By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article highlights a significant moment where Congressman Ted Lieu presented photographs of Prince Andrew, arguing they constituted evidence of a crime warranting an investigation. Lieu directly questioned Attorney General Pam Bondi about her decision to halt a previous investigation into the Prince. Bondi deflected by discussing a former Attorney General’s actions, while Lieu subsequently shifted the focus to Donald Trump by playing a clip of him with Jeffrey Epstein.
Read the original article here
The accusation that Pam Bondi may have lied under oath regarding Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein is a serious one, especially given the context of Representative Ted Lieu’s intervention. Lieu, known for his sharp legal mind and meticulous approach, presented what are described as “receipts,” suggesting he has evidence to back his claims of perjury. This isn’t just a casual political jab; it’s an allegation of a criminal offense, which carries significant weight in any legal or legislative setting.
Bondi’s testimony, or lack thereof, in this situation is central to the controversy. The core of the accusation seems to revolve around whether she was truthful about her knowledge or involvement concerning any connections between Trump and Epstein, particularly when questioned under oath. The implication is that her statements, or denials, may not align with the evidence that has since surfaced, specifically from the Epstein files.
Representative Lieu’s involvement suggests a deliberate effort to scrutinize Bondi’s past statements. When a member of Congress, particularly one with a legal background, accuses another individual of perjury, it’s generally based on a thorough review of the facts and a strong conviction that an oath has been violated. The mention of “receipts” implies documentary or testimonial evidence that directly contradicts Bondi’s sworn statements.
The “Epstein files” themselves are a critical element here. These files are known to contain sensitive information and potentially incriminating details about numerous high-profile individuals. If these files contain information that directly implicates Trump, and if Bondi, when questioned under oath, denied such connections or misrepresented her knowledge, then the basis for a perjury charge becomes clearer.
A key point raised is the alleged lack of preparation or a defensive tactic employed by Bondi when confronted with difficult questions. Instead of directly addressing the substance of the inquiry, the narrative suggests she attempted to deflect by attacking the questioner, Representative Lieu, and by bringing up unrelated issues like crime in his district. This is often seen as a tactic to shift the focus away from an uncomfortable truth or a potentially damaging admission.
Furthermore, the argument is made that such deflection is a common playbook for certain political figures. When faced with evidence or direct questioning, the response is not to provide answers but to accuse opponents of malicious intent or of trying to distract from perceived successes. This pattern, if true, points to a broader strategy of avoiding accountability through misdirection and aggressive counter-accusation.
The gravity of lying under oath cannot be overstated. It undermines the integrity of the judicial and legislative processes, as sworn testimony is meant to be the bedrock of truth-seeking. The fact that there’s a perception that no consequences follow such actions, particularly for those in positions of power or close to influential figures, is a recurring theme in the commentary.
The sentiment is that a system where individuals can allegedly lie under oath without repercussions is fundamentally broken. This lack of accountability is frustrating and fuels cynicism about the fairness and efficacy of the justice system. The argument is that if such serious allegations of perjury are made with supporting evidence, there should be tangible legal or political consequences.
The commentary also touches on the loyalty often expected within certain political circles. It’s suggested that Bondi’s alleged willingness to potentially lie under oath could be a way to maintain favor with Donald Trump. This dynamic highlights a concerning aspect of power, where loyalty might be prioritized over truth and ethical conduct, potentially leading individuals to engage in risky or illegal behavior to stay in someone’s good graces.
The notion that “every accusation is a confession” is brought up, suggesting that Bondi’s attempt to frame the inquiry as a deflection might, in itself, be an admission of guilt or at least an acknowledgment of the underlying issue. This kind of linguistic mirroring, where the accusation and the response seem to overlap, is seen as a sign of a political culture that has become increasingly performative and less rooted in substance.
Ultimately, the core of the discussion is whether Pam Bondi committed perjury. Representative Ted Lieu’s claims, backed by “receipts,” suggest that there is significant evidence to warrant such an accusation. The debate then shifts to whether this accusation will lead to any tangible consequences, given the prevailing political climate and the perceived lack of accountability for certain individuals. The concern is that if such serious allegations are not addressed, it further erodes public trust in institutions and the rule of law.