Pam Bondi, the former Florida Attorney General known for her controversial stances, has commenced her confirmation hearings to take on the role of Attorney General in Donald Trump’s administration. After Trump struggled to support Venmo enthusiast Matt Gaetz, Bondi has emerged as a candidate viewed as “reasonable” by some. Notably, even the Washington Post, which previously took a critical stance on partisan issues, has endorsed Bondi for the Department of Justice position, citing her performance as Florida’s AG — particularly her decision to terminate an investigation into Trump University fraud allegations after reportedly receiving financial incentives from Trump.
Such developments seem to bode well for her confirmation prospects, especially considering that her responses during the hearings have left much to be desired.
Coons: Do you think special counsels need to be confirmed by the Senate?
Bondi: Currently, they do not need Senate confirmation, of course.
Coons: But you did sign an 11th circuit brief arguing that they should be. pic.twitter.com/lK3yf4cMAs
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 15, 2025
In fairness, the America First Policy Institute, where Bondi prepared her legal brief alongside former officials like Matthew Whitaker, is known for advancing a plethora of unconventional legal theories. Thus, it’s somewhat understandable if she occasionally forgets her own legal positions, even if they are highly significant. This particular stance was taken merely two months ago, which raises questions about her credibility. Jose Pagliery from NOTUS has highlighted the importance of this brief, reminding us of the contradictions it presents:
Such inconsistencies raise eyebrows.
Let’s entertain the possibility that Bondi isn’t suffering from any form of memory lapse regarding her stance taken in front of the United States Court of Appeals in November. It may also indicate her newfound disinterest in the special counsel law, especially now that Trump is not facing prosecution. Alternatively, it might suggest a more troubling intent; perhaps she anticipates leveraging the special counsel mechanism to target Trump’s political adversaries.
Sen. Hirono: “On Fox News, you said… ‘The prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones. The investigators will be investigated.’ Is Jack Smith one of those bad prosecutors that you will prosecute?”
Bondi: “I am not going to answer hypotheticals.” pic.twitter.com/QtkiN1CMpO
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) January 15, 2025
Her refusal to engage in discussions of hypotheticals reflects a common tactic employed by nominees during Senate confirmation hearings. This strategy, while often viewed as evasive, has become a frequent practice for DOJ and judicial nominees. During the Trump administration, Republican nominees often resorted to this defensive maneuver to sidestep questions about whether they intended to reinstate discriminatory practices.
However, Bondi’s avoidance is particularly perplexing since she is not being asked about a generic hypothetical scenario; she is being questioned about her own prior statements made on television. She previously asserted that “no one has been prejudged,” yet she is the one who proclaimed that “prosecutors will be prosecuted,” which leaves little room for misinterpretation.
Padilla: Will you defend birthright citizenship as the law of the land?
Bondi: I will study birthright citizenship
Padilla: You’re asking to be considered for Attorney General and you still need to study the 14th Amendment of the Constitution? pic.twitter.com/4T1L3dL0NH
— FactPost (@factpostnews) January 15, 2025
It’s worth noting that many individuals who should be well-versed in the Fourteenth Amendment have started claiming ignorance regarding its provisions. A notable example is Judge James Ho, who previously defended the birthright citizenship clause but now deflects inquiries with a dismissive “I don’t know her” attitude, especially in light of Trump’s mass deportation proposals targeting individuals born in the U.S.
Bondi, too, has delivered her share of moments reminiscent of this evasion:
Q: Have you heard the recording of President Trump when he urged the Secretary of State of Georgia to “find 11,780 votes”?
AG nominee Bondi: I have not heard it, no pic.twitter.com/2eyXTM957c
— FactPost (@factpostnews) January 15, 2025
This particular tape, which has caused significant ramifications for multiple legal professionals, has been played repeatedly over the past few years. It serves as crucial evidence in an election interference case that Bondi has deemed inappropriate. How can she assert that the case lacks merit if she claims to have never heard the evidence? The answer is clear, even if she is reluctant to articulate it.
And these are merely the responses she chose to provide. Like jazz music, the essence often lies in the notes that remain unplayed.
Sen. Blumenthal: “So my question to you is, can you say no to the President of the United States when he asks you to do something unethical or illegal?”
Pam Bondi: *Doesn’t answer the question* pic.twitter.com/m6biDLDiaH
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) January 15, 2025
Bondi’s assertion that she does not need to answer the Committee’s inquiries to secure her confirmation may be accurate given the current political climate. Nevertheless, traditionally, the expected response to a Senator’s inquiry about whether one would engage in illegal activities at the President’s request was a definitive NO. This response, however, seems to have lost its disqualifying weight in the present administration.
Yet, despite these unsettling revelations, the Washington Post appears satisfied with her candidacy, which speaks volumes about the state of political endorsements.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. For insights, tips, and commentary on legal matters, politics, and an array of college sports news, feel free to reach out via email. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky to stay updated.
To keep abreast of the latest trends in litigation, regulation, deals, and financial services, sign up for Finance Docket, a collaboration between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
