Bondi defiende la gestión del Departamento de Justicia sobre los archivos de Epstein, pero afirma que Blanche estaba a cargo

May 29, 2026 | 12:16 PM

La exsecretaria de Justicia Pam Bondi se mantuvo hermética respecto a la gestión del Departamento de Justicia en la divulgación de los archivos de Jeffrey Epstein durante una entrevista largamente solicitada con legisladores del Congreso —según informaron los demócratas este viernes—, pero señaló varias veces que su sucesor, Todd Blanche, fue quien estuvo mayormente a cargo del asunto.

En un comunicado emitido antes de su reunión en el Capitolio, Bondi ofreció una firme defensa de la divulgación de dichos archivos por parte del departamento, argumentando que el Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) “demostró un compromiso sin precedentes con la transparencia” durante su mandato. Sin embargo, dentro de la sala, los legisladores demócratas de la Comisión de Supervisión de la Cámara insisten en que Bondi no ofreció respuestas sustantivas a sus preguntas, incluida la interrogante sobre cuánto sabía el propio presidente Donald Trump acerca de los crímenes de Epstein en aquel momento. En su lugar, el representante Robert Garcia afirmó que Bondi intentó “culpar al fiscal general interino Todd Blanche”, quien fuera su adjunto en el pasado.

“Ella dijo —y cito textualmente—: ‘El fiscal general interino Blanche estaba gestionando toda la investigación’”, declaró García, el demócrata de mayor rango en la comisión.

Bondi, quien abandonó el Capitolio sin hacer declaraciones a la prensa, utilizó sus redes sociales para refutar enérgicamente las afirmaciones de García respecto a que ella hubiera intentado culpar a Blanche.

“NO ES CIERTO”, escribió Bondi en X. “Elogié la gestión que hizo el fiscal general interino Blanche de esta tarea hercúlea. Dije que su ética es intachable y que es un fiscal general increíble”.

Los republicanos del panel de supervisión también refutaron la idea de que Bondi estuviera intentando culpar a Blanche, según una persona familiarizada con las discusiones. CNN se ha puesto en contacto con Blanche para solicitar sus comentarios, pero hasta ahora no ha obtenido respuestas.

Una funcionaria del Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) que asistió a la entrevista a puerta cerrada de Bondi —Harmeet Dhillon— declaró a los periodistas que dicha delegación de tareas era “muy común” para un líder de alto rango dentro de una agencia tan vasta.

“La exsecretaria de Justicia tenía miles de responsabilidades, y es habitual que muchos aspectos de su labor se deleguen en otros altos funcionarios”, afirmó Dhillon.

Los demócratas también acusaron a Bondi de obstaculizar sus preguntas sobre la investigación y de negarse a responder cualquier interrogante referente a Trump, señalando que Dhillon —la funcionaria del DOJ sentada a su lado— había “impedido a la Sra. Bondi responder a las preguntas en múltiples ocasiones”, según García. En un momento dado, al ser interrogada específicamente sobre si Trump tenía conocimiento de los crímenes de Epstein, ella respondió a los demócratas: “No tengo certeza sobre el alcance de su conocimiento”, según el representante demócrata James Walkinshaw.

“Lo que ocurre ahí dentro es una farsa”, declaró a los periodistas el representante demócrata Dave Min.

Dhillon, sin embargo, afirmó que simplemente estaba interviniendo para asegurar que los legisladores se ciñeran a las “reglas básicas” establecidas por el comité, tanto en lo referente al formato como a la temática. Al ser consultada sobre las quejas de los demócratas —quienes consideraban inapropiado que el DOJ representara a Bondi después de que esta fuera destituida—, Dhillon se mostró desdeñosa: “Eso es absurdo. Es algo que le corresponde evaluar a ella, y está claro que no lo consideró de ese modo”.

Aproximadamente dos meses después de su destitución y pocos días después de hacer público su diagnóstico de cáncer, Bondi se dirigió a los legisladores del Capitolio para hablar sobre la gestión del Departamento en la investigación de Epstein bajo su supervisión, un tema que generó gran controversia en la Casa Blanca de Donald Trump durante su mandato.

La deferencia de Bondi hacia Blanche también resultó evidente en la declaración preparada que difundió a primera hora del día, en la que pareció distanciarse de al menos una parte del proceso de divulgación de documentos y señaló que había “delegado” parte de esa labor en quien ejerce ahora como fiscal general interino.

“Como titular de un gran departamento con amplias responsabilidades, no dirigí todos los aspectos de esta iniciativa ni realicé personalmente la revisión de dichos documentos. Delegué la supervisión de este proceso en el fiscal general adjunto, Todd Blanche”, declaró Bondi.

El representante James Comer, presidente de la comisión de Supervisión de la Cámara de Representantes, recalcó a los periodistas el viernes por la mañana que su comisión se está tomando esta investigación muy en serio, mientras realiza la decimotercera entrevista en su pesquisa sobre el fallecido delincuente sexual convicto.

“Queremos que el pueblo estadounidense conozca la verdad; queremos intentar hacer justicia a las víctimas”, declaró a los periodistas. Posteriormente, no hizo declaraciones a la prensa sobre las manifestaciones de Bondi.

Los republicanos tienen previsto publicar la transcripción de dicha entrevista en los próximos días. Sin embargo, García —la contraparte demócrata de Comer en la comisión— arremetió contra los republicanos por no haber exigido a la exfiscal general que declarara ante las cámaras ni que prestara juramento formal antes de comparecer ante el panel.

Si bien la entrevista de Bondi será transcrita y publicada, Garcia afirmó que “debería haber sido bajo juramento y grabada en video”. (Los republicanos señalan que otras reuniones voluntarias similares con figuras de alto perfil —como el secretario de Comercio, Howard Lutnick— tampoco fueron grabadas).

Justo antes de la comparecencia de Bondi, un grupo de víctimas de Epstein habló con los periodistas sobre la importancia de su entrevista y la clara necesidad de obtener más información.

Marina Lacerda, una de las sobrevivientes, afirmó creer que Bondi conoce detalles de la investigación que el público desconoce. “Todos esperamos que hoy Pam Bondi sea lo más clara posible y que, con suerte, asuma la responsabilidad”, declaró.

Unos 2,5 millones de documentos de los archivos de investigación del Departamento de Justicia relacionados con el fallecido agresor sexual convicto no se han hecho públicos, y muchas de las 3,5 millones de páginas publicadas están fuertemente censuradas, lo que genera interrogantes sobre qué información está siendo ocultada al público.

Durante su gestión como máxima responsable de la aplicación de la ley en Estados Unidos, Bondi fue criticada por ambos partidos por su falta de transparencia en la investigación de Epstein.

También ha sido objeto de escrutinio por errores de censura en los documentos que, en algunos casos, expusieron información personal privada de las sobrevivientes.

Otra sobreviviente que habló con los periodistas el viernes, Liz Stein, afirmó que quiere que Bondi responda por esos errores de censura y que revele si alguien ha sido responsabilizado por revelar los nombres de las sobrevivientes “mientras protegía los nombres de los perpetradores”. “Sin duda, espero que, como abogada de carrera y exdirectora del Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos, haga un examen de conciencia y recuerde por qué fue nombrada para ese cargo y cuáles son sus responsabilidades para con el pueblo estadounidense, y no necesariamente para con ninguna administración en particular”, dijo Stein.

En marzo, la comisión de supervisión, con varios legisladores republicanos sumándose a los demócratas, votó a favor de citar a Bondi. Con el fin de aumentar la confianza de los miembros en la forma en que se estaba llevando a cabo la investigación, Bondi compareció voluntariamente en una reunión informal con los legisladores; sin embargo, los demócratas se retiraron de la reunión porque se negó a testificar bajo juramento.

Bondi debía comparecer para una declaración jurada en abril, pero fue destituida de su cargo como secretaria de Justicia antes de la fecha prevista, lo que llevó al departamento a oponerse a su comparecencia. Los demócratas, furiosos, amenazaron con declararla en desacato al Congreso. Ahora compareció voluntariamente ante la comisión.

Bondi ha estado en el centro de la crisis política de la administración Trump en torno a Epstein desde el principio.

Poco después de asumir el cargo, Bondi pareció alinearse con los numerosos seguidores de MAGA que exigían total transparencia en la gestión gubernamental de los archivos de Epstein. En una declaración que se hizo famosa, afirmó en Fox News que la lista de clientes de Epstein, de la que se rumoreaba desde hacía tiempo, estaba sobre su “escritorio ahora mismo”.

Sin embargo, posteriormente se retractó de sus declaraciones y su departamento no ofreció nuevos detalles sobre Epstein, lo que enfureció a la base de MAGA. Esa falta de transparencia contribuyó a alimentar una revuelta republicana en el Congreso, liderada por el congresista Thomas Massie y la excongresista Marjorie Taylor Greene, que finalmente obligó a Trump y a los líderes republicanos a acelerar la publicación por parte del Departamento de Justicia de una extensa red de archivos de Epstein.

Sin embargo, algunos republicanos y muchos demócratas han insistido en que el Departamento de Justicia ha demorado la publicación o ha ocultado otros detalles.

Takeaways from the preliminary hearing for Charlie Kirk’s accused killer

July 11, 2026 | 5:00 AM

Provo, Utah (CNN) — Over the last week, attorneys, news reporters and spectators gathered in a Provo, Utah, courtroom as prosecutors tried to convince a judge to allow the case against the 23-year-old man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk to proceed to trial.The proceedings were frequently bogged down by arguments over whether certain exhibits could be admitted into evidence and publicly broadcast via a camera in the courtroom. Still, it was a pivotal moment, offering the fullest picture yet of the case against Tyler Robinson, some ten months after the death of the 31-year-old conservative firebrand and co-founder of Turning Point USA.During the five-day preliminary hearing, the Utah County Attorney’s Office displayed campus surveillance video around the time of the shooting, alleged messages from Robinson prosecutors describe as a confession and a videotaped interview with a key witness: Robinson’s former roommate and romantic partner.The defense, meanwhile, worked to undercut the forensic evidence and raise questions about law enforcement’s handling of the investigation. Robinson’s attorneys called three witnesses to testify about the results of DNA and ballistics testing, but Robinson himself did not take the stand, choosing to heed his attorneys’ advice, his defense team said.Now that both sides have presented some of their evidence, the judge must determine whether there’s probable cause to support the charges: aggravated murder, felony use of a firearm, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and committing a violent act in the presence of a child.If Judge Tony Graf finds there’s sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, Robinson will be arraigned and enter pleas. Graf is expected to rule after oral arguments scheduled in early September, shortly before the anniversary of Kirk’s death.Kirk was killed September 10, 2025, when he was fatally shot in front of about 3,000 people during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University in Orem. Graphic videos of the shooting flooded social media and politicians on both sides of the aisle condemned the killing – one example of the political violence roiling America in recent years.Prosecutors have said they intend to seek the death penalty against Robinson, who turned himself in to police the day after the shooting.Here are five things we learned in the hearing that shed new light on the case:Robinson said he regretted shooting, his roommate told prosecutorsThe most anticipated evidence came Thursday, when prosecutors presented a previously recorded video interview with Lance Twiggs, Robinson’s roommate at the time of Kirk’s killing.Twiggs, who was also Robinson’s romantic partner, told prosecutors the defendant expressed regret the day after the shooting, hours before he surrendered to police.“He started crying a little bit and said he wishes he hadn’t done it, and then kept going around and just doing stuff, I think to keep himself busy or distracted or something,” Twiggs said in the interview conducted and recorded in April. Parts of the interview were redacted due to an order by the judge.Twiggs is a pivotal witness for prosecutors, and not only for the alleged conversation described in the interview. The state has also pointed to text messages they say Twiggs and Robinson exchanged hours after the shooting, arguing Robinson’s alleged texts amount to a confession.The first message, sent from Robinson around 11 p.m., directed Twiggs to “drop what you are doing, look under my keyboard.”Twiggs described finding a note from Robinson, which was entered into evidence and read aloud in court, though its contents were previously revealed in court records. According to an affidavit, the note read, in part:“If you are reading this per my text, then I am so sorry. I left the house this morning on a mission, and set an auto text. I am likely dead, or facing a lengthy prison sentence. I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it.”Twiggs then texted Robinson, “you weren’t the one who did it right????” per the messages shown in court.“I am, I’m sorry,” Robinson allegedly replied.Twiggs’ attorney told CNN his client has “cooperated consistently with the investigation.”Video surveillance showed Robinson on campus before and after shooting, investigator testifiedProsecutors played surveillance footage that allegedly showed Tyler Robinson on UVU’s campus four times in the hours before and after Kirk was killed – including one video an investigator said showed Robinson’s car near the scene after midnight, some 12 hours after the shooting.Robinson was first captured on camera around 8:30 a.m. the day of the shooting, when footage showed his car pulling into a parking garage, according to testimony by Sergeant David Hull, a former investigator with the Utah State Bureau of Investigation.After he left the garage on foot, Robinson visited the courtyard where Kirk’s event was to take place that afternoon and spoke with Turning Point USA representatives, the investigator testified. He left campus around 9:25 a.m.Cameras captured Robinson on foot about an hour later, when Hull testified he purchased food on campus and walked into a nearby wooded area. When he returned, he no longer had a backpack, the investigator said, and he left shortly before 11 a.m.Robinson was seen again on campus surveillance footage around 11:53 a.m., about a half-hour before Kirk was killed, the footage showed. Hull noted Robinson was wearing different clothes and walking with a limp not seen in the earlier footage.Prosecutors also presented surveillance footage captured from a distance that Hull testified showed Robinson running across the rooftop of the Losee Center, a building on UVU’s campus near the courtyard where Kirk’s event was taking place.According to Hull, that footage showed Robinson running across the rooftop and crawling to the corner of the building, where he laid prone around 12:22 p.m.Kirk was shot around 12:23 p.m.Hull said the footage then showed Robinson – who appeared to be carrying an object – run back across the roof and lower himself down before going into the nearby wooded area.That night, around 12:30 a.m. on September 11, surveillance cameras captured a vehicle stopping and attempting to turn onto a campus road. The vehicle belonged to Robinson, Hull said.“When that vehicle was stopped, it actually made contact with an officer who was doing security detail,” Hull testified.“There was something about the interaction that made (the officer) make a note for the license plate of the vehicle,” the investigator said.When the officer learned a similar car was suspected to be tied to the shooting, he ran the information from the stop to identify the male driver. The car was registered to Tyler Robinson and his mother, Hull said.Prosecutors did not explain in this week’s hearing the significance of Robinson’s alleged presence near the scene that night. But in text messages with Twiggs, Robinson allegedly expressed a desire to retrieve his rifle, which a law enforcement witness testified was discovered in a wooded area nearby.Prosecutors argued DNA and ballistics testing link defendant to the sceneProsecutors displayed the results from ballistics and DNA testing they argue links Robinson to the alleged murder weapon: a Mauser Model 98 .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle found wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near campus.The rifle contained one spent cartridge casing and three unfired rounds, which were each engraved with messages, said Sergeant Jennifer Faumuina, an investigator with the State Bureau of Investigation called to testify by prosecutors.Roughly a month before Kirk’s killing, Twiggs said Robinson asked for a Dremel, a tool used for sanding or grinding, to engrave bullets for an upcoming family hunting trip.Police later seized a Dremel and several cartridge casings – which were the same type of round found in the rifle – from the home he shared with Twiggs, Faumuina said. One of the casings had the words “TEST SHOT” engraved on it, according to a photo displayed in court.The cartridge casings found inside Robinson’s home had been fired by the rifle found near campus, according to a US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives report read in court. An ATF analysis also determined the recovered Dremel tool made the engravings on the cartridges found with the rifle and inside Robinson’s home.However, an ATF analysis concluded a bullet jacket fragment recovered from Kirk’s body “could not be identified or excluded” as having been fired from the rifle.“The result of the comparison was inconclusive,” the report said, a conclusion the defense has previously suggested could be exculpatory.ATF examiner Samantha Karner, the report’s author, was called to testify by the defense and said she was “unable to say one way or another” due to a lack of microscopic marks on the bullet jacket fragment.Experts also conducted DNA testing on different parts of the rifle. Testing revealed it was at least 1 trillion times more likely Robinson contributed DNA to these samples than not – the highest statistic permitted under her laboratory’s guidelines, ATF DNA section chief Caitlin Oliver testified.There was also “very strong support” for the conclusion that DNA collected from the towel wrapped around the gun and a screwdriver found on the roof of the Losee Center originated from Robinson and Twiggs, said Amanda Bakker, a DNA forensic examiner for the FBI.Defense questioned investigation’s handling in first glimpse of its strategyBefore this week, Robinson’s defense kept its strategy close to the vest. Pretrial proceedings were largely focused on technicalities – such as raising a perceived conflict of interest on the part of the prosecution and trying to get cameras banned from the courtroom.But glimpses of a strategy emerged in the preliminary hearing. Robinson’s attorneys questioned the forensic evidence and grilled law enforcement officers about their handling of the investigation, highlighting potential leads that were discarded.For instance, former UVU Officer Chris Bagley testified under questioning by prosecutors he saw an empty pistol holster in the grass following the shooting. But he disregarded it because he thought the gunshot he heard came from a rifle, he said.Defense attorney Kathryn Nester noted a report written by another officer and introduced during Hull’s testimony said a gun was found in the holster.She asked Hull about a bullet found on the roof of a different building on campus and other people who were questioned early on. Hull said the bullet had not been fired and was ejected from an officer’s rifle and that the other people interviewed had been cleared by investigators.Nester also called into question the security protocols surrounding the event, asking Bagley about how many officers were assigned and other preparations. Bagley testified six of the department’s 15 officers were working, that he was unaware of a security debrief ahead of the event and that no magnetometers or drones were used to screen the crowd.Defense attorney Michael Burt, meanwhile, tried to discredit the DNA and ballistics reports, questioning forensic witnesses about semantics in lab policies and the quality of the evidence collected.Kirk’s widow, loved ones call evidence ‘overwhelming’ – and ask for it to be made publicThe hearing this week was attended each day by Kirk’s loved ones, who said in a statement Friday the last several days had been “difficult.”Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, who now leads Turning Point USA, was seen crying at times, dabbing her eyes with tissues and being consoled by the people around her.She briefly exited the courtroom on a few occasions, including when the shooting was described by Bagley, the former UVU officer, and when videos of the shooting were shown to the judge and the parties. That footage was not displayed publicly.Following the conclusion of testimony Friday, Kirk’s family filed a request for a “prompt” ruling on whether the case can proceed to trial “based on the overwhelming evidence presented.”They also released a statement calling the process “an important step forward in the pursuit of justice for Charlie.”“As difficult as these last few days have been, it brings our family comfort to know that the world has witnessed the overwhelming evidence of what occurred to Charlie that day,” the family said.The Kirks have been vocal supporters of keeping the courtroom open to the public and the media as a way to combat conspiracy theories about Kirk’s death – and that desire was reiterated this week as the court weighed what exhibits could be broadcast to the public.Kirk’s attorney asked during Wednesday’s hearing for any evidence presented in court to be made public without redactions and, after Graf denied that request, followed it up with a written notice to the court that night.“To receive evidence in a manner shielded from those seated in the courtroom – as happened today – is not transparency,” the attorney, Jeffrey Neiman, wrote. “And in the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracy theories related to the tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breeding doubt and distrust in the judicial system.”The notice requested all evidence that had not been displayed publicly be shown again – and that additional evidence introduced during the case also be made public.Graf denied the request Thursday morning.“Nothing will ever undo the loss of our beloved Charlie,” the family said in its statement Friday. “As this case moves into its next phase, we pray that truth will continue to be heard through a process that is fair, transparent, and grounded in the facts.”The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Related News

Takeaways from the preliminary hearing for Charlie Kirk’s accused killer

Esta caótica foca de 2.200 libras ha regresado al mar, pero deja tras de sí un enigma

La perspectiva desde Teherán: Ira y sed de venganza en el ambiente mientras Irán entierra a su líder más longevo