Schiff Questions Bondi During Hearing

By
Rachel Stevenson
-
0
229

Pam Bondi’s confirmation hearing was less of an inquiry and more of a live-action reenactment of a cable news panel—complete with interruptions, grandstanding, and the kind of smug posturing we’ve come to expect from none other than Adam Schiff. If you were hoping for a civil discussion on the rule of law, you’d have been sorely disappointed. Schiff didn’t come to ask questions; he came to score points and let’s just say Bondi wasn’t having any of it.

The fireworks started when Schiff demanded to know whether Bondi would launch investigations into Donald Trump’s so-called political enemies—Jack Smith, Liz Cheney, and presumably anyone who’s ever been critical of Trump. It was classic Schiff: asking hypotheticals, cutting off answers, and then feigning exasperation when Bondi wouldn’t take the bait. Bondi, to her credit, stayed composed and stuck to the facts, repeatedly pointing out that she couldn’t comment on investigations she hasn’t reviewed. This, of course, didn’t stop Schiff from huffing and puffing about her supposed “reluctance” to answer. Spoiler alert: refusing to play into someone’s loaded questions isn’t reluctance—it’s just being smart.

Schiff’s obsession with Trump was on full display when he pivoted to the 2020 election, demanding Bondi tell him, point-blank, that Trump lost. Because, you know, that’s totally relevant to her qualifications as Attorney General. Bondi refused to take the bait, instead reiterating her commitment to keeping politics out of the DOJ. Schiff, unsurprisingly, doubled down, questioning her “independence” and whether she had the “intestinal fortitude” to tell Trump he lost. Bondi’s response? A calm and cutting reminder of Schiff’s own dubious track record, referencing his infamous leak of the Devin Nunes memo back in 2018. Talk about a mic-drop moment.

But Schiff wasn’t done. Oh no. He pressed on, asking whether there was “massive fraud” in the 2020 election. Bondi, clearly trying to stay focused, began to reference what she witnessed in Pennsylvania during the campaign. Naturally, Schiff interrupted her mid-sentence because actually listening to an answer doesn’t fit his narrative. He wanted a yes or no, and when he didn’t get it, he resorted to the usual theatrics, accusing Bondi of dodging the “truth.” It’s rich, really, coming from a guy who spent years peddling the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative.

And then there was the Jan. 6 question. Schiff demanded to know if Bondi would oppose Trump issuing blanket pardons for January 6 defendants, particularly those involved in violence against law enforcement. Bondi, staying measured, said she would review cases on an individual basis. But Schiff wasn’t satisfied. He sarcastically quipped, “Of course you won’t.” Bondi, finally reaching her limit, snapped back: “What did you say? You said, ‘of course you won’t?’ Look, I’m not going to mislead this body.” Translation? Schiff’s badgering doesn’t equal substance, and Bondi wasn’t about to let him twist her words.

Then, after all that grandstanding, Schiff fell asleep:

Schiff’s antics did little to rattle Bondi. If anything, his constant interruptions and theatrics only highlighted her composure under pressure. She came across as professional, steady, and focused on facts—not political theater. Schiff, on the other hand, looked like a man still chasing ghosts from 2016, desperate to keep his narrative alive.

Here’s the bottom line: Pam Bondi showed up ready to discuss the rule of law and the Justice Department’s mission. Adam Schiff showed up to grandstand and rehash tired talking points about Trump. And in that contrast, Bondi emerged as the clear winner. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that she’s heading for confirmation—whether Schiff likes it or not.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR