Oversight

Attorney General Pam Bondi showed up for an oversight hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, and she brought her best Scarlett O’Hara demeanor along with her.

When Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal attempted to question her about conflicts of interest, she dramatically responded, “Senator Blumenthal, I cannot believe that you would accuse me of impropriety when you lied about your military service.” She was referencing Blumenthal characterizing his role in the Marine Reserves as service in Vietnam, when he had served stateside during that war. Blumenthal has apologized, and his voters have forgiven him, reelecting him in 2016 and 2022. But Bondi, who didn’t respond to any of the questions raised about her conduct today, including the ones from Blumenthal, had a rant at hand. She looked down at her notes and continued, “You lied. You admitted you lied to be elected a U.S. senator. You lied. How dare you? I’m a career prosecutor. Don’t you ever challenge my integrity. I have abided by every ethics standard. Do not question my ability to be fair and impartial as attorney general in anything [inaudible] my former firm Ballard Partners.”

Blumenthal was asking about the firm because of a lawsuit that had been dropped. “In the merger that took place involving American Express GBT [Global Business Travel], I understand that Brian Ballard, longtime backer and head of the law firm where you worked, was instrumental in lobbying the Justice Department to drop that lawsuit. … What conversations did you have with Mr. Ballard?” he asked the attorney general, setting off her tirade.

These hearings are always a cat-and-mouse game. Attorneys general understand that some senators will use the hearings to try and score political points. But there are also legitimate oversight functions to be performed, and inquiry into this sort of apparent conflict is legitimate. But the senator didn’t get an answer.

When it was his turn, near the end of the first round of questioning, California Senator Adam Schiff listed the questions Bondi refused to answer:

• Whether she consulted ethics lawyers before Trump accepted that Qatari plane.

• Which DOJ officials ordered reviewers to flag Trump’s name whenever it was found in the Epstein files.

• The reason the investigation into the $50K bribe Tom Homan reportedly took for steering government contracts was dropped, and the current location of that money, including whether Homan reported it on his taxes if it remained in his possession.

• Why former FBI Director James Comey was indicted after earlier prosecutors determined there was not sufficient evidence to support the charges.

• Whether she approved the firing of two experienced lawyers in DOJ’s Antitrust Division. (They were fired for “insubordination,” in late July, meaning they wanted to engage in enforcing the law, not dealmaking in matters including DOJ’s decision to green-light Hewlett Packard’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, despite the antitrust implications of the deal.)

“This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions,” Schiff objected. But the senators never got their answers.

The Committee’s top Democrat, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, started with one of the most pressing questions on everyone’s mind, asking Bondi about conversations between the White House and the Justice Department about the deployment of troops to Chicago. That was when Bondi set the pattern that characterized her four hours on the Hill, ignoring the question and aggressively accusing Durbin of being disloyal to his constituents (who are happy enough with him to have permitted him to serve for 28 years), saying with a level of snark better reserved for a high school gathering, “I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump.”

It was ironic, given Chairman Chuck Grassley’s opening comments, in which he admonished his colleagues to be decorous in their questioning of Bondi.

Oversight hearings frequently have stretches that devolve into public sparring matches, albeit lacking the mean streak Bondi exhibited today. But they do serve important purposes. The Congressional Research Service explains that “Congress’s power to obtain information from either the executive branch or the general public is very broad. While there is no express constitutional provision authorizing congressional oversight or investigations, the Supreme Court has firmly established that such power is so essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative powers in Congress in Article I of the Constitution.” In Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, the Supreme Court noted that “Without information, Congress would be shooting in the dark, unable to legislate ‘wisely or effectively.’”

No one explains it quite as well as Grassley, who told a gathering at the Heritage Foundation in 2018, “That’s what oversight is all about – keeping faith. Keeping faith with the taxpayers. Keeping faith with ‘We the People.’ It means working as hard as you can to give the people confidence that their government either plays by the rules or is held accountable.” Grassley continued:

“The constitution establishes a separation of governmental powers into three branches, over which the people are sovereign. To ensure that authority remains with the people, the constitution also diffuses power between and among the branches. We call that ‘checks and balances.’ This structure wasn’t by mistake.

Madison and the other framers had a long history with unchecked ambition and undivided authority. They knew the natural tendency of those who had power to seek more, often at the expense of principle, sense and the general welfare. So, they designed a system where the same institution is never entrusted to write the law, interpret its meaning and enforce the consequences for its violations. And, each institution has tools to check the others.

By design, the system invites conflict, as each branch inquires of, negotiates with and grates against the others. In the words of James Madison, ambition works to counteract ambition. It’s this system that sustains the delicate balance between and among each branch of government. And it’s that balance that the framers believed would best secure respect for the rule of law and ensure accountability to the people.”

If Grassley is your senator, consider reminding him of his own words. As for Bondi, she wasn’t open to entertaining even the most reasonable questions or honoring requests with promises that information would be provided to senators. What remains to be seen is whether the Senate will do anything about it, or whether Bondi leaves the Hill confident that she can do anything, get away with anything, and need only be concerned with currying favor with the audience of one who was undoubtedly delighted in her bulldog performance today.

Bondi did not take any of the concerns raised today seriously. For example, when she was shown an enlarged photograph of herself seated with Trump at dinner the day after his Truth Social post calling on her to indict Jim Comey, she responded that she loved the picture. Bondi does not seem to fear facing any consequences, ever, for her conduct as part of this administration. Given Trump’s conduct at the end of his last term in office and the “Trump 2028” hat we saw pictured on his Oval Office desk last week, that’s concerning.

Imagine if Bondi and her staff put as much time into getting it right as they did preparing her to be combative and personally insulting today. The job is supposed to be about doing justice. That wasn’t on Bondi’s agenda as she delivered insult to senator after senator today.

We’re in this together,

Joyce