Trump Fired Pam Bondi the Day After DOJ Agreed to Share Epstein Files with New Mexico

Todd Blanche’s confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee will take place on Wednesday and Thursday. I’m pessimistic any Republican on the Committee will object to formally installing Trump’s defense attorney as Attorney General. Thom Tillis, who plays a big game of opposing January 6, doesn’t find Blanche’s coddling of terrorists (most recently with the dismissal of the Proud Boy leader verdicts against those who appealed) disqualifying. But Blanche’s role in covering up the Epstein files may still incur a political cost. I’ve described Katie Phang’s attempts to force Blanche to adhere to the Epstein Transparency Act here; her response to Blanche’s excuses for not doing so is due today, with Blanche’s reply due next Monday, so all that may take too long to stave off a Senate vote. The survivors have taken out a billboard trying to hold him accountable. Perhaps most interesting, though, is a letter that New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez sent to Blanche last month, reported by MS-Now here, demanding that DOJ finally turn over files relevant to his investigation of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes in the state. It laid out a timeline showing how DOJ has given him the runaround, promising cooperation but ultimately giving him none. I. February 13, 2026 — Written correspondence to then-Deputy Attorney General Blanche requesting access to a specific EFTA document and all related Zorro Ranch investigative materials. II. March 13, 2026 — Formal letter to Attorney General Bondi identifying five illustrative redacted EFTA documents and requesting access to complete, unredacted versions of all pertinent records. III. April 1, 2026 — Telephone conference with Associate Deputy Attorney General Diego Pestana, in which the USDOJ affirmed its commitment to cooperation and directed the NMDOJ to submit a formal Touhy letter through standard channels. IV. May 3, 2026 — Comprehensive Touhy letter submitted to First Assistant U.S. Attorney Ryan Ellison and FBI Albuquerque Special Agent in Charge Justin Garris, identifying specific EFTA document examples and requesting access to all relevant unredacted records. This letter sought a response from the USDOJ by May 11, 2026. V. May 29, 2026 — Written follow-up to Acting Attorney General Blanche and Associate Deputy AG Pestana renewing the request after receiving no substantive response to the Touhy submission. VI. June 4–5, 2026 — Meeting requests directed to your office seeking an in-person conference during Attorney General Torrez’s visit to Washington, D.C. No response was received. [my emphasis] The timeline has all the trappings of bureaucratic blow-off. But I am specifically interested in the affirmative commitment to cooperate in the normal fashion on April 1. That was the day before Trump fired Pam Bondi on April 2. And since then, DOJ has provided no formal response to Torrez’ Touhy letter, the means by which prosecutors make a formal request for materials from DOJ. Blanche’s office totally blew off requests for a meeting in early June. Probably, the affirmative response to Torrez has nothing to do with the timing of Pam Bondi’s firing; Trump was ready to fire her anyway (though her failure to squelch the Epstein investigation was a key part of it). But Blanche’s commitment to serving Trump’s needs has ratcheted up on all issues since then. Again, I don’t think any of this will prevent his confirmation. But (as this post from Sarah Longwell argues) it may well make it politically more damaging. Incidentally, there’s someone who could offer some insight into why DOJ asked New Mexico to drop its investigation of Epstein: Maurene Comey, who made the ask back in 2019. I’m surprised Dems on Oversight have not yet asked James Comer to subpoena her. It’s nuts that Congress is contemplating confirming Blanche as AG. As even most Rs in Congress recognized, the IRS-lawsuit settlement he signed off on was utterly corrupt. In a sane world they would be focused on his impeachment and removal. M. Comey asked DOJ to drop the investigation? That’s something to ponder while pursuing happiness. Her boss at the time (IIRC) was Bill Barr, who also went well overboard to undo Michael Flynn’s guilty plea before exiting to minimize long-term consequences to himself. The common link is Convict-1’s need to bury the Epstein files, and I agree that the Ds should subpoena Maureen Comey to explain the timeline and the logic. She may have given Barr the benefit of the doubt and may not have fully been informed about Zorro’s importance, but we shall find out. Let’s also remember that she remains in DoJ’s doghouse, after daring to challenge her firing out of SDNY and something like committee testimony can be easily twisted by Blanche into another Pirro indictment special. It happened to her father, after all. It’s not a Blanche peccadillo per se, but it would also interest me if Boris Ephshteyn had some fingers in this as well. Isn’t it “Maurene”? No, you’re reading that wrong. Maureen Comey, on behalf of the DOJ, asked New Mexico to drop its investigation. In the abstract, the feds asking a state or local government to back off on a multi-state investigation is not unheard of. The theory is that the feds have a look at the broader picture, which each state only sees part of it. In the ideal scheme of things, when the investigators are ready to swoop in and make all the arrests, it is done simultaneously in all the states. What you don’t want to happen is for one state to swoop in on the bad actors in their state, and make everyone else in other jurisdictions that are part of the scheme start burning their evidence and running away to hide. My guess is that someone at DOJ persuaded Maureen that this is where things were at, and asked her to get NM to back off to protect the broader investigation. Of course, if that someone at DOJ was actually trying to keep a lid on the investigation to protect Epstein and unknown other co-conspirators, this would have provided a veneer of plausibility. I, too, would love to hear what Maureen Comey might have to say here. Of course, the pending litigation between her and the DOJ might create huge hurdles for Oversight. But it also suggests that the committee might want to subpoena DOJ to turn over any emails, memos, or other notes about pausing the NM investigation. In 2019 Maureen Comey, then with DOJ, asked New Mexico to drop its Epstein investigation? Wow! What a careerist piece of shit. Just like her father. Fuck them. Will the survivors ever see justice? In the spirit of ‘name and shame’ tactics used in boardrooms everywhere, perhaps the NMDOJ should buy full-page ads in the WashPo, NYT and local newspapers with a daily counter from the April 1 commitment by the USDOJ to cough up the files. As of today, it’s been 104 days and that needs to be highlighted. Thanks for the additional context. More to ponder …. This article has a long list of documents pertaining to Epstein, many focused on New Mexico. You can scroll through it to select items you may want to read. As you scroll you may have to wait a moment for additional documents to load: https://prospect.org/2025/10/01/2025-10-01-we-obtained-thousands-of-new-epstein-documents/ “We Obtained Thousands of New Epstein Documents” – 10/1/25 “The mostly redacted documents pertain to a New Mexico attorney general investigation that was launched in 2019 but never led to criminal charges.” Given the tenacity of investigative reporters and the prevalence of leakers and whistleblowers, it continues to surprise me that the story behind who authorized the prison transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell remains unknown and unexposed. Obviously, Todd Blanche’s fingerprints are all over this, and it remains one of the frustrating puzzles that Democrats on the committee have taken a crack at but can’t come up with anything. Unfortunately, this will have to await the switch in the majority of the House next year when the Bureau of Prisons records, which most likely hold the key, can be subpoenaed. I’m catching onto your tricks, Marcy. You concocted this whole post just so you could show that photo at the top again. So flattering. : ) 1. If Dems on Oversight asked Comer to subpoena Maurene Comey, I can only think of three answers: [silence], “no.”, or very-long-reply-that-is-effectively-“no.” 2. While the government’s reply to the Phang’s request is due Monday, the existence of the request will give Blanche a dodge of “I will not comment on pending litigation.” However, I do hope that Democrats ask him what he believes the penalties for purposefully evading and obstructing the investigation should entail for those involved, such as permanent disbarment, contempt of Congress, and/or actual obstruction of justice charges. 3. It’d be nice, but not holding my breath, if a Democrat were to also press Blanche on whether a federal official acting in direct opposition to established federal law, may be punished by a STATE (like New Mexico) for obstruction of justice in its own investigative efforts. I don’t think that New Mexico can clear the federal immunity claims, but it’d be nice if Blanche was made to fear into his obstruction of Epstein-related investigations. Also, with 2 absences, I’m putting Suzie Collins down as the last and key vote for confirmation. She’ll be “concerned” and might need a phone call from Mitch McConnell to tell her how to vote, but I expect Vance to be on hand to break the tie. THIS is how Democrats go after Collins. Judge says TRUMP and BLANCHE are NOT adversaries. https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3mqk2mdfpkk2q 11:57 AM · Jul 13, 2026 I have comment in the pokey, but this is the gist [via Chris Geidner]: Judge Kathleen Williams in TRUMP v IRS: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.106.0.pdf GEIDNER: See Giedner’s THREAD here: https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3mqk2mdfpkk2q 11:57 AM · Jul 13, 2026 Marcy’s doing a THREAD about this: https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3mqk7gynzkc2l 1:23 PM · Jul 13, 2026 …in which she writes: This does assist me in my pursuit of happiness today. :- ) Can I include whether Slaughter also removes the formerly-independent agencies’ ability to update regulations? If the bodies were “quasi-” but Slaughter stands for the idea that anything in the executive branch can only be “executive”, doesn’t it follow that new regulations can only come from the Legislative Branch? If the response is that Congress delegated authority, why does that theory apply only to the Legislative Branch and not the Executive Branch? There’s a lot of follow-on action to Slaughter that should make Bruen look coherent by contrast. Regarding previous BLANCHE testimony, The Court is extremely troubled : [pdf29/56] Footnote 38: