondi is answering with blame, slogans, and a pivot to unrelated crime statistics. Whether you love or hate Lieu’s approach, his confrontation forces one reality into view: the Department can say “no evidence” on Trump in the same breath it says it cannot predicate investigations into uncharged third parties, while survivors are still waiting for accountability.

---

Rep. Jamie Raskin Says The Quiet Part Out Loud

If Rep. Jayapal made the room feel human, and Rep. Nadler tried to pin Attorney General Bondi to outcomes, Rep. Jamie Raskin comes in to indict the entire posture. He opens by reminding Attorney General Bondi what the job is supposed to be.

“You’ve got the best lawyer’s job in America… your mission is justice and your clients are the American people.”

Then he introduces the survivors by name, on the record, and notes that Attorney General Bondi still hasn’t met with them.

“You still haven’t met with these survivors.”

He frames the legacy choice directly. In Raskin’s telling, Attorney General Bondi’s pattern is siding with perpetrators and ignoring victims.

“Whether it’s Epstein… or… Minneapolis… you’re siding with the perpetrators and you’re ignoring the victims.”

Then he uses the phrase that keeps detonating in this hearing.

“You’re running a massive Epstein cover up right out of the Department of Justice.”

Raskin’s factual spine is document control. He says Congress subpoenaed six million items, and DOJ has produced only half.

“You’ve been ordered… to turn over 6 million… but you’ve turned over only 3 million.”

Attorney General Bondi’s stated defense is duplication. Raskin’s rebuttal is basic. Even if it’s duplicative, release it all; and he notes there are victim-statement memos in the withheld material.

“You say… the other three million… are duplicative… but we know… memos of victim statements… in there.”

Then he returns to the same moral inversion everyone is circling: abusers protected, victims exposed.

“In the half you did produce, you redacted the names of abusers… to spare them embarrassment… the exact opposite of what the law ordered.”

“Even worse, you… failed to redact many of the victims names… you published their names… identities… images… for the world to see.”

Raskin calls it what he thinks it is which is a blend of “staggering incompetence” and “cold indifference,” and he says it “screams cover up.”

“This performance screams cover up.”

Then he widens the frame. He argues this isn’t only Epstein. It’s a Department of Justice being used as an instrument of retaliation.

“You’ve turned the People’s Department of Justice into Trump’s instrument of revenge.”

He claims the president “orders up prosecutions like pizza,” and names a list of targets.

“Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza, and you deliver every time.”

“He tells you to go after… James Comey… Letitia James… Jerome Powell… and members of Congress…”

Then he points to internal resistance at DOJ. All the resignations and refusals by prosecutors who say they will not carry out corrupt orders. He quotes one resignation letter that is built to go viral all by itself.

“I expect you will eventually find someone… enough of a fool or enough of a coward… but it was never going to be me.”

Finally, Raskin lays down rules for the rest of the hearing like a warning label: don’t evade, don’t change the subject, don’t smear members, and when they reclaim time, stop talking.

“Please do not waste one second… by evading questions… changing the subject… engaging in personal attacks.”

“Please set the burn book aside and answer our questions.”

The consequence of the Raskin exchange is that it removes plausible deniability. He’s telling the country that what looks like chaos is actually a pattern. Withhold evidence, protect powerful people, expose victims, and then pivot to anything—anything—except accountability. If that pattern sticks in the public mind, Attorney General Bondi doesn’t just lose this hearing. She loses the presumption that DOJ is acting in good faith.

---

Rep. Becca Balint Forces The Question, Attorney General Bondi Refuses The Premise

Rep. Becca Balint opens by reminding the room that Epstein isn’t a political parlor game. She ties the public obsession to something uglier and more common: the country’s baseline failure to deliver justice to survivors.

“According to your department, a child is sexually abused in the United States every nine minutes. And the vast majority of survivors never get justice.”

Then she names the second engine of outrage: the sense of a two-tier system.

“It has revealed a two-tiered system of justice. And the powerful are protected and the survivors rarely get any accountability.”

Balint says she has seen unredacted files and claims that former President Donald Trump’s name appears throughout them, along with names of senior officials appointed to high office.

“I’ve seen some of the unredacted Epstein files, and obviously… President Trump’s name is all over them… Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce… John Phelan, the Secretary of the Navy, and Steve Feinberg, the Deputy Secretary of Defense.”

Then she goes yes-or-no.

“Attorney General Bondi, yes or no? Has the Justice Department asked Secretary Lutnick about his ties to Epstein?”

Attorney General Bondi does not answer yes or no. She says Secretary Lutnick has “addressed those ties himself.” Balint presses again, specifying the Department.

“Has the Justice Department specifically asked Secretary Lutnick about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein?”

Bondi repeats the deflection.

“He has addressed those ties himself.”

Balint keeps climbing the ladder: the Navy secretary, then the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

“Has the DOJ asked Secretary Phelan about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein?”

“Has the Department of Justice talked to… Deputy Secretary Feinberg about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, which are clearly spelled out in the files. It’s a very simple question. It’s not a trick question.”

Bondi does not answer. Balint draws the conclusion.

“I can conclude from what you are saying that you have not talked to them.”

Then the exchange breaks loose over time and control of the room. Balint tries to ask whether the president knew about Secretary Lutnick’s Epstein ties when he made the appointment.

“Was the president aware of Secretary Lutnick’s ties to Epstein when he chose him to lead the Department of Commerce?”

Balint lands the viral line in the middle of the chaos.

“This is not a game. Secretary,” Balint says.

“I’m attorney general,” Bondi snaps.

“My apologies. I couldn’t tell.”

Balint then returns to the factual hinge that makes her questions unavoidable.

“By 2008, we knew that Epstein was a convicted sexual abuser. And we now know that Lutnick went to Epstein’s Island in 2012.”

She asks why that wasn’t a dealbreaker for the White House, and why DOJ isn’t asking the Commerce Secretary what he saw.

“How was that not a dealbreaker for the president? And why aren’t you asking questions of the commerce secretary about what he saw when he was at the island…?”

Balint closes with a demand that has echoed through the hearing.

“Do the right thing, Attorney General. Meet with the survivors. They have been asking for a year. Meet with the survivors. Do the right thing.”

And then the temperature spikes again after Balint’s time is up.

As Rep. Joe Wilson is recognized, Attorney General Bondi uses the transition to relitigate Balint’s line of questioning and to change the moral frame.

“May I have 20 seconds of his time.”

Then she pivots away from Epstein and toward political whataboutism.

“I was curious if you, Congresswoman, asked Bill Clinton that. Didn’t hear, didn’t see one tweet, not one. I didn’t see one tweet when Joe Biden was in office about Bill Clinton. Didn’t ask Merrick Garland anything about Epstein, not once…”

And then she drops the accusation.

“…and also I want the record to reflect that, you know, with this anti-Semitic culture right now, she voted against a resolution condemning.”

Balint snaps back immediately, not letting it sit there as a throwaway smear.

“Do you want to go there, Attorney General. Do you want to go there? Are you talking about a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust.”

“The committee will be in order,” the chair says, trying to tamp it down.

But Bondi keeps swinging.

“Talk to Jared Wise about anti-Semitism.”

Jared L. Wise is a former FBI agent and January 6 defendant who is now employed by the Justice Department as an adviser. He has been captured on video from January 6 yelling at rioters to “kill” law enforcement officers.

Attorney General Bondi’s move here is to change the moral frame. Instead of answering why DOJ isn’t asking senior officials about their Epstein ties, she tries to brand Balint as part of an “anti-Semitic culture.”

Balint refuses to let the accusation hang.

“Do you want to go there?” Balint says. “Are you serious? Talking about antisemitism to a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust? Really?”

At that point the chair tries to restore order, but the exchange has already crossed over into open hostility. Balint turns, gathers her things, and walks out of the hearing room.

That walkout is the punctuation mark on what people are watching in real time: when the questions get too specific, the hearing stops being about facts and turns into a fight over shame, labels, and who gets to leave the room with their dignity intact.

---

Rep. Jasmine Crockett Treats It Like A Trial, Not A Hearing

Rep. Jasmine Crockett walks in and does something that looks rude if you miss the point.

She refuses to play catch with a witness who keeps throwing the ball into the crowd.

If Attorney General Bondi’s strategy is to run out the clock with non-answers, Crockett’s strategy is to pull the batteries out of the clock.

“To be clear, I’m not going to ask any questions of this witness because this witness has revealed that she has no intentions of answering questions.”

So Crockett changes the setup. She turns to Rep. Becca Balint and conducts a lightning round of moral basics.

“Right or wrong, raping children?”

“Right or wrong. Killing random citizens.”

“Right or wrong. Enriching yourself as the sitting president of the United States.”

Then she lands the punchline.

“Okay, thank you. Because I probably never would have got that with our witness.”

From there, Crockett does not pretend this is normal oversight. She speaks directly to the survivors and then to the country.

“Let me say thank you for having more courage and moral clarity in your pinky fingers than the entire Department of Justice.”

“The American people weren’t looking for that. They were looking for answers about the corruption that they see coming from this administration.”

Then she uses Attorney General Bondi’s own stated mission as the measuring stick and says she failed it.

“She stated that when she took office, she had two main goals. The first was to end the weaponization of justice and second to return the department to its core mission. Not only have you lied about both, you’ve intentionally done the exact opposite.”

Crockett’s headline charge is priorities. Who gets the full weight of DOJ, and who gets excuses.

“You’re spending more taxpayer resources arresting journalists than you are prosecuting pedophiles and creeps.”

She names arrests and courtroom failures to argue this is not strength. This is flailing.

“DOJ has arrested Don Lemon and Georgia Fort… a judge… rejected y’all for trying to arrest Don Lemon before… just like the grand jury rejected y’all… just like the case against… Letitia James was dismissed… and the case against Mr. Comey was dismissed.”

Then she circles back to Epstein and to former President Donald Trump’s proximity, and she drops claims designed to blow the roof off.

“Donald Trump is one of the most named people in the Epstein files. At least 5,000 files contains more than 38,000 references to Trump, his wife, or Mar a Lago.”

“Jeffrey Epstein transporting a victim to Mar a Lago to meet with President Trump where he bragged to Trump that quote, ‘This is a good one.’”

Crockett stops short of a direct accusation about Trump, but she makes the proximity argument as sharp as a blade.

“Now, I’m not saying that the president is a pedophile, but there is a lot of evidence in these files that suggests that he’s very close friends with a lot of men who are pedophiles.”

Then she says what she believes is happening.

“This is a big cover up and this administration is engaged in it. In fact, this administration is complicit.”

She closes by writing Attorney General Bondi’s legacy in plain English.

“The fact of the matter is that you will be remembered as one of the worst attorney generals in history. An attorney general who has prioritize obstruction over justice, corruption over the law, fealty to the president over loyalty to the constitution.”

When Crockett yields, Attorney General Bondi does exactly what Crockett said she would do. She uses somebody else’s time to counterpunch and pivot.

“I find it interesting that she didn’t even want to try… to ask any questions because she certainly did not condemn her leader… Hakeem Jeffries for taking money from Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein was convicted.”

“This is what she didn’t want to talk about… convicted homicide… arson… weapon offense… Convict some of these perpetrators that raped these women that are sitting… to even acknowledge they are here.”

The consequence of Crockett’s segment is that it makes the day impossible to misunderstand. One side is demanding names, prosecutions, and basic decency. Attorney General Bondi is answering with pivots, scolds, and talking points. Survivors are still in the room. That is the scandal.

---

No, Hell No, I’m Not Letting Them Turn This Into Background Noise

I almost made the biggest mistake of my journalistic career because I almost did what this whole machine is built to make you do. I almost went numb. I almost wrote the responsible little paragraph that says, “welp, that’s America,” and kept it moving. I almost accepted the idea that nobody is going to prison over this, nobody is going to be held accountable over this, and the only person who might pay is the woman the system can safely toss into the fire.

Then I watched Attorney General Pam Bondi sit in front of the country and refuse the most basic human act in the room. Survivors are sitting there. Hands are raised. A direct request is made. And she can’t even turn and say, “I’m sorry.” Not because she doesn’t know how. Because she doesn’t want to.

And while she’s doing that, while she’s doing the pivot-to-the-Dow routine like the stock ticker is holy water, Rep. Pramila Jayapal is reading a sentence into the record that should stop your heart: “I loved the torture video.” Read that shit again. “I loved the torture video.” That’s not a metaphor. That’s not a vibe. That’s a window into the kind of depravity that thrives when the powerful are protected and the victims are treated like collateral damage.

So spare me the “theatrics” talk. Spare me the scolding. Spare me the clock management. Spare me the “well what about the last guy” routine. This isn’t a debate club. This is a crime story with living victims in the room, and the Attorney General is acting like her job is to manage the optics instead of pursue the truth.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler asked the simplest question in the hearing: how many co-conspirators have you indicted. The answer, by the record presented today, is zero.

Rep. Ted Lieu put Prince Andrew’s face on the screen and asked why the Department says it can’t predicate an investigation when the evidence is staring them in the face.

Rep. Jamie Raskin told her straight up she’s running a cover up. Rep. Becca Balint asked yes-or-no questions about senior officials named in unredacted material and got evasion, then got hit with a smear.

And Rep. Jasmine Crockett refused to play catch with a witness who won’t answer and turned her time into an indictment of what DOJ is actually prioritizing.

And that’s the point of my reversal. I’m not going to help them turn this into background noise. I’m not going to help them make “I loved the torture video” sound like just another ugly line in a long ugly story. I’m not going to help them normalize the kind of government posture that protects predators with redactions and exposes victims with carelessness.

If you’re reading this and you feel your stomach turn, good. That’s your conscience still working. Hold onto it for dear life.

Now, for those of you that didn’t feel your stomach turn.

Please do not subscribe.

I’m serious. If this is entertainment to you, if you just want the dopamine of outrage, if you want something to half-read while you’re waiting on your food, keep your money. I don’t want it.

I’m a retired patrol officer. I’ve stood in rooms with real victims, real fear, and real consequences. When I watch an Attorney General sit ten feet from survivors, refuse the most basic apology, and then pivot to the stock market like that’s supposed to wash the stink off, it makes my skin crawl.

So I’m begging you please don’t subscribe unless you mean it. Don’t subscribe unless you want to help me keep doing this unglamorous work. Reading the transcripts. Pulling the receipts. Publishing the ugly lines they want buried. Staying loud when the whole point is to make you so goddamn tired you can’t even feel the tiredness anymore.

If you’re on the fence, stay there. If you feel the urge to scroll, scroll.

But if you heard “I loved the torture video” and something in you snapped, and you don’t want this filed away like background noise, then you already know what to do.

---