It did not take long for me to realize that I had only scratched the surface with last week’s column. What became impossible to ignore was the staggering incompetence of one of the most powerful people in the nation, Attorney General Pam Bondi—yet another depressing example of the cost paid for Donald Trump’s determination to replace the better with the worse.
On October 7, 2025, Pam Bondi appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for their oversight hearing. I do not think I have ever seen such a sustained and arrogant performance by a public servant. Not for a moment did she accept the fact that the senators were engaged in a legitimate governmental exercise. While she and the Republicans affirmed their affection for Donald Trump, Bondi made clear the Democrats did not deserve a decent answer to any of their questions. Instead of candor, they got contempt.
The hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee is the first time since July that Bondi has faced questions from lawmakers and follows a tumultuous summer for the department that included deployments of federal law enforcement to Democratic-run cities, a growing number of investigations announced into Trump’s political foes and the controversial indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.
Pam Bondi seems to wield an impenetrable shield of self-righteousness. She speaks with the certainty of the infallible. What she does and what she thinks is certainly not subject to review or question. On one level, you have to admire her ability to mask amorality with such faux piety. In the Bible MAGA claims to care so much about—Bondi’s cross is always visible—Titus 1:16 puts it this way: “They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works …”
I took office with two main goals: to end the weaponization of justice and return the Department to its core mission of fighting violent crime. While there is more work to do, I believe that in eight short months, we have made tremendous progress towards those ends. Our surge of federal resources into Washington, D.C. is a perfect example of how the Department of Justice should operate. We created a strong partnership with local leadership, working hand-in-hand with the city to surge resources where they were needed most. 19 different federal law enforcement agencies came together as one team to support D.C. police. The results came quickly and proved a simple truth: when our law enforcement officers get the green light to do their jobs with the support they need, our citizens become safer. We have made over 3,800 D.C. arrests and seized over 365 illegal guns in D.C. since the beginning of our operation. Statistics show that crime in our nation’s capital is down across the board. We are replicating that tough-on-crime approach across the country. Our Department of Justice components have been doing historic work to Make America Safe Again …
[Emphasis added.]
The Trump administration constantly boasts that they are eradicating violent crime. But they continually blur the line between guilt and innocence. Pam Bondi, Tom Homan, Kash Patel, Kristi Noem, and Donald Trump talk about taking the most violent illegal aliens off the streets but routinely target people of color, rounding them up without regard for their innocence or respect for their rights. Abusing, arresting, imprisoning citizens and non-citizens alike, the hard-working along with the criminal.
Each day videos emerge of masked, poorly identified ICE agents and Department of Homeland Security and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents violently attacking young and old alike. And, if you object to what they are doing, asking questions, capturing video, or demanding to see identification or a warrant, that makes you an enemy. No matter who you are, you certainly will not get an explanation.
With that as the background, it took Pam Bondi barely a few seconds to switch from celebrating the mythical cooperation between her Department of Justice (DOJ) and local authorities to turn on the independent judiciary who have often rejected what they regard as DOJ excess, calling out possibly unconstitutional, even criminal, behavior:
Ironically, behind the scenes, Pam Bondi and Lindsey Halligan, Donald Trump’s substitute Bondi (pressed to appear in court), are currently prosecuting former FBI Director James Comey for lying to Congress. They are trying to charge Comey with falsely stating in a Senate hearing that he had not “‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation.” They claim, “That statement was false, because, as James B. Comey Jr. then and there knew he had authorized Person 3 to be an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation …”
There are reasons to believe that Comey will win his case, but for the moment, I want you to imagine you have been called to serve on a similar grand jury to consider a similar question: Has Pam Bondi knowingly or willingly lied to Congress, and were her misstatements significant to the matters at hand: the Judiciary Committee’s oversight of the work of the Department of Justice?
Bondi claimed:
Our surge of federal resources into Washington, D.C. is a perfect example of how the Department of Justice should operate. We created a strong partnership with local leadership, working hand-in-hand with the city to surge resources where they were needed most … together as one team to support D.C. police.
[Emphasis added.]
Reality on the ground suggests Bondi’s testimony was miles from the truth. On August 11, 2025, the president issued his executive order “Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia”:
Then, on August 14, 2025, Pam Bondi issued Order No. 6370-2025 “Restoring Safety and Security to the District of Columbia.” Rather than cooperate with the district, she was preempting their authority:
Both the president and Bondi portrayed Washington, D.C., as lawless, suggesting that those who lived there, worked there, or visited were likely to be victims of the “scourge of violent crime.” Not surprisingly, they could not help but bring their political bias to the fore, blaming the lawlessness on the district’s decision to declare themselves a “sanctuary city.”
Almost immediately, in a striking rebuke to the president and Bondi, the the mayor of D.C., its attorney general, and its chief of police made crystal clear they regarded their orders as a direct and unconstitutional attack on D.C.’s independence. On August 15, 2025, the District of Columbia filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctory Relief against Donald Trump and moved for a Temporary Restraining Order in United States District Court.
The district thoroughly rejected their claims:
More than 50 years ago, Congress empowered the people of the District of Columbia to govern themselves through the District of Columbia Home Rule Act … Congress gave the inhabitants of the District of Columbia many of the ‘powers of local self-government’ that other Americans enjoy: to elect a Mayor and a City Council, to adopt local laws, and to operate the institutions of local government—including local law enforcement—largely as they see fit … Congress reserved for itself the authority to review the District’s laws and legislate on matters of federal concern. But it otherwise left the operation of the local government in local hands.
2. By contrast, Congress gave the President an exceedingly narrow role in the governance of the District. In Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, Congress provided that if the President ‘determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist,’ the President may require that the Mayor ‘provide such services’ of the Metropolitan Police Department (‘MPD’) as the President deems necessary for ‘federal purposes.’ D.C. Code § 1-207.40(a).
3. In the 52 years since the enactment of Home Rule, no President has ever attempted to exercise this limited authority.
4. The President’s authority under Section 740 is sharply limited in time: it must terminate within 48 hours unless the President sends proper notice to Congress, and, in all events, it must terminate upon the expiration of the emergency or within 30 days, whichever comes first … For the President to obtain MPD’s services for longer than 30 days—even in the face of an ongoing emergency—Congress must pass a joint resolution permitting the extension …
5. Moreover, by its terms, Section 740 only permits the President to require the Mayor to ‘provide services’ of MPD for ‘federal purposes.’ … It does not permit the President to seize control of MPD. Nor does it authorize the President to direct MPD in the policing of local crime. Congress left that responsibility to local leaders …
6. In violation of the plain language of Section 740, the President announced on August 11, 2025, that he was ‘placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control,’ and that Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi was ‘taking command’ of MPD ‘as of this moment.’ He also stated that he was appointing Terrance Cole, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), as the ‘interim commissioner’ of the MPD (“USMS”), would be ‘supervising command and control’ of ‘the entire operation’ of MPD …
7. That same day, the President issued an Executive Order that invoked his authority under Section 740 of the Home Rule Act … The President did not identify any new or unusual exigency that justified the invocation of Section 740. Instead, he claimed that violent crime in the District is ‘increasing,’ id. § 1, when, in fact, it has fallen 26% since 2024. The President also did not limit the scope of his order to specific ‘federal purposes,’ instead directing the Mayor to provide any services the Attorney General deemed necessary to ‘maintain law and order in the Nation’s seat of Government.’ Id. §§ 2-3. And in neither the EO nor his notice letter to Congress did the President state the period of time during which the need for MPD services was likely to continue.
[Emphasis added.]
The district emphasized the president’s long-standing hostility. Occupying and remaking Washington, D.C., has always been at the top of his agenda:
Despite more than 50 years of local self-governance in the District, President Trump has repeatedly threatened to infringe on the District’s home rule, falsely asserting that the District is lawless and disparaging its appearance. In March 2023, then-candidate Trump declared that ‘the federal government should take over control and management of Washington, DC,’ which he claimed was ‘littered with trash.’
Similarly, in August 2023, Trump remarked on social media that he was ‘calling for a federal takeover of this filthy and crime ridden embarrassment to our nation.’ … In January 2024, then-candidate Trump reiterated, ‘We’re . . . going to federalize Washington DC. It’s become hell on earth … [Y]ou can’t even walk through the best areas without being molested or shot, beat up by thugs. We’re going to take over Washington DC, and we’re going to make it great again.’
In her “Restoring Safety” order, Bondi offered this exaggeration: “Notwithstanding false media narratives and apparent efforts by some District employees to manipulate crime statistics, the danger posed by violent crime in the District is plain for all to see.”
But as The Commonwealth Fund notes, violence is a pervasive national problem transcending political allegiance:
With far more people dying of gun-related causes annually in the United States than in other high-income countries, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, M.D., officially declared firearm violence a public health crisis on June 25, 2024. In his advisory, Murthy noted that over half of U.S. adults have either experienced gun-related violence themselves or have a family member who has. Firearms are the leading cause of death for children in the U.S. and are the weapons used most often in domestic violence against women … Gun deaths, which are largely preventable, contribute significantly to rising rates of preventable mortality and continue to drive down U.S. life expectancy …
[Emphasis added.]
Meanwhile, Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, and MAGA insist on politicizing violence. Their interventions have taken place in blue states or cities with Democratic mayors. But, according to Factually, the issue of violence is more complicated:
And here is data from World Population Review:
Mississippi has the highest murder rate in the U.S. with 20.5 murders per 100,000 residents … Louisiana has the second-highest murder rate of 19.9 murders per 100,000 residents. Murders are disproportionately concentrated in urban areas, especially in New Orleans and Baton Rouge … Alabama has the third-highest murder rate in the United States. Alabama’s murder rate is 14.2 murders per 100,000 residents. Like Mississippi and Louisiana, this is an increase from 2019 data, when there were 12.8 murders per 100,000 people. Missouri has the fourth-highest murder rate of 14.0 murders per 100,000 residents … Arkansas has the fifth-highest murder rate in the U.S. with a rate of 13.0 murders per 100,000 residents.
From the outset of Bondi‘s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she mischaracterized the reality of the FBI’s investigation of the January 6 Insurrection:
As to ending the weaponization of justice, we learned that former FBI secretly investigated you and your colleagues. Why? They wanted to take President Trump off the playing field. They were playing politics with law enforcement powers and will go down as a historic betrayal of public trust.
Bondi repeated the false charge that with Operation Arctic Frost, the “Biden’s” FBI illegally targeted Republican legislators, including wiretapping their phone calls. But as Politico notes, information about these calls was part and parcel of a grand jury-sanctioned criminal investigation into possibly illegal activity surrounding the 2020 election:
The investigation under former special counsel Jack Smith ultimately culminated in a number of felony charges brought against Trump, but the case was dismissed after his reelection in 2024. The records, which were narrowly tailored around the date of the certification of the 2020 election in early January 2021, included phone data for Republican members of Congress …
The phone records sought by Smith’s team were for calls that took place between Jan. 4 and Jan. 7, 2021 — on either side of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by rioters seeking to disrupt Congress’ certification of the 2020 election results. The FBI probe did not obtain the content of the calls, only the recipients, the length of calls and the date on which they were placed. The request for this information was approved by a grand jury.
The calls were scrutinized because at the time, prosecutors were trying to identify relevant communications between the president and his inner circle with members of Congress on the key days surrounding the violence, according to a person familiar with the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the decision-making process.
In fact, the reason these Republicans were caught up in the investigation is that their phones received those very calls.
Of course, neither Pam Bondi nor U.S. Sen Chuck Grassley (R – Iowa) nor these congresspeople now acknowledge the reality that far-right groups, with the encouragement of Donald Trump, violently and mercilessly attacked Capitol Police in an attempt to prevent the certification of Joe Biden as president, that, in fact, it was Donald Trump trying to take Joe Biden off the playing field.
Back to the transcript. Ranking Sen. Dick Durbin (D – Ill.) asked Bondi: “Were you consulted by the White House before they deployed National Guard troops to cities in the United States?”
Pamela Bondi: I’m not going to discuss any internal conversations with the White House.
Dick Durbin: You won’t even say whether you talked to the White House about this?
Pamela Bondi: I’m not going to discuss any internal conversations with the White House with you, Ranking Member.
Dick Durbin: … The American people don’t know the rationale behind the deployment of National Guard troops. In my state, the word is, and I think it’s been confirmed by the White House, they’re going to transfer Texas National Guard units to the State of Illinois. What’s the rationale for that?
Pamela Bondi: Yeah, Chairman, as you shut down the government, you voted to shut down the government and you’re sitting here, our law enforcement officers aren’t being paid. They’re out there working to protect you. I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump, and currently the National Guard are on the way to Chicago. If you’re not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will.
Dick Durbin: …A simple question as to whether or not they had a legal rationale for deploying National Guard troops becomes grounds for a personal attack. I think it’s a legitimate question. It’s my responsibility …
Pamela Bondi: … And to go back to your previous question, your city has a murder rate five times higher than New York’s, 571 homicides last year. If you were serious about protecting your people, you would be asking this administration for help. You’re saying that we’re coming into your state and your city, we are there to help make America safe and Illinois safe, whether or not you want to.
Dick Durbin: I believe cutting federal grant programs to law enforcement in my state and across the nation does not make us any safer and you’ve done just that. You’ve supplanted that decision by sending in National Guard troops to California and other places. That is a situation where the governors have not asked for that help. If you truly wanted to do this on a bipartisan basis, you wouldn’t defy a governor. You would work with them …
Pamela Bondi: The National Guard is on the way right now as we speak. Oh, by the way, so is Director Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. You’re sitting here grilling me and they’re on their way to Chicago to keep your state safe.
Dick Durbin: Madam Attorney General, it’s my job to grill you. Investigation of your agency is part of my responsibility and this committee. You may not like the experience, but others have weathered the storm and answered questions in a respectful manner … Going back to the Epstein files, according to another whistleblower who made a protected disclosure to my office, you pushed the FBI to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records on an arbitrarily short deadline in March, and the FBI was directed to flag any documents that mentioned President Trump. Nothing came of that review until July when DOJ and FBI released an unsigned memo stating “there’s no incriminating client list”. Why was the July 7th memo unsigned?
Pamela Bondi: The July 7th memo came from the FBI and the Department of Justice. Director Patel answered those questions very clear. And Senator Durbin, I find it very interesting that you refused repeated Republican requests to release the Epstein flight logs in 2023 and 2024. You fought that. Did you take money from Reid Hoffman, campaign donations?
Dick Durbin: Never.
Pamela Bondi: Who was a huge Epstein friend. Why did you fight for years? Why did you fight to not disclose the flight log, Senator Durbin?
Dick Durbin: I can tell you I did not refuse. One of the senators here wished to produce those logs and I asked her to put it in writing and she never did … as to Reid, somebody that you mentioned, I never heard of.
Pamela Bondi: Reid Hoffman.
Dick Durbin: So who gave the order to flag records related to President Trump?
Pamela Bondi: To flag records for President Trump?
Dick Durbin: To flag any records which included his name.
Pamela Bondi: I’m not going to discuss anything about that with you, Senator.
Dick Durbin: Eventually you’re going to have to answer for your conduct in this. You won’t do it today, but eventually you will …
I’d like to point out something that Pam Bondi refuses to acknowledge: She is a public servant, paid by the American people. She took an oath to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump. Again and again she refused “to discuss any internal conversations with the White House.” She is not the lawyer for the White House, but for the American people, and she has no valid attorney-client relationship with Donald Trump.
Now here is U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D – R.I.) questioning Bondi:
Sheldon Whitehouse: Good morning Ms. Bondi …
Pamela Bondi: Good morning.
Sheldon Whitehouse: What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI paid to Mr. Homan in a paper bag, evidently?
Pamela Bondi: Senator, as Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review by the FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing.
Sheldon Whitehouse: And that was not my question. My question was what became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag, to Mr. Homan?
Pamela Bondi: Senator, I’d look at your facts.
Sheldon Whitehouse: Are you saying that they did not deliver $50,000 in cash to Mr. Homan?
Pamela Bondi: Senator, as recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review –
Sheldon Whitehouse: A different question.
Pamela Bondi: … by FBI agents-
Sheldon Whitehouse: That’s a different question.
Pamela Bondi: … by Department of Justice prosecutors. They found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Sheldon Whitehouse: That’s a different question. What became of the $50,000? Did the FBI get it back?
Pamela Bondi: Mr. Whitehouse… Excuse me. Senator Whitehouse, you’re welcome to talk to the FBI.
Sheldon Whitehouse: They report to you. Can’t you answer this question?
Pamela Bondi: Senator Whitehouse, you’re welcome to discuss this with Director Patel.
Sheldon Whitehouse: Did Homan keep the $50,000?
Pamela Bondi: As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Homan –
Sheldon Whitehouse: Never mind. Never mind. I can see I’m not going to get a straight answer from you to a very simple question.
Pamela Bondi: … They found no credible evidence of wrongdoing. You’re very concerned about money and people taking money and you rail against dark money … yet work with dark money groups all the time, Senator Whitehouse … when you talk about corruption and money, that when you pushed for legislation that would subsidize your wife’s company.
Sheldon Whitehouse: Did you know whether or not in that investigation they looked at whether the 2024 $50,000 payment to Mr. Homan was declared … The questions here are actually pretty specific. So having you respond with completely irrelevant far right internet talking points really is not very helpful here … What happened to the $50,000? Did Homan keep it? Did the FBI get it back? If he kept it, did he put it on his tax returns? Pretty simple questions …
… Treasury compiles suspicious activity reports referred to often as SARS, that DOJ receives automatically, hundreds related to accounts of Jeffrey Epstein. How many of those Treasury SARS did you or Director Patel investigate?
Pamela Bondi: Senator, I’m not sure if you’re concerned because you took money, I believe, did you, from Reid Hoffman, one of Epstein’s closest confidants, not only once but twice in 2018 and 2024, if that’s correct. But Senator, did you ask Merrick Garland any of this over the last four years when he sat before you? …
Sheldon Whitehouse: … why don’t I ask you, when you and Patel came to office, you said you would look into this. There were hundreds of suspicious activity reports. Some people would deduce from the fact that they’re called suspicious activity reports, that there might be suspicious activity. And yet you seem to have looked at zero of those suspicious activity reports involving Jeffrey Epstein accounts. Let me ask you something else. There’s been public reporting that Jeffrey Epstein showed people photos of President Trump with half naked young women. Do you know if the FBI found those photographs in their search of Jeffrey Epstein’s safe or premises or otherwise? Have you seen any such thing?
Pamela Bondi: You know, Senator Whitehouse, you sit here and make salacious remarks once again trying to slander President Trump left and right when you’re the one who was taking money from one of Epstein’s closest confidants, I believe. I could be wrong, correct me, Reid Hoffman, who was with Jeffrey Epstein on multiple occasions, and the senator sitting right next to you tried to block the flight logs from being released. Yet you’re grilling me on President Trump and some photograph with Epstein? Come on.
Sheldon Whitehouse: The question is, did the FBI find those photographs that have been discussed publicly by a witness who claimed Jeffrey Epstein showed them to him? You don’t know anything about that? Okay.
U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D – Hawaii): Last year, President Trump’s new border czar, now border czar, Tom Homan, was videotaped taking a bag with $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents, after suggesting he could help with government contracts. Sounds like a bribe. Two weeks ago, DOJ officials reportedly shut down the bribery investigation into Mr. Homan. Ms. Bondi, did you approve closing the Homan investigation, bribery investigation?
Pamela Bondi: Senator Hirono, as I stated earlier, the Department of Justice and the FBI conducted a thorough review and they found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing. You were also on video outside the White House protesting with a group called CASA where ANTIFA members were. Does that mean you’re a member of ANTIFA?
Mazie Hirono: I simply asked the question as to whether or not you approve the shutting down of the investigation of Mr. Homan. I have to assume that you did because the FBI reports to you, but the American people would look at the situation where this person is taking a $50,000 in cash, no less, and that you testify today that a thorough investigation was done. Now I have to assume, I conclude that since no wrongdoing was determined, that in answer to Senator Whitehouse’s question, he kept the money. He kept the money and I hope that he put that on his tax returns as income.
U.S. Sen. Chris Coons (D – Del.): I do want to go back to Homan. There’s a tape, right? With Mr. Homan? I mean, first of all, is there a tape that has audio and video of the transfer of the 50,000?
Pamela Bondi: You would have to talk to Director Patel about that.
Chris Coons: No, I’m talking to you.
Pamela Bondi: I don’t know the answer, Senator.
Chris Coons: Yeah, you do know the answer to that.
Pamela Bondi: Don’t call me a liar …
Chris Coons: Let me put it another way. If you don’t know, why don’t you know whether there was a tape and video?
Pamela Bondi: Senator, I believe that was resolved prior to my confirmation as Attorney General.
Chris Coons: Do you think that it is of public interest for the people to know what happened to the 50 grand that the FBI turned over to Homan?
Pamela Bondi: Did you hear what I just said? That was resolved prior to my confirmation as Attorney General …
Chris Coons: It’s not resolved. There’s $50,000. Homan has it or somebody has it. Do you have no interest in knowing where it is?
Pamela Bondi: You’re not going to sit here and slander Tom Homan. The FBI and Deputy Director Blanche said there was nothing. And –
Chris Coons: I’m not slamming Tom Homan. He got the 50 grand.
Pamela Bondi: How do you know that? Tom Homan is doing a great job as our border czar …
U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D – Calif.): Attorney General Bondi, at your confirmation hearing in January you made a clear commitment you would not politicize your position. We are here today at your first oversight hearing nine months into your tenure at a time when hundreds of career prosecutors have quit because they were required to take unethical actions at odds with that promise or feared that they would have to take such actions if they remained on the job, when over 1,000 former federal prosecutors have sounded the alarm about the unprecedented degree to which the powers of DOJ are being abused to go after the president’s enemies … And instead of preventing partisan weaponization, your department has engaged in a brazenly political prosecution at the president’s explicit direction. The department has become President Trump’s personal sword and shield to go after his ever-growing list of political enemies and to protect himself, his allies, and associates …
Two weeks ago, four major media outlets reported that Tom Homan, the president’s top deportation official working in the White House, took 50,000 in cash in a bag from undercover FBI agents in September 2024, just over a year ago. According to these reports, Homan indicated he would facilitate securing contracts in exchange from money once he was in office in the future Trump administration. Reportedly, this exchange was caught on tape. Your leadership or that of your predecessor before you confirmed quietly shut it down. Once news broke, your deputy and FBI director issued a joint public statement confirming that the Trump administration closed the investigation.
White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt denied Homan took the 50,000, telling a reporter, quote, ‘Mr. Homan never took the $50,000 that you’re referring to, so you should get your facts straight.’ So today I hope you can help us get our facts straight. Was that true what the White House press secretary said when she denied Homan took the money? Did he take the money? …
Pamela Bondi: Deputy Attorney General Blanche and Director Patel said that there was no evidence that Tom Homan committed a crime, yet now you’re putting his picture up to slander him as much as you can.
Adam Schiff: I’m putting his picture up showing an interview he gave with I think Fox, in which he was asked explicitly about these allegations that he took a $50,000 bribe, and he refused to answer. He didn’t answer the question whether he took the money, so I’m asking you the question, did he take the money … Do you know sitting here whether he took the money?
Pamela Bondi: All I know is that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Patel said there was no case. And Caroline Leavitt is one of the most trustworthy human beings I know.
Adam Schiff: So was she right? Was she?
Pamela Bondi: And Senator Schiff, if you worked for me, you would’ve been fired … Because you were censured by Congress for lying with …
Adam Schiff: You can stipulate to all your personal attacks on the Democratic members of the committee.
Pamela Bondi: Personal attacks? You’ve been attacking my FBI director … You’ve been attacking my office … You’ve been attacking a border czar.
Adam Schiff: What we’re interested in is the answer to these oversight questions.
Pamela Bondi: No. Oversight? … You want your five minutes of fame … attacking good people.
Adam Schiff: … You were asked by my colleague from Vermont whether you will support providing a video or audio tape if it exists of Mr. Homan taking 50,000 in bribe money from the FBI. Will you support a request by this committee to provide that tape or tapes to the committee, yes or no?
Pamela Bondi: Senator Schiff, you can talk to Director Patel about that.
Adam Schiff: Well, I’m talking to you about it. You’re the Attorney General. This will be your decision. Will you support –
Pamela Bondi: Don’t have to tell me what is my decision and what is not my decision. I said you can talk to Director Patel … You think you got a gotcha with Tom Homan, our border czar … who’s been out there fighting for our country since Donald Trump took office.
Adam Schiff: Excuse me. I’m trying to ask a question … So I’m asking you, will you support a request so that the committee, or indeed I believe the American people should be able to see that video or audio tape, will you support that request?
Pamela Bondi: Will you apologize to Donald Trump for trying to impeach him?
Adam Schiff: Oh, I guess the answer is you won’t support that request. So let me do this because I think it’s valuable that the American people get a sense of what you’ve refused to answer today. So these are just some of the questions you refused to answer or have answered with personal attacks on members of this committee. You were asked whether you consulted with career ethics lawyers as you promised you would do during your nomination hearing when you approved the president receiving a $400 million gift from the Qataris? You refused to answer that question. You were asked who or what role you may have played or who played the role in asking the Trump’s name be flagged in any of the Epstein documents gathered by the FBI? You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether Holman kept the $50,000 bribe money? You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether Holman paid taxes on the $50,000 bribe money? You refused to answer that question. You were asked did career prosecutors find insufficient evidence to charge James Comey? You refused to answer that question. You were asked, how are military strikes on these boats in the Caribbean legal? And you refused to even answer that question asked-
Pamela Bondi: Do you have a law degree, Senator Schiff?
Adam Schiff: Excuse me, excuse me. You were asked, did you discuss indicting James Comey with the president? You refused to answer that question. You were asked, did you approve the firing of antitrust lawyers who disagreed with the Hewlett-Packard merger? You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether you support a restoration fund for violent insurrections to attack the Capitol on January 6th? You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether you were firing career professionals, career prosecutors, just because they worked on the January 6th investigations? You refused to answer that question. You were asked by my California colleague whether you believe government officials like immigration officials have to abide by court orders? You wouldn’t even answer that question. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing …
Pamela Bondi: Oh, well, you’ve attacked all of us, including president Trump for your entire …
Adam Schiff: This is supposed to be an oversight hearing of the Justice Department, and it comes in the wake of an indictment called for by the president of one of his enemies. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing and it comes in the wake of revelations that a top administration official took $50,000 in a bag, and this department made that investigation go away. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing when dozens of prosecutors have been fired simply because they worked on cases investigating the former president and now the current President.
Pamela Bondi: What about the fires in California, do you care about that, Senator Schiff?
Adam Schiff: Excuse me, this is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about the-
Pamela Bondi: Are the riots in LA serious?
Adam Schiff: About the coverup of corruption, about the prosecution of the president’s enemies. And …
Pamela Bondi: I think you owe The President an apology.
Adam Schiff: And when will it be, when will it be that the members of this committee, on a bipartisan basis, demand answers to those questions and refuse to accept …
Pamela Bondi: Clearly you’re a failed lawyer if you don’t understand when someone can and cannot answer a question.
Adam Schiff: … refuse to accept personal slander as an answer to those questions.
Pamela Bondi: Personal slander …
Adam Schiff: With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Pamela Bondi: Will you apologize to Donald Trump for slandering him? Personal slander …
By the way, despite Pam Bondi’s repeated stonewalling about the issues of the purported $50,000 bribe to Tom Homan, the FBI has strict procedures about the allocation and tracking of funds it provides for these kinds of operations, as well as an awareness that they might indeed be called upon to present that information to Congress.
Now, former FBI Director James Comey is facing trial for telling a lie that was not really a lie, but Pam Bondi has repeatedly lied about Sens. Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse taking money from Jeffrey Epstein’s associate, LinkedIn’s billionaire co-founder Reid Hoffman. She repeatedly made statements that defy credibility—that she and Donald Trump had not spoken about prosecuting James Comey and Letitia James, that she had not been told about or investigated the report that undercover FBI agents gave Tom Homan a $50,000 bribe, that she had not learned the details and context of the many times Donald Trump’s name appeared in the Epstein files, or about the photos that Michael Wolf was shown by Jeffrey Epstein of Donald Trump with topless underage girls. Clearly, when it comes to picking an attorney general, Pam Bondi is the worse, not the better.
