By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie are seeking to hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in inherent contempt of Congress due to the Justice Department’s incomplete release of Jeffrey Epstein files by the specified deadline. The representatives, co-authors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, assert the DOJ’s document release on Friday failed to meet the Act’s requirements, specifically regarding withheld files and unlawful redactions. Khanna and Massie are working to build a bipartisan coalition and aim to impose fines for each day the requested documents remain unreleased, emphasizing the importance to the victims and the failure to provide the full list of files. This action utilizes Congress’s power to compel compliance through fines or detention without involving the courts or executive branch.
Read the original article here
Bipartisan lawmakers want to ‘fine Pam Bondi every day’ until all Epstein files released, and the initial reaction seems to be a collective groan, a feeling of “here we go again.” Fines, it seems, are often viewed with skepticism, not because they’re necessarily a bad idea in principle, but because they’re perceived as ineffective against those with deep pockets. The prevailing sentiment appears to be, “She won’t pay,” quickly followed by the stronger assertion: “Put her in jail.” The argument is clear: fines can be circumvented, particularly when those being fined have the financial backing to do so, while jail time, that’s a different story altogether.
The core concern here goes beyond just the Epstein files. It touches upon the broader issue of accountability for the wealthy and powerful. The narrative repeatedly hammers home the idea that the system is rigged. The disparity in wealth, the ability to operate outside the law, and the lack of consequences for those who wield significant power are all highlighted. The frequent calls for “jail” and the rejection of fines are less about the specific amount of money and more about the symbolic impact of actual punishment. It’s about demonstrating that no one is above the law, regardless of their connections or financial resources.
The skepticism extends to the proposed course of action, with many pointing out the potential for wealthy individuals to simply pay the fine, effectively making it a non-event. There’s a palpable frustration at the perceived weakness of the proposed penalty. Many commenters are openly cynical, expecting that the fines will either be paid without consequence, or that someone will bail her out. There is the strong suggestion that the lack of more severe penalties is just another example of the powerful getting away with actions that would result in immediate consequences for anyone else. This is compounded by the belief that any punishment will be ignored.
The discussion quickly escalates to stronger measures: impeachment, jail, and contempt of Congress. The recurring theme is the need for teeth in the enforcement of the law. The phrase “Put her in jail” is repeated so often that it becomes a refrain, underscoring the intensity of public frustration. The use of “lock her up” also comes into play. The feeling is that a fine is a slap on the wrist, a minor inconvenience that won’t deter anyone. Jail time, on the other hand, is seen as a more potent deterrent and a genuine consequence.
The potential for partisan politics further complicates the issue. There are concerns that any action taken might be viewed through a political lens, further undermining the credibility of the process. The anticipation of political maneuvering, the potential for pardons, and the fear that any action will ultimately be futile fuels the skepticism. The core question becomes how to ensure accountability and how to make sure that the wheels of justice turn fairly.
The debate also delves into the root causes of the problem. Many believe that the issue is not just about individuals, but about a system that allows for this type of behavior. The concentration of wealth, the influence of money in politics, and the lack of real consequences for the powerful are all identified as contributing factors. There is a sense that the current system is broken and that more radical solutions are needed. These range from stricter laws to fundamental changes in the way that wealth and power are distributed. The conversation expands to issues like income inequality and the undue influence of money in politics.
The frustration is clear – why fines, when those targeted have the means to pay them without a second thought? This brings up the question of what would motivate such people, especially when those individuals are not afraid of any consequences. The idea of fines is rejected as being insufficient because of the fact that it would not be a detriment to the targets of these lawmakers.
Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complex challenges of achieving accountability. The debate showcases the difficulty in balancing the need for justice with the reality of political power, wealth, and influence. It reflects the public’s desire for a system where everyone is treated equally under the law, where the powerful can’t simply buy their way out of consequences, and where the truth always comes to light. The prevailing sentiment is that a fine is not enough, and that it will not send a message to the target. There’s a strong belief that the situation calls for decisive action, like jail time, to demonstrate that the law applies to everyone, regardless of their background or connections. The final message is a strong one: the public is demanding accountability, and it won’t settle for less than a fair system.