Democrat, GOP Lawmakers Drafting Impeachment Articles Against Bondi
Rep. Ro Khanna said Monday that some Republicans may support efforts to impeach Attorney General Pam Bondi over the Department of Justice’s failure to release all files related to Jeffrey Epstein by a congressionally mandated deadline.
Khanna said the Justice Department did not fully comply with the disclosure requirements, raising concerns among lawmakers about transparency and oversight.
Khanna said that Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) would lead the effort if impeachment proceedings were pursued. Speaking during an interview on Morning Joe, Khanna said that “there are a few Republicans who are on board with it.”
He added, however, that impeachment would not be the initial step, saying lawmakers would first seek to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress as a means of pressuring the Justice Department to comply with document requests.
Democrats have repeatedly raised the prospect of impeaching officials serving in President Donald Trump’s administration, though such efforts have faced long odds in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, Newsweek reported.
Any support from Republican lawmakers for an impeachment effort would mark a notable shift, but it remains unclear whether such an initiative could gain sufficient traction to advance.
Bondi and the Trump administration have received substantial bipartisan criticism for their management of the release of the Epstein files. The full release was required after both the House and Senate passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November, garnering strong support from both Democrats and Republicans, Newsweek added.
The legislation required the files to be released within 30 days with only limited redactions. When the deadline passed Friday, the Department of Justice did not release all of the required materials, and many of the documents that were made public contained extensive redactions.
Khanna and Massie, who co-sponsored and advanced the bipartisan measure, criticized the Justice Department’s handling of the release over the weekend. Other lawmakers and political commentators also raised concerns about the scope and timing of the disclosures, said the outlet.
Speaking Monday on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe,” Khanna said that any potential effort to impeach Bondi would draw bipartisan support, arguing that the circumstances differ from previous impeachment efforts involving officials in President Donald Trump’s administration.
“It’s different because it’s coming from Republicans, too. If it was just me out there or [Democratic Congressman] Robert Garcia out there, it would be seen as, OK, this is just a Democratic thing. This is going to be Thomas Massie leading it,” he claimed.
“There are a few Republicans who are on board with it. But we’re not going straight to impeachment. We’re starting with contempt,” Khanna said. “And the idea would be that you’d get a 30-day grace period, which is already in violation of the law, 30 day grace period to get the documents out.”
During a joint appearance on CBS News’ Face the Nation on Sunday, Khanna and Massie announced their intention to hold Bondi in inherent contempt of Congress, which could result in a daily fine, Newsweek noted.
“We only need the House for inherent contempt, and we’re building a bipartisan coalition,” Khanna said. “And it would fine Pam Bondi for every day that she’s not releasing these documents.”
Massie added, “The quickest way, and I think most expeditious way, to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi.”
Bondi said on the X platform on Sunday: “The Department of Justice previously stated we will bring charges against anyone involved in the trafficking and exploitation of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. We reaffirm this commitment, and ask any victim to please come forward with any information pertaining to any individuals who engaged in illicit activity at their expense. We have met with many victims and victims groups, and will continue to do so if more reach out. Please contact myself, DAG Blanche, or the FBI and we will investigate immediately. We believe in the equal standard of justice in this country and will ensure that Justice is served.”
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
