The Bondi hearing

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held its hearing on the nomination of Pam Bondi for Attorney General of the United States. Unlike Pete Hegseth, Bondi is highly qualified under traditional standards for the position Trump nominated her to fill. And unlike Hegseth, Bondi has not left a long trail of highly controversial statements, some of which need to be walked back to maintain solid support from GOP members.

Therefore, it wasn’t surprising that Bondi received a better reception from Democrats than Hegseth did. Most Committee Democrats treated her civilly and at least two — Patrick Welsh and Cory Booker — seemed like they actually wanted to hear what she had to say and even found some common ground.

I don’t know what the over-under is on Senate Dems who will vote to confirm Bondi, but unlike with Hegseth, it’s possible that some will. In any case, her confirmation is assured.

This Washington Post article found Bondi “evasive” on the matter of prosecuting Donald Trump’s adversaries. Like just about every nominee in any administration, Bondi was evasive at times. However, her answers on potential prosecutions were appropriately so.

The Post complains:

Bondi repeatedly sidestepped questions during her confirmation hearing about his threats to prosecute specific adversaries — including former special counsel Jack Smith and former congresswoman Liz Cheney.

But no AG nominee should promise categorically not to prosecute specific individuals. It’s difficult for me to imagine that there’s a case for the DOJ to prosecute, or even to investigate, Smith or Cheney. But handing out passes to them, or to anyone else, ahead of becoming Attorney General is wrong. The AG shouldn’t preemptively absolve people of criminal conduct at a confirmation hearing.

Bondi did say:

There will never be an enemies list within the Department of Justice. I will not politicize that office. I will not target people simply because of their political affiliation.

That’s a promise not to prosecute Smith, Cheney, or anyone else for being a political adversary of Trump. No more should be expected.

The most contentious questioning came from Alex Padilla of California. Gavin Newsom appointed Padilla to replace Kamala Harris and he was elected to a full term in 2022.

Noting that Bondi has said there was election fraud in Pennsylvania in 2020, Padilla demanded to know whether she has any evidence to support that statement. Bondi started to talk about what she observed while working in Pennsylvania during the election. Padilla claimed this was non-responsive and wouldn’t let her talk.

Padilla is not a lawyer, but that’s no excuse for not knowing that eye-witness testimony constitutes evidence — often the best kind.

Several Democratic Senators asked Bondi whether she thought Trump won the 2020 election. Each time, she refused to answer, saying only that Biden is the president.

I believe that Trump did not win the 2020 election. But refusing to say so shouldn’t be a litmus test for serving the Cabinet. At this late date, questions about the 2020 election from both sides are of historical interest only, in my opinion.

Democrats wanted to extract a pledge that Bondi wouldn’t recommend pardoning those convicted in the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol. Bondi didn’t give a firm answer. Instead, she stated that she condemned “any violence” against law enforcement officials, but that she had not reviewed the files from those cases and would need to “look at each case and advise on a case-by-case basis.”

That’s the right answer, in my view. Though I hope Trump won’t issue mass pardons (as I expect he will), Bondi should base her recommendations, for or against, on a case-by-case review. Not having reviewed any (and certainly not all) cases, it would have been wrong for her to commit to not recommending pardons.

Having little success in attacking Bondi, and knowing she will be confirmed, some Democrats focused on Kash Patel, the nominee for FBI director. Like Hegseth, and maybe more so, Patel has left a trail of highly controversial statements at which to shoot. Given some of these statements, Democrats justifiably want assurances that Patel won’t use the FBI to go after political enemies.

Bondi said “I have known Kash, and I believe that Kash is the right person at this time for this job.” But she emphasized that the FBI is part of the Justice Department, and that therefore Patel would report to her. She insisted she would make sure “that all laws are followed, and so will he.”

The problem, of course, is that Patel might go over Bondi’s head, directly to Trump. But no AG can prevent that — only Trump can, if he chooses to.

If Democrats are afraid of Patel, let them make their case when his nomination comes up. Bondi’s answers about him provide no basis for opposing her nomination.

I don’t mean to come across as sanguine about what might happen at the DOJ under Trump. Adam Schiff was right, for once, when he said there may come a time when Trump asks (or tells) Bondi to take improper, and maybe even illegal, actions. Judging from what William Barr has said, and from what I’ve heard from other sources, I’d go further and say that this is likely to happen if Bondi serves anything close to four years.

Will Bondi be able to get Trump to back down, as Barr (and later Jeff Rosen) did? Will she at least try? What will she do if Trump does not back down?

I think it’s impossible to answer any of these questions with confidence. I suspect that Bondi is no Bill Barr. Trump wouldn’t have nominated her if she were. But nothing in her testimony makes me think she would be a rubber stamp.

Bondi’s testimony showed that she understands the proper rule of the DOJ — what it should do and what it shouldn’t. I also believe she will effectively communicate this understanding to Trump.

What happens after that is anyone’s guess, and would be under any AG he appointed.