Epstein Survivor Dani Bensky Opposes Todd Blanche During Attorney General Confirmation Hearing

UpdatedSeptember 3, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

On July 16, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the second day of its hearing on Todd Blanche’s nomination to become United States attorney general.

The CSPAN recording of the witness panel preserves testimony from Epstein survivor Dani Bensky, former Justice Department Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, law enforcement advocate Jon Adler, and Jennifer Bos, the mother of Megan Bos.

Bensky urged senators to reject Blanche. She accused the Justice Department of exposing survivor identities and intimate information during its release of Epstein records. She also questioned why Blanche spent approximately nine hours interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell while survivors struggled to secure a meeting with him.

Oyer also opposed the nomination. Her testimony raised additional allegations about Blanche’s treatment of Maxwell, the transfer of Maxwell to a minimum security prison camp, and Blanche’s leadership of the Justice Department.

Other witnesses supported Blanche and described him as qualified to lead the department.

Key Takeaways

Epstein survivor Dani Bensky formally opposed Todd Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general.
Bensky testified that Justice Department releases exposed her name, contact information, employment history, educational information, and details connected to her abuse.
Bensky said attorneys provided the Justice Department with 350 survivor names that required protection before the December 2025 release deadline.
She testified that identifying information remained public even after attorneys contacted the Justice Department.
Senator Dick Durbin contrasted Blanche’s extensive interviews with Maxwell with his initial refusal to commit to meeting survivors.
Former Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer also opposed Blanche and criticized his handling of Maxwell and the Epstein records.
John Ashcroft, Jon Adler, and Jennifer Bos appeared as witnesses supporting Blanche’s nomination.
Statements about intentional misconduct, political favoritism, and an alleged deal with Maxwell were allegations made by witnesses. The hearing itself did not establish those claims as judicial findings.
Epstein Data records verify Blanche’s direct participation in the July 2025 Maxwell interviews.

The Day Two Witness Panel

The official Senate Judiciary Committee hearing record identifies five witnesses.

Jon Adler appeared as president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association Foundation. Dani Bensky appeared as an Epstein survivor and advocate. John Ashcroft appeared as a former United States attorney general. Elizabeth Oyer appeared as a former Justice Department Pardon Attorney. Jennifer Bos appeared as the mother of Megan Bos.

The panel presented sharply different evaluations of Blanche.

Ashcroft and Adler emphasized Blanche’s legal experience, leadership, and support for law enforcement. Bos discussed her family’s experience with the criminal justice system and supported his confirmation.

Bensky and Oyer argued that Blanche’s record demonstrated that he should not become attorney general.

Dani Bensky’s Opposition to Blanche

Bensky’s written testimony states that she opposed Blanche’s confirmation because of the Justice Department’s treatment of Epstein survivors and its handling of the document releases.

Bensky testified that the government published her full name and identifying information in records describing her abuse. She said the disclosed information included her phone number, previous addresses, workplace, school, and other personal details.

She described one document in which her nickname was redacted while her full legal name remained visible.

Bensky also testified that an FBI FD 302 report exposed another Jane Doe who had never wanted to be publicly identified.

Her account placed survivor privacy at the center of the confirmation debate. She argued that the government exposed people harmed by Epstein while continuing to conceal the identities of alleged facilitators and other individuals appearing in the files.

Attorneys Warned the Justice Department Before the Releases

Bensky testified that her attorney worked with another firm representing survivors before the first release.

According to her statement, the attorneys provided the Justice Department with a list of 350 survivor names that required redaction before the December 19, 2025 deadline.

Despite that warning, Bensky said her name appeared in the initial release and again in later releases. She stated that her attorney repeatedly contacted the department, but her identifying information remained attached to records.

This testimony is significant because it challenges the idea that every privacy failure resulted from a lack of advance information. Bensky told senators that the department had received a survivor protection list before publication.

Her written statement described emotional distress, reputational harm, safety fears, expenses, and the permanent loss of privacy caused by the disclosures.

Bensky Said Survivor Privacy Was Not a Political Issue

Bensky emphasized that she did not want her experience treated as a partisan controversy.

She described herself as a crime victim and said protecting survivor confidentiality should not depend on political affiliation.

Her testimony argued that the Epstein records concern sexual exploitation and trafficking, not simply embarrassing associations involving public figures. She urged investigators to determine how Epstein’s operation functioned, who assisted him, and whether additional criminal conduct could still be prosecuted.

Bensky told senators that survivors remained without clear answers about how the disclosure failures occurred, whether additional investigative leads were being pursued, or why Maxwell was transferred to a minimum security facility.

Durbin Questioned the Difference in Access

Senator Dick Durbin questioned why Blanche had spent extensive time interviewing Maxwell but had not committed to meeting with survivors.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s account of Durbin’s questioning states that Blanche met with Maxwell for approximately nine hours over two days in July 2025.

During the first day of the confirmation hearing, Durbin asked Blanche to commit to meeting survivors within 30 days. Blanche did not initially make that commitment.

Bensky told Durbin that the lack of a meeting was not caused by a lack of effort from survivors. She said people in the hearing room were willing to meet Blanche.

Durbin argued that Blanche’s nomination should not advance until he met with them.

Blanche met with several survivors and their attorneys later on July 16, after Senator Thom Tillis made the meeting a condition of his support.

Epstein Data Confirms Blanche Interviewed Maxwell

Primary records preserved by Epstein Data verify Blanche’s participation in the July 2025 Maxwell interviews.

The July 24, 2025 Maxwell interview transcript identifies Blanche as the deputy attorney general participating in the session.

The corresponding July 24 audio recording captures Blanche introducing himself and helping conduct the interview.

Additional audio files include DOJ OGR 00022990, DOJ OGR 00022994, and DOJ OGR 00022995.

These records confirm that Blanche personally questioned Maxwell over two days. They also allow researchers to compare Maxwell’s statements with court records, witness testimony, flight records, correspondence, and other evidence.

The recordings do not independently establish that Blanche promised Maxwell a pardon, transfer, sentence reduction, or other benefit. Any claim about an agreement requires evidence beyond the fact that the interviews occurred.

Elizabeth Oyer’s Testimony

Former Justice Department Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer also testified against Blanche.

In her written testimony, Oyer alleged that Blanche fired her after she refused to recommend restoring firearm rights to actor Mel Gibson.

She also criticized Blanche’s treatment of Maxwell and the Justice Department’s handling of Epstein records.

Oyer characterized Blanche’s interviews with Maxwell and Maxwell’s later prison transfer as evidence of preferential treatment. She argued that Maxwell received unusual access and consideration while survivors struggled to obtain answers.

Oyer also questioned changes to Bureau of Prisons policy that expanded the attorney general’s discretion over prisoner placement. She connected those changes to Maxwell’s transfer, although her testimony did not establish through a court finding that Blanche ordered the transfer as compensation for Maxwell’s statements.

Oyer urged senators to reject the nomination based on Blanche’s broader leadership record, alleged political conflicts, and treatment of crime victims.

Maxwell’s Statements About Donald Trump

During the interviews, Blanche asked Maxwell questions about Donald Trump and his relationship with Epstein.

Maxwell denied witnessing Trump engage in inappropriate conduct. Her statements received attention because Blanche had previously served as Trump’s personal attorney and was later a senior Justice Department official.

Maxwell’s statements are assertions by a convicted participant in Epstein’s operation. They should not be treated as independent proof of what Trump did or did not know.

The Maxwell interview transcript should be examined alongside other records rather than used as a complete account of Epstein’s relationships.

A statement by Maxwell does not erase contradictory evidence, resolve missing records, or substitute for interviews with survivors and other witnesses.

Maxwell’s Prison Transfer

Bensky and Oyer both raised questions about Maxwell’s transfer to a minimum security prison camp.

Their testimony argued that the transfer appeared inconsistent with the treatment normally given to a person convicted of sex trafficking offenses involving minors.

The timing of the transfer after Blanche’s interviews created public concern about whether Maxwell received favorable treatment.

However, timing alone does not prove that the interview and transfer were part of an agreement. A fact checked account must distinguish between the verified interview, the verified transfer, and the unproven allegation that one was offered in exchange for the other.

The Justice Department and Bureau of Prisons should disclose the decision process, legal authority, communications, and officials involved if survivor privacy and legitimate security concerns can be protected.

Witnesses Supporting Blanche

The hearing also included testimony supporting Blanche’s confirmation.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft described the importance of Justice Department leadership and supported Blanche’s qualifications.

Jon Adler discussed Blanche’s work with federal law enforcement and presented him as an experienced prosecutor who understood the needs of officers.

Jennifer Bos testified about the death of her daughter, Megan, and her family’s experience with law enforcement. She supported Blanche and emphasized the importance of a Justice Department that responds to crime victims.

Their testimony formed the principal case for confirmation. It focused on Blanche’s professional background, law enforcement policies, and responsiveness in cases outside the Epstein investigation.

Competing Accounts of Blanche’s Survivor Meetings

After the hearing, Blanche provided written responses to questions from senators.

In his responses to questions for the record, Blanche stated that Justice Department personnel had met with survivors or their attorneys on several occasions.

He said that he had personally met with Epstein survivors, their counsel, or both twice, including the July 16 meeting attended by Bensky.

Blanche also said professional conduct rules can limit direct communication with a person represented by an attorney. He maintained that the department remained committed to communicating with survivors through appropriate legal channels.

This response provides important context but does not resolve the dispute. Survivors said they had repeatedly sought meaningful engagement, while Blanche cited meetings involving Justice Department personnel, attorneys, or survivors.

The key question is not only whether meetings technically occurred. It is whether survivors received meaningful access, privacy protection, answers, and an identifiable investigative process.

Fact Check

The confirmation hearing occurred on July 16, 2026, in the Hart Senate Office Building.

The witness panel included Dani Bensky, Elizabeth Oyer, John Ashcroft, Jon Adler, and Jennifer Bos.

Bensky formally opposed Blanche’s nomination. Her claims about the release of her identifying information were made under her name in written and public testimony.

Bensky said attorneys gave the Justice Department 350 survivor names requiring protection before the initial document release. That number is supported by her testimony but requires Justice Department or attorney records for independent verification.

Blanche’s participation in the July 2025 Maxwell interviews is verified by transcripts and audio recordings.

The interviews occurred over two days and lasted approximately nine hours in total.

Maxwell was later transferred to a minimum security prison camp. The available records establish the transfer but do not, by themselves, prove it was exchanged for favorable statements.

Claims that Blanche intentionally exposed survivors, made a deal with Maxwell, or prioritized political protection over criminal investigations remain allegations unless supported by additional evidence or a formal finding.

Blanche later confirmed that he met with survivors and counsel on July 16, 2026.

Why This Hearing Matters

The hearing created a permanent public record of survivor objections to elevating Blanche to the nation’s highest law enforcement position.

Bensky’s testimony moved the discussion beyond abstract debates about document transparency. She described the personal consequences of releasing records without effective survivor protections.

The hearing also exposed a fundamental imbalance. A convicted Epstein associate received hours of direct attention from senior Justice Department officials, while survivors said they struggled to secure meaningful access.

The confirmation process therefore became a test of how the federal government values survivor testimony, protects confidential information, investigates possible facilitators, and holds its own officials accountable for disclosure failures.

Source List

PostedJuly 23, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki