Former DOJ Dan Goldman Unloads on Bondi's Epstein Cover-up - The Lincoln Project

Former DOJ prosecutor Dan Goldman joins us to break down the growing firestorm around Pam Bondi, Donald Trump, and the Epstein files. As scrutiny over the Epstein investigation intensifies, Bondi’s defense of Trump raises serious questions about DOJ independence, selective prosecution, and political loyalty inside the Department of Justice.

Goldman explains what the Epstein files could mean for Trump legally, whether accountability is being delayed or deflected, and how the DOJ is supposed to function when powerful figures are involved. If you’re looking for clear analysis on Trump and Epstein, Pam Bondi’s role, DOJ ethics, and the fight over equal justice under the law — this is it.

====================

- Attorney General Pam Bondi faced sharp criticism for her combative, evasive, and dismissive demeanor during the Epstein hearings, with lawmakers and survivors accusing her of lacking empathy and obstructing justice.
- Survivors of Epstein’s abuse were ignored by the DOJ — none had been contacted or met with by the department, despite all reaching out to offer testimony, highlighting systemic failures in addressing their cases.
- Congressional Republicans were accused of abandoning oversight duties, deferring to Trump rather than upholding constitutional checks, especially during heated hearings where Bondi refused to answer direct questions.
- The DOJ and DHS are accused of weaponizing law enforcement, including targeting political opponents, suppressing investigations (e.g., after fatal federal shootings), and undermining the rule of law — described as “fascist” behavior.
- Calls for investigations and accountability are growing, including potential impeachment or contempt charges against Bondi and others, with plans to codify DOJ independence and restore norms eroded under Trump.
- Democrats outline policy priorities for a potential 2027 majority, including universal childcare, reproductive rights (Women’s Health Protection Act), voting reform, and economic justice — framing them as both moral imperatives and political wins.