Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) questioned Pam Bondi, Donald Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, on her commitment to act independently from President-elect Trump and pressed her on whether she would uphold the rule of law over serving as Trump’s personal attorney.
Key Excerpts:
On Bondi dodging questions on who won the 2020 presidential election:
Schiff: […] My question is this, do you have the power to say no to the president? And what you’re suggesting today by your non-answer is you don’t have the independence to say no to the president. So, let me ask you a different question that also requires you, if you’re going to be a good attorney general, to be able to tell hard truths to the president. So, my questions now are, can you tell our truth to the president? So, let me start with an easy truth that you could speak to the president. Can you tell us — can you tell him that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election? Can you say that? Do you have the independence to say that? Do you have the gravitas, the stature, the intestinal fortitude to say “Donald Trump, you lost the 2020 election.” Can you tell us that here today?
Bondi: Senator, what I can tell you is, I will never play politics. You’re trying to engage me in a “gotcha.”
Schiff: No, I’m just asking a simple question.
On her refusal to commit to not destroying evidence from the January 6th investigation:
Schiff: […] It would also be important for you to be able to preserve the records, the evidence of the department. Are you ready to commit that none of the evidence in the January 6th investigation will be destroyed under your watch?
Bondi: Senator, I will follow the law. I will consult with ethical officials in the department.
Schiff: Do you see any ethical basis to destroy evidence in the January 6th investigation? Then, why can’t you answer the question? Why can’t you say, “I commit to this committee. We will never destroy the evidence in the January 6th investigation.” Why can’t you give this committee and the American people that assurance?
On concerns over her duty to serve independently from Trump:
Schiff: […] It’s been suggested, Ms. Bondi, by a number of my colleagues, that the concern Democrats have is that you are friends with the president. That’s not our concern. It’s not our concern that you’re loyal to the former president. The president has a right to choose people who he believes will be loyal to him. Our concern comes when that loyalty to the president conflicts with your duty, conflicts with the Constitution, conflicts with your oath. And our questions have been designed to try to ascertain what you will do when that inevitable conflict arises. And you may say that you believe that conflict will never come, but every day, week, month and year of the First Trump Administration demonstrated that conflict will come.
On exposing her promise to prosecute the prosecutors:
Schiff: […] So, my first set of questions has to do whether you have the independence to say no when you must say no. And you can say this is hypothetical, but it is not hypothetical. So, let me start with one very specific, non-hypothetical, the president has said Jack Smith should go to jail. Will you investigate Jack Smith?
Bondi: Senator, I haven’t seen the file. I haven’t seen the investigation. I haven’t looked at anything. It would be irresponsible of me to make a commitment regarding anything without — you’re a long-practicing attorney — without looking at a file.
Schiff: […] Just tell us, are you aware — tell us, are you aware of a factual predicate to investigate Jack Smith, yes or no?
Bondi: Senator, what I’m hearing on the news is horrible—
Schiff: Are you aware of a — you seem —
Bondi: Do I know if he has committed a crime? I have not looked —
Schiff: You seem reluctant to answer a simple question.
###