The Justice Department Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) are both investigating whether Attorney General Pam Bondi violated the law over the investigation files for trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. It's something that one former prosecutor says she must answer for, even though she's no longer in office. Congress passed a law mandating that all information be released and put into a searchable database, with the names of victims redacted. The DOJ instead redacted whole pages of information. Congress wants answers, not more Bondi excuses. Why the victims' names were revealed while perpetrators received overly broad redactions are likely to be the questions that Congress wants answered by Bondi, said CNN legal analyst Elie Honig. "I think Pam Bondi is going to be questioned about who was in charge of this process, who failed and was there any accountability for the people at DOJ who failed and allowed those victims' names to be released," Honig said.CNN's Aaron Blake showed several examples of emails exchanged with Epstein in which names were redacted. The only names that were supposed to be redacted were the victims. The Epstein Files Transparency Act specifically says that the "DOJ may not withhold any information on the basis that it might embarrass somebody or cause political damage," said Honig. "So, those redactions appear to be improper. And I think Pam Bondi is going to have to answer for that as well," he added.Then there's the debate between Republicans and Democrats on whether Bondi still must testify. CNN's Kate Bolduan called it a "mess" because Bondi refused to testify when called earlier in April. Now there is a debate over whether she should be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to show up. "Well, a mess is right," Honig agreed.The DOJ has claimed that she had no further information and thus didn't need to testify. Since she had left the office, there was no reason for her to be questioned over the Epstein files. But Honig called that absurd."They sort of just invented out of nowhere. Well, now she's not the AG, she doesn't have to testify. That's ridiculous. As I think they've now recognized. Now, in the interim, there was movement towards contempt where she could be potentially punished for no-showing," Honig said.