By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Attorney General Pam Bondi has been accused of “creepy” behavior after a document appeared to indicate the Department of Justice was tracking the Epstein files accessed by members of Congress. This alleged surveillance, revealed during a hearing concerning the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents, has drawn condemnation from lawmakers across the political spectrum. Representatives, including Pramila Jayapal and Nancy Mace, have voiced concerns about the appropriateness and potential weaponization of this tracking. Bondi’s own fiery demeanor during the hearing further heightened tensions surrounding the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files.
Read the original article here
Pam Bondi is facing intense criticism, with many calling her actions “creepy” following reports that a document appearing to show the Department of Justice (DOJ) is tracking lawmakers’ searches of the Jeffrey Epstein files. This development has ignited outrage, with concerns mounting about government overreach and potential cover-ups.
The core of the controversy stems from a document that allegedly detailed Representative Pramila Jayapal’s search history on a DOJ computer, a system that reportedly provided her with unrestricted access to the Epstein-related files. The document, described as containing “Jayapal Pramila Search History” and featuring a diagram connected to Epstein, suggests an unprecedented level of surveillance on a member of Congress.
The implication is that the DOJ, rather than focusing on the substance of the Epstein investigation, is instead dedicating resources to monitor who is looking at what. This has led to accusations that the motive behind tracking these searches is not to find the truth but to prepare a defense and perpetuate a cover-up, particularly concerning individuals potentially linked to Epstein’s network.
Many observers are questioning the priorities of the DOJ, suggesting that investigating lawmakers who are seeking answers about a global child sex trafficking ring is a misdirection of resources. Instead of addressing the alleged ring itself, the focus appears to be on those who are trying to expose it, which some find deeply disturbing.
There’s a palpable sense that this situation goes beyond mere sloppiness and touches on illegal spying. The notion of the executive branch monitoring the legislative branch’s research into such a sensitive and abhorrent subject is being characterized as a profound breach of privacy and a sign of deep-seated corruption.
The contrast between the administration’s alleged efforts to protect individuals connected to Epstein and their public stance on protecting children is stark. This is particularly galling to those who recall past pronouncements about safeguarding children, which now seem hypocritical in light of the current allegations.
The defense offered in such hearings, described as a “pound the table” or “fling poo and yell” approach, is seen as a desperate tactic to deflect from the core issues. The inability to properly redact sensitive files while simultaneously tracking congressional searches further fuels suspicions about the DOJ’s agenda.
The idea that the DOJ would use flashcards to insult senators asking legitimate questions, rather than to provide accurate answers, highlights what many perceive as a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice and silence inquiry. The tracking of searches is viewed as a form of intimidation, designed to scare Congress away from uncovering further incriminating data.
This alleged surveillance is also being linked to a broader pattern of behavior by the current administration, with claims that it is willing to transgress legal and ethical boundaries. The perception is that the DOJ is acting as a personal legal team for certain individuals, rather than as an independent body upholding the rule of law.
The fact that Pam Bondi herself might be implicated in the Epstein files, coupled with her alleged actions, leads some to describe her as “untethered” and a “scofflaw.” The response of deflecting questions by rambling about unrelated topics, like the stock market or the Dow, when asked about child sex trafficking, is seen as a deliberate tactic to avoid accountability.
The sheer magnitude of alleged misconduct by this administration is leading to a loss of faith in the justice system. The handling of the Epstein files and the apparent surveillance of lawmakers represent, for many, a critical failure that erodes the foundations of American governance.
The characterization of Bondi as “creepy” stems from a deeper concern that she and others involved are actively participating in a cover-up, potentially protecting pedophiles. This is seen as far worse than simply being eccentric or unsettling; it’s viewed as a direct affront to victims and a betrayal of public trust.
The comparison to Orwell’s “1984” reflects a fear that privacy and due process are being eroded, with the government increasingly monitoring its citizens and elected officials. The ultimate goal, as perceived by critics, is to suppress information and prevent the full truth about the Epstein network from emerging.
Ultimately, the allegations surrounding Pam Bondi and the DOJ’s alleged tracking of lawmaker searches of the Epstein files have brought to the forefront serious questions about transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the justice system. The widespread condemnation, often expressed with strong language like “creepy” and “corrupt,” underscores the profound public concern over these developments.