What evidence did state archives or investigators find regarding missing files from the Attorney General’s office during Bondi’s tenure?

1. What officials say was present, missing, or transferred — conflicting official narratives

Attorney General Bondi publicly asserted she had requested the “full and complete files” related to Jeffrey Epstein and that the Department initially delivered about 200 pages while she was later told there were “thousands of pages” not previously disclosed — and she directed FBI Director Kash Patel to produce remaining documents ^[3]. By contrast, a DOJ/FBI July memo described investigators as not having found evidence in the files that would justify opening investigations into uncharged third parties, language that reporters and lawmakers treated as effectively saying the material did not contain prosecutable leads ^{[1] [2]}. Congressional Democrats reported the DOJ and FBI formally closed the co‑conspirator probe in July 2025, and they have pressed for more documents and an explanation for why investigatory steps stopped ^{[5] [6]}.

2. The “tens of thousands” of videos claim vs. later walk‑backs

Bondi and allied officials at times suggested the government possessed extensive audiovisual material — reports quote her saying the FBI was “reviewing tens of thousands of videos” related to Epstein ^[4]. Independent reporting and the DOJ later undercut that implication: PBS reported the DOJ walked back the idea of an Epstein “client list” and said it would not release more files despite earlier promises, signaling that some of Bondi’s public claims about imminent large releases were not matched by the department’s decisions ^[7]. Public sources therefore show a gap between Bondi’s public assertions about substantial undisclosed material and DOJ statements limiting what would be released ^{[3] [7]}.

3. What investigative documents or archives actually show (what sources explicitly state)

A House Judiciary Democrats release and correspondence cited by reporters say that until January 2025 SDNY ran an active investigation and that in January prosecutors were told to transfer Epstein case files to other authorities; the committee materials assert that the DOJ and FBI then formally closed the investigation in July 2025, and members have demanded production of underlying documents ^{[6] [5]}. The DOJ press release about Bondi’s February 27, 2025 declassification cites an initial 200‑page delivery and Bondi’s request for the remainder of the files by February 28 — but it does not enumerate what specifically was later produced or confirm physical items such as cameras or hard drives ^[3].

4. Reporting on missing physical evidence and archive gaps — limited and circumstantial

AP/other reporting referenced by local outlets noted that a 2005 search of Epstein’s Palm Beach home reportedly found computer hardware and disconnected surveillance cameras and that some equipment or recordings were later “missing,” as summarized in a 2020 OPR report — but later federal indictments did not include allegations about recordings, and there is “no indication prosecutors obtained any missing equipment” during the federal investigation, according to the same reporting ^[4]. That means available reporting documents prior-era findings or alleged losses but does not provide a clear chain of custody showing the AG’s office itself withheld or destroyed specific items ^[4].

5. Congressional and legal pressure: what investigators are demanding and why it matters

Ranking Member Jamie Raskin and House Judiciary Democrats have publicly demanded the DOJ produce all documents and explanations about why the co‑conspirator probe was halted, asserting survivors’ counsel provided information that step‑by‑step investigative work stopped and that the July closure memo lacked supporting detail ^[5]. The committee materials and letters cite transfers of files in January 2025 and the need to see the underlying records to evaluate whether investigative steps were improperly curtailed or material withheld ^{[6] [5]}.

6. Limitations, disagreements, and what reporting does not answer

Available sources do not provide a definitive inventory showing which specific files or recordings were in the AG’s custody, which items were “missing,” or whether any documents were intentionally withheld by Bondi’s office; public statements conflict and the DOJ’s own memo both downplays new leads and resists releasing further materials ^{[3] [1] [7]}. Where sources explicitly disagree, the tension is between Bondi/DOJ public claims of undisclosed documents and videos ^{[3] [4]} and DOJ/FBI statements and memos that either refused further releases or said the files yielded no predicate evidence for further probes ^{[1] [7]}.

Bottom line: reporting documents real disputes — Bondi and some DOJ statements claim there were more pages and purported videos than initially produced ^{[3] [4]}, while DOJ/FBI memos and subsequent reporting say investigators closed the co‑conspirator probe and did not find prosecutable leads in the material ^{[1] [5]}. Congressional investigators have demanded the records to resolve these contradictions ^{[6] [5]}.