A recent episode of Slate’s Amicus podcast, hosted by Dahlia Lithwick, explores what Jeffrey Epstein’s case reveals about justice, political pressure on the Trump-era Department of Justice, and the role of judges in checking abuses of power. Former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah joins the discussion, which also touches on failed efforts to pursue criminal cases against figures like former FBI Director James Comey.
In a recent episode of Slate’s Amicus podcast titled “Epstein’s emails are a big problem for Todd Blanche and the Trump Bondi Department of Justice,” host Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Mimi Rocah, a former federal prosecutor, about what can be learned from the experience of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse survivors and the broader implications for the justice system.
According to the podcast description, Rocah reflects on how the Epstein matter illustrates the importance of an independent Justice Department and the dangers of political efforts to steer federal prosecutions. The conversation links lessons from the Epstein case to concerns about how, during Donald Trump’s presidency, the Justice Department at times appeared to focus investigative energy on perceived political opponents.
The episode notes that these concerns have arisen alongside attempts to scrutinize or investigate officials such as former FBI Director James Comey, efforts that critics have characterized as politically motivated and legally tenuous. While the article’s reference to a specific “Virginia courtroom” and a collapsing Justice Department prosecution of Comey is not supported by the available source material or by public records, the broader theme in the Amicus discussion is that some Trump-era initiatives targeting former officials and critics were viewed by many legal observers as weak cases driven more by politics than by law.
The podcast description also highlights the role of key Trump allies and legal figures, including Todd Blanche, and raises questions about how connections to the Epstein saga, including emails and other communications, could complicate their positions or create conflicts. However, the available Slate material does not substantiate the claim that there were specific “Epstein emails” posing immediate legal problems for Blanche or a formally constituted “Trump Bondi Department of Justice,” nor does it confirm that Pam Bondi served as attorney general in the Trump administration.
Similarly, while Donald Trump was known for publicly addressing allies and critics on social media, there is no corroborated record in the available source of a series of “Dear Pam” posts directed at Pam Bondi that directly interfered with a Justice Department prosecution, nor of such communications being formally characterized as central evidence of political meddling in a case against James Comey.
What the episode clearly underscores, according to Slate’s own framing, is Rocah’s argument that amid political pressure and attempts to bend law enforcement to partisan ends, the judiciary serves as a critical backstop. Judges, she suggests, can and sometimes do reject unsupported or politically freighted claims, helping to preserve equal justice under the law even when other institutions are under strain.