Did Pam Bondi Lie Under Oath About Epstein Files?

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.

We understand why this angers people. When powerful people seem to escape accountability for serious crimes, and the officials who should pursue justice appear to look the other way, the outrage is legitimate.

But outrage deserves accuracy. Let’s look at 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 is a critical distinction:

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.

This means evidence can exist — even compelling evidence — while not meeting the “prosecutable” standard. These are two very different statements:

1. “Nothing happened”
2. “We don’t have enough admissible evidence to guarantee a conviction”

Why This Matters

This rhetorical technique is called a “non-denial denial.” It works by:

1. Using a technically accurate legal phrase
2. That the general public interprets as a much stronger statement
3. Creating the impression of full exoneration
4. 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.

The Bottom Line

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. But 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.