New Epstein Files Expose Bondi’s Lie on Prison Video’s Missing Minute

When the FBI and Justice Department issued their Jeffrey Epstein case-closed memo in July, they also released what they said was the “full raw” footage from a camera outside of his cell on the night of his suicide.

But observers quickly noticed that the recording jumped one minute, from 11:59 p.m. to 12 a.m.—a so-called “missing minute” that became conspiracy fodder for those who believe Epstein was actually murdered. Attorney General Pam Bondi attributed the jump to an automatic daily reset at midnight: “It’s old, from like 1999,” she said. “Every night, the video is reset.”

It turns out that was a lie. The House Oversight Committee’s Tuesday dump of some new Epstein-related files contains the security camera footage with two additional hours, including the “missing minute.” During the minute, relatively little can be made out, though guards are seen working around the area near Epstein’s cell. The additional footage also includes previously unpublished footage of Epstein being escorted to make a phone call, per CBS.

Thus far, the Trump administration has not publicly addressed its previous incorrect statements about the video footage.

Three of MAGA’s strongest soldiers are flipping on President Trump to back Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna’s bipartisan discharge petition to force the Justice Department to release the Epstein files in full.

Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Nancy Mace have all come out in support of the discharge petition, while virtually everyone else in their party cowers in fear of angering the president further. Speaker Mike Johnson has continued to offer distractions and outs to Republicans who don’t want to oppose Trump, even going so far as to declare recess early and offer a shadow vote to give GOPers cover and pretend they’re doing something about the Epstein files. Johnson could simply bring the bipartisan discharge petition straight to the floor if he wanted to. He does not.

At least one of the three MAGA Republicans (Mace) attended the House Oversight Committee’s Tuesday meeting with 10 of Epstein’s victims. She left with tears in her eyes.

“Since it’s already being reported—Yes I left the Oversight briefing with Epstein victims early. As a recent survivor (not 2 years in), I had a very difficult time listening to their stories. Full blown panic attack. Sweating. Hyperventilating. Shaking. I can’t breathe,” Mace wrote, after the meeting, on X. “I feel the immense pain of how hard all victims are fighting for themselves because we know absolutely no one will fight for us. GOD BLESS ALL SURVIVORS.”

It’s worth noting that just an hour before the meeting, Mace was calling the bipartisan petition a “political wedge for [Democrats] in the midterms.

Taylor Greene also offered her robust support for the petition.

“I was the second co-sponsor on Thomas Massie’s resolution. After reading the entire resolution … it protects the victims, and it provides the transparency that the country deserves, and most importantly the survivors deserve. Yes, I will be proudly signing the discharge petition,” Taylor Greene told reporters on Tuesday. “This shouldn’t have been a battle, and unfortunately it has been one. As a woman myself, as a mother of two daughters, I can’t imagine any young girl, or any young woman, being victimized and having … basically a cabal of powerful rich people, as well as the government, cover this up and not prosecute these monsters. And so yes, I’ll proudly sign the discharge petition and I’ll proudly vote for it when it comes to the floor.”

This all comes as the 10 victims who met with the House Oversight Committee behind closed doors on Tuesday plan to hold a press conference with Massie and Khanna at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday. Massie and Khanna need 218 votes to get their petition to the floor. Right now they have 216, with 212 Democratic signees, Massie, and these three congresswomen. Maybe the impending press conference will be enough to flip two more GOPers. We’ll know very soon.

President Donald Trump’s administration warned Republicans Tuesday that voting to release more files on Jeffrey Epstein would be seen as an act of war.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie is leading the charge on moving for a House vote to release the Epstein files in full, following the GOP-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s lackluster release of more than 33,000 documents on the child sex offender Tuesday night, 97 percent of which had already been made public.

Representatives Massie and Ro Khanna had previously introduced a bipartisan bill in July to get the Justice Department to release the full cache of the Epstein files within a month. Then, on Tuesday, Massie filed a discharge petition.

The White House was less than pleased.

“Helping Thomas Massie and Liberal Democrats with their attention-seeking, while the DOJ is fully supporting a more comprehensive file release effort from the Oversight Committee, would be viewed as a very hostile act to the administration,” a White House official said in a statement to CNN.

Massie has already managed to secure signatures for the petition from some of the biggest firebrand Republican representatives, including Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Their support means Massie needs only two more signatures to force a vote.

“There’s a major pressure campaign from the White House right now, and also from the speaker,” Massie said on Tuesday. “But I think there are enough Republicans who are listening to their constituents and care about these victims that we’ll get the 218 signatures we need.”

In her latest seeming appeasement to President Donald Trump amid his federal takeover of Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser on Tuesday ordered that the city work with federal law enforcement indefinitely.

With the one-month limit (sans congressional approval) on Trump’s takeover approaching, Bowser issued an executive order stating that D.C. will “ensure coordination with federal law enforcement to the maximum extent allowable by law within the District.” The order also requires that D.C. “continue to communicate its priorities to federal counterparts and other ways the federal government can assist the District.”

No expiration date is provided for the directive, which the Democratic mayor described as a “pathway forward beyond” Trump’s dubiously grounded 30-day crime emergency.

Trump is already delighted by Bowser’s order, a White House official told The Washington Post, and the president described the D.C. mayor as “very helpful,” in a press conference Tuesday.

While Bowser’s order takes a largely warm stance on the takeover, it does lay out plans to “advance requests” that “federal partners” make efforts to “maintain community confidence in law enforcement,” including by not wearing masks to conceal their identities—a practice that has, thus far, seemingly persisted despite Bowser’s objections.

Bowser has faced criticism for her increasingly conciliatory approach to Trump’s takeover, which is opposed by eight in 10 D.C. residents, according to a Washington Post poll last month. At a press conference last week, Bowser said she “greatly appreciate[s] the surge of officers.”

Prior to Bowser’s executive order Tuesday, a coalition of progressive groups in Washington, D.C., wrote a letter criticizing her perceived embrace of Trump’s occupation. “Your talk about crime fighting and crime rates only lends credence to the federal overreach, invites future attempts to degrade our home rule, and feeds a narrative that dehumanizes our neighbors and puts them at greater risk,” they wrote.

“History is calling upon you to lead our people, not to cower in the face of an authoritarian who does not have our best interests in mind,” the letter continued. “There is no strategy in appeasement, only the reality that the more we give, the more they will take.”

President Donald Trump ended his press conference in a huff Tuesday, after snapping at a reporter who asked him about his administration’s legal loss in California.

The journalist asked the president to respond to a federal judge’s ruling that the Trump administration’s decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles had blatantly violated the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, an act prohibiting the use of the U.S. military to execute domestic law.

“Well, it was a radical left judge, but—very importantly—what did you not tell me in that question, or statement, that you made?” Trump asked, muttering a bit to himself.

“Well, I was asking for your response,” the reporter said.

“No, no, you didn’t say what the judge said though,” Trump said. “The judge said, ‘But you can leave the 300 people that you already have in place, they can continue to be in place.’ That’s all we need. But why didn’t you put that as part of your statement?”

Trump appeared desperate to reframe the judge’s ruling as a victory instead of a defeat, and was defensive that the simple question hadn’t aligned with that framing.

“’Cause, the judge, the same judge, ruled exactly as you said, except the judge said that you could leave the 300 people that you already have in place, they can stay, they can remain, they can do what they have to do,” Trump continued, before abruptly dismissing the reporters from the press conference to which he’d arrived an hour late.

The president was referring to U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruling that the Trump administration was not required to withdraw 300 National Guard troops already stationed in Los Angeles but that the government could not use them as it had, to “set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles.”

The judge barred the administration from using the military in California “to execute the laws, including but not limited to engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants” in ways that violate the Posse Comitatus Act. He gave the Trump administration until noon on September 12 to comply.

Acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli gave no indication that the Trump administration planned to abide by the judge’s ruling, claiming that federal agents had needed protection from “thugs” supported by Democratic officials.