Legal Expert Critiques Pam Bondi’s Antagonistic Hearing Responses
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 12, 2024, Attorney General Pam Bondi faced sharp criticism for her responses to questions regarding a reported bribery scheme. Legal expert and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman described her demeanor as “remarkably, completely antagonistic,” noting that she consistently deflected inquiries from members of Congress.
Litman, speaking to CNN following the hearing, stated that Bondi “refused to give answers at every turn.” He highlighted her evasive tactics, revealing that she often substituted questions with personal insults rather than providing substantive responses. “Anything she could deflect, she did, but it was really remarkable,” he remarked. “You’ve seen fiery moments with AGs at other hearings, but this was different.”
The tension peaked during an exchange with Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA), who questioned Bondi about a reported 2024 bribery scheme involving White House Border Czar Tom Homan. This incident reportedly included Homan receiving a bag containing $50,000, which has led to an ongoing FBI investigation. While Homan has not been charged, senators pressed Bondi for clarification regarding the funds.
Litman noted that Bondi’s strategy appeared to be a deliberate attempt to avoid providing straightforward answers. She responded to fundamental questions by telling senators to “ask the FBI.” According to Litman, this calculated approach included a combination of bombast and evasiveness, designed to distract from the need for accountability.
“She came in guns blazing with pre-drafted soundbites,” he said. “But when it came to answering questions, she was remarkably unresponsive.” He characterized her behavior as contemptuous towards the senators, indicating a lack of respect for the oversight process.
Bondi’s responses included moments where she would briefly address topics like Jeffrey Epstein before reverting to a defensive posture. Litman expressed concern that her behavior undermined the purpose of the hearing, which was intended to gather answers and ensure transparency.
“This is where you give us answers,” he emphasized. “With this sort of calculated bombast, she refused to give answers at every turn.” The interaction has raised questions about her commitment to accountability and transparency in her role as Attorney General.
As the fallout from the hearing continues, Bondi’s approach has sparked discussions about the effectiveness of congressional oversight and the responsibilities of public officials to provide clear and honest responses to inquiries.
