Pam Bondi, former Florida Attorney General and the sort of cartoonish villain who fights Hurricane Katrina victims over their pets, began her confirmation hearings this week to serve as Donald Trump’s Attorney General. After Trump flopped trying to help Venmo enthusiast Matt Gaetz, Bondi is seen as a “reasonable” option. Even the Washington Post, which took a tough stance against injecting itself into partisan disputes when it tanked an endorsement of Kamala Harris, found the wherewithal to endorse Bondi for the Department of Justice post on the strength of her tenure as Florida AG — where she killed an investigation into the Trump University fraud after Trump bought her off.
All vibes that bode well for her confirmation because heaven knows her answers didn’t.
Coons: Do you do you think special counsel's need to be confirmed by the senate?
Bondi: Right now, they do not need to be senate confirmed, 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 this brief (along with former cosplay Attorney General, toilet industry trade scammer, and soon-to-be NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker) advances a Herculean level of nonsensical legal claims, so one could say it’s understandable if she forgot one. Even if it’s a massively consequential position that she took a mere two months ago. Jose Pagliery of NOTUS helpfully reminds us of the brief:
That’s quite the contradiction.
But let’s assume, arguendo, that Bondi isn’t suffering from transient global amnesia and does recall taking this position in front of a United States Court of Appeals in November and she just doesn’t care about the special counsel law now that Trump isn’t being prosecuted by one.
Or, more ominously, now that she expects to use the special counsel process herself to harass Trump’s political enemies.
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
Avoiding hypotheticals… the last refuge of the scoundrel. While this is a tactic that couldn’t get a 1L out of a cold call, DOJ and judicial nominees pull this in Senate confirmation hearings all the time. In the Trump administration, Republican nominees used this to avoid answering whether or not they intended to bring back segregation.
But as shady as the “hypothetical” excuse may be normally, Bondi isn’t being asked about *A* hypothetical, she’s being asked about *HER* hypothetical. She said it! On TV! Bondi says that “no one has been prejudged,” but she’s the one who said “prosecutors will be prosecuted” which doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room.
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
In fairness, a lot of people who should have read the Fourteenth Amendment have started pleading ignorance of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Judge James Ho, who not only understood the Fourteenth Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision but got himself published defending it, but now responds with the Mariah Carey “I don’t know her” meme anytime someone asks about this now that Donald Trump has proposed a mass deportation of people born here.
Not that Bondi didn’t deliver her share of Carey moments:
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
The tape — which cost multiple Biglaw lawyers their jobs — has been played ad nauseam over the last four years. It’s a key piece of evidence in an election interference prosecution that Bondi claims to be improper. How can she know if the case is improper if she’s never heard the evidence? You all know the answer… even if she can’t say it.
And those are just the answers she did give. But, like jazz, it’s all about the notes you don’t play.
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 indignantly declares she doesn’t have to answer the Committee’s questions to get confirmed, which is probably true given where we are right now. That said, the question used to have a certain Ghostbusters quality in that any time a Senator asked “are you going to do something illegal for the president?” you say NO. That answer seems to be a disqualifying one in this administration.
But the Washington Post is satisfied, so there’s that.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
For more of the latest in litigation, regulation, deals and financial services trends, sign up for Finance Docket, a partnership between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
