Pam Bondi and Adam Schiff Clash in Heated Senate Hearing Over DOJ Independence, 2020 Election, and Presidential Pardons
A tense and combative exchange between Pam Bondi, nominee for U.S. Attorney General, and Rep. Adam Schiff erupted during a Senate confirmation hearing, producing one of the most confrontational moments in recent congressional oversight. The back-and-forth, laced with interruptions, pointed questions, and defiant non-answers, underscored the deep political divide over the role of the Department of Justice (DOJ), presidential powers, and the legacy of the 2020 election.
Setting the Stage: A Contentious Context
The hearing took place against the backdrop of a recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States, in which the Court held that the president enjoys absolute immunity for certain actions within the “core areas” of presidential responsibility — including control of the DOJ. Critics, including Schiff, have called the ruling “dangerous” and “irresponsible,” warning that it could enable an incoming president to commit crimes using the Justice Department without fear of prosecution.
Schiff used the decision as the springboard for his questioning, warning that the ruling had created a “loaded weapon” that could be abused. He pressed Bondi repeatedly to prove she had the “independence” and “intestinal fortitude” to resist improper directives from the president.
The Jack Smith Question
Schiff’s opening salvo was sharp: President Trump had publicly stated that Special Counsel Jack Smith “should go to jail.” Would Bondi investigate him if asked?
Bondi refused to commit, stressing she had not reviewed any investigative files and that “it would be irresponsible” to make a decision without facts and evidence.
Bondi: “I will look at the facts and evidence in any case… Not a summary by you sitting here… and not a summary by the president either.”
Schiff pushed for a simple yes-or-no answer on whether she knew of any factual basis for investigating Smith. Bondi would not give one, repeating that she would “look at the facts” if confirmed. Schiff accused her of reluctance to answer a “simple question.”
The Liz Cheney Hypothetical
Schiff next cited the president’s public calls for Liz Cheney to be jailed. Again, he asked if Bondi was aware of any factual basis to investigate Cheney. Bondi replied that “no one has asked me to investigate Liz Cheney” and maintained that she would not speculate.
Schiff insisted this was not hypothetical because the president had called for it publicly. Bondi did not budge, pivoting to crime rates and suggesting her focus would be on pressing law enforcement concerns.
Independence and the 2020 Election
Schiff then sought to test Bondi’s willingness to tell “hard truths” to the president, starting with what he considered an “easy truth”: Would she tell the president that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election?
Bondi refused to engage on the question directly, accusing Schiff of attempting a “gotcha.”
Bondi: “I will never play politics… I won’t play politics with anyone.”
Schiff reframed, asking whether there was “massive fraud affecting the result of the 2020 election.” Bondi began to reference her experience in Pennsylvania but never stated yes or no, prompting Schiff to accuse her of dodging.
Pardons for January 6 Defendants
Moving on, Schiff addressed the president’s stated desire to issue “hundreds of pardons” on day one, including to those convicted of assaulting police officers during the January 6 attack. Would Bondi advise the president against blanket pardons?
Bondi answered that pardons are at the president’s discretion, and she would review “every case on a case-by-case basis.” Pressed on whether she could review “hundreds of cases on day one,” she said she would have “plenty of staff” to help.
Schiff attempted to pin her down: Would she advise the president, “No, do not issue blanket pardons”? Bondi repeated her case-by-case review answer without committing to blanket opposition.
Preservation of January 6 Evidence
One of the most pointed moments came when Schiff asked Bondi to commit to preserving all evidence from the January 6 investigation.
Schiff: “Can you commit that none of the evidence in the January 6 investigation will be destroyed under your watch?”
Bondi responded: “I will follow the law. I will consult with ethical officials in the department.”
Schiff pressed: Did she see any ethical basis for destroying the evidence? If not, why not promise never to destroy it?
Bondi repeated her commitment to “follow the law” without making the specific assurance Schiff sought.
Schiff’s Frustration Boils Over
As the exchange wore on, Schiff’s frustration became visible. He accused Bondi of avoiding direct answers to even the most basic questions, implying that her noncommittal stance suggested a lack of independence from presidential influence.
Schiff: “I can’t believe you have difficulty promising to preserve evidence at the Department of Justice… Why is that a difficult question?”
Bondi stood her ground, reiterating her intention to act within the law and ethical guidelines, but not making the explicit pledges Schiff demanded.
Bondi’s Strategy: Avoid Commitments, Emphasize Process
Throughout the hearing, Bondi’s approach was consistent: avoid hypothetical commitments, stress the need to review facts and evidence, and assert that decisions would be made “case-by-case” in accordance with the law. She repeatedly declined to validate Schiff’s framing of the questions, which often contained embedded criticisms of the president.
Her deflections may have been aimed at avoiding political pitfalls during a highly partisan hearing, but they also gave Schiff room to accuse her of evasion.
The Political Subtext
The clash highlighted more than just differences in legal philosophy. Schiff’s line of questioning sought to extract public commitments on:
Rejecting politically motivated investigations of figures like Jack Smith and Liz Cheney.
Acknowledging the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
Opposing blanket pardons for January 6 defendants.
Preserving investigative evidence without exception.
Bondi’s refusal to give categorical answers allowed Schiff to paint her as unwilling to stand up to the president, while her allies could argue she was simply refusing to prejudge cases or make politically charged statements without evidence.
Reactions and Fallout
Clips of the exchange quickly spread on social media, with supporters of Schiff praising his persistence and critics accusing him of badgering. Bondi’s backers applauded her discipline in sticking to legal process and avoiding what they saw as politicized traps.
Legal analysts were split. Some argued that an attorney general nominee should be willing to take unequivocal stands on issues of democratic principle, like the preservation of evidence and the rejection of baseless prosecutions. Others noted that nominees traditionally avoid hypotheticals and stick to general principles to preserve flexibility once in office.
What Comes Next
The heated back-and-forth is likely to loom large as the Senate continues its confirmation process. Senators on both sides will weigh Bondi’s legal credentials and her performance under intense questioning.
For Schiff and other critics, the hearing provided ammunition to question her independence and commitment to core democratic norms. For Bondi’s supporters, it demonstrated her ability to withstand political pressure and keep the focus on legal standards and process.
Conclusion: A Microcosm of Partisan Tensions
The Bondi–Schiff clash was more than a personality conflict; it was a microcosm of the broader struggle over the future of the DOJ, the scope of presidential power, and the lingering political aftershocks of the 2020 election and January 6.
By refusing to give Schiff the yes-or-no answers he sought, Bondi preserved her political and legal maneuvering room — but at the cost of being portrayed as evasive. Whether that strategy helps or hurts her confirmation prospects will depend on how senators — and the public — interpret this combative and revealing exchange.
News
“So That’s What All The Glitter Was For?” Karoline Leavitt Didn’t Just Stir The Pot — She Tipped It Over, Sending Shockwaves Through Both Music and Politics. With One Chilling Accusation, She Pointed a Finger at Beyoncé and Hollywood’s Elite, Suggesting Those Sold-Out, Sparkling Concerts Might Have Been More Than Just Entertainment. “We’re Talking About Political Payoffs, Not Playlists,” she declared, her words landing like a thunderclap in a quiet theater. The Stage Lights Never Dimmed, But The Illusion Did — And Suddenly, The Red Carpet Looked More Like a Paper Trail. Fans Are Outraged. Insiders Are Nervous. And As This Firestorm Rips Across Social Media, One Question Burns Hotter Than Ever: How Deep Does The Spotlight Really Go? WATCH FULL STORY IN COMMENTS 👇👇👇
Karoline Leavitt Drops Bombshell: Beyoncé and A-List Celebrities Accused of Accepting Massive Payments from H.a.r.r.i.s In a move that has…
“I’ve Had Enough of America, And I’m Leaving!” Nine Words — That’s All It Took for Whoopi Goldberg to Bring The View to a Standstill. She Sat Back in Her Chair, Calm But Unshakable, As Gasps Rippling Through the Studio Replaced the Usual Laughter. Her Co-Hosts Froze. The Audience Murmured. The Cameras Tightened on Her Face — That Defiant Look That Said She Meant Every Word. No Anger. No Breakdown. Just a Cold, Clear Vow That Landed Like a Thunderclap Across the Country. Within Minutes, Clips Flooded Social Media, Sparking Fierce Debate and Dividing Viewers Nationwide. What Drove Her to Say It — And Why Can’t America Stop Talking About It? WATCH THE SHOCKING MOMENT HERE 👇👇👇
“I’ve Had Enough of America, And I’m Leaving!” — Whoopi Goldberg’s Nine Words That Stopped The View Cold In a…
“INTERNAL TURMOIL: ‘She Thinks She’s Beyoncé of Congress,’ Jasmine Crockett Hit With BOMBSHELL Allegations — Staff in Tears, Office in Chaos, America’s Political Drama Explodes!” A political firestorm is brewing as Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett faces explosive claims of being a “nightmare boss.” According to insider sources, she’s allegedly berated staff to the point of tears, rarely shows up at the office, and seems to prioritize photo ops over actual work. One source even quipped, “She thinks she’s the Beyoncé of Congress.” Supporters call it “fake news” pushed by Trump allies, while critics see it as proof she’s a political diva. The Hill is buzzing — and the public is weighing in. Is Crockett a rising star under attack, or the ultimate Capitol Hill diva? Poll below…
Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett, one of the most prominent anti-Trump voices in Congress, is the subject of a scathing report…
They’re Making Women Look Bad — Completely!’ Bill Maher AMBUSHES The View With Brutal Remarks — Whoopi Goldberg Freezes at the Shocking On-Air Attack.” In his latest podcast, Bill Maher launched into a relentless takedown of The View hosts, calling them “the worst advertisement for women.” He bluntly stated, “They’re friendly to me, but the way they talk makes women seem… untrustworthy!” His remarks instantly sparked a storm of controversy — with feminist groups outraged while conservatives applauded loudly. Is this thinly veiled sexism or unapologetic criticism? Full video and heated reactions below…
Comedian says ABC talk show hosts make comments ‘not helpful’ to elections HBO host Bill Maher had some harsh words…
“‘This Is Not A Joke!’ — Whoopi Goldberg’s 8-Word Takedown of Jimmy Fallon STUNS NBC Execs Into Silence, Leaves Network Reeling.” Whoopi Goldberg didn’t raise her voice, didn’t move from her seat—but her words landed like a hammer. In a chilling exchange, she delivered a ruthless 8-word blow straight to Jimmy Fallon’s face, the kind that left NBC executives frozen backstage. The cameras caught every second: her unblinking stare, Fallon’s stunned expression, and the deafening silence that followed. What were those 8 words… and why might they haunt NBC for months to come?
Whoopi Goldberg’s Ruthless Takedown of Jimmy Fallon Leaves NBC in Shock In a moment of television that will go down…
“‘You Just Made a Grave Mistake,’ $800M Lawsuit Charges Ahead as The View Scrambles — Joy Behar’s Whisper to Karoline Leavitt BLOWS IT WIDE OPEN.” The $800 million lawsuit against The View is moving forward at full speed, and Karoline Leavitt has made it brutally clear—there will be no backroom deals, no quiet apologies, and absolutely no retreat. “They had their chance. Now it’s gone,” she declared with icy resolve. But it was Joy Behar’s whispered words to Leavitt that shattered any hope of a private resolution and exposed everything. The fight is on, the window for mercy has slammed shut, and the fallout is only just beginning.
The Battle for Truth: Karoline Leavitt’s Explosive $800 Million Lawsuit Against The View and the Media’s Dark Underbelly In an…
End of content
No more pages to load
