During a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California confronted Attorney General Pam Bondi for consistently refusing to answer questions from lawmakers. The hearing, intended to oversee the Justice Department’s recent actions, quickly turned contentious as Bondi repeatedly deflected inquiries with political rhetoric and personal attacks.
Throughout the session, Bondi targeted Democratic senators rather than addressing their concerns about ethics, investigations, and the handling of corruption within the Justice Department. Schiff, growing visibly frustrated with her evasions, decided to read aloud a list of questions that Bondi had either ignored or dismissed. His move was aimed at exposing what he described as a troubling lack of transparency from the attorney general.
Schiff began by referencing his earlier inquiry about a 2024 video showing Trump’s current border czar, Tom Homan, allegedly accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents—a matter Bondi refused to discuss. From there, he proceeded to list a series of other critical questions that remained unanswered.
The questions Senator Schiff highlighted included:
1. Did Bondi consult with career ethics lawyers before approving Trump’s acceptance of a $400 million jet from Qatar’s royal family?
2. Who ordered Trump’s name to be flagged in the FBI’s review of the Epstein files?
3. Did Tom Homan keep the $50,000 he received from undercover agents?
4. Did Homan pay taxes on that money?
5. Did DOJ prosecutors determine there was “insufficient evidence” to charge former FBI Director James Comey before his indictment?
6. How did the administration justify the legality of U.S. military strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean?
7. Did Bondi discuss indicting Comey directly with Trump?
8. Did she approve the firing of antitrust lawyers who opposed the Hewlett Packard–Juniper merger?
9. Does she support a compensation fund for people prosecuted in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots?
10. Is Bondi firing career prosecutors for working on January 6 investigations?
11. Does she believe government officials must follow court orders?
As Schiff went through the list, Bondi interrupted several times—at one point sarcastically asking, “Do you have a law degree, Senator Schiff?”—attempting to derail his questioning. Her responses drew criticism from committee members who viewed them as disrespectful and evasive.
After reading the list, Schiff condemned Bondi’s behavior, emphasizing that the hearing was supposed to provide oversight of the Justice Department, not serve as a platform for political attacks. He pointed out that Bondi’s unwillingness to engage on matters of corruption and accountability was undermining public trust in the department.
“This is supposed to be an oversight hearing,” Schiff declared. “It comes after the indictment of one of the president’s political enemies, after revelations that a top administration official took $50,000 in a bag and faced no consequences, and after dozens of prosecutors were fired simply for investigating the former president.”
Bondi, visibly irritated, fired back by accusing Schiff of “slandering” Trump and demanded that he apologize. She deflected the focus toward unrelated topics such as riots and wildfires in California, continuing to avoid the substance of Schiff’s questions.
Despite her repeated attempts to shift the conversation, Schiff pressed on, urging fellow committee members to “demand answers” and to reject “personal slander as an answer to serious questions.” His closing remarks underscored the broader issue of accountability within the Justice Department under Bondi’s leadership and the growing concern over its politicization.
The exchange highlighted the intense partisan tensions within the committee, with Democrats calling for transparency and Republicans defending Bondi’s conduct. Schiff’s confrontation with Bondi left a lasting impression, framing the hearing as a symbol of the ongoing battle over integrity and oversight in Washington.
Read More
