[Senate Hearing 119-133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-133
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE
NOMINATION OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI
TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
JANUARY 15 and 16, 2025
----------
Serial No. J-119-1
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-320 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois,
JOHN CORNYN, Texas Ranking Member
MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri ALEX PADILLA, California
KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama PETER WELCH, Vermont
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Joe Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Grassley, Hon. Charles E.:
January 15, 2025, opening statement.......................... 1
January 16, 2025, opening statement.......................... 93
Durbin, Hon. Richard J.:
January 15, 2025, opening statement.......................... 5
January 16, 2025, opening statement.......................... 95
Schmitt, Hon. Eric............................................... 8
VISITING INTRODUCER
Scott, Hon. Rick, U.S. Senator from Florida...................... 7
NOMINEE
Bondi, Hon. Pamela Jo............................................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 124
Questionnaire................................................ 126
Responses to written questions............................... 160
WITNESSES
Aronberg, Hon. Dave.............................................. 97
Prepared statement........................................... 293
Cox, Nicholas B.................................................. 104
Prepared statement........................................... 296
Gainey, Hon. Emery............................................... 100
Prepared statement........................................... 299
Gilbert, Lisa.................................................... 99
Prepared statement........................................... 305
Responses to written questions............................... 311
McCord, Mary B................................................... 102
Prepared statement........................................... 313
APPENDIX
Items submitted for the record................................... 323
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE
NOMINATION OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI
TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2025
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in
Room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Graham, Cornyn,
Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Tillis, Kennedy, Blackburn, Schmitt, Britt,
Crapo, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal,
Hirono, Booker, Padilla, Welch, and Schiff.
Also present: Senator Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Chairman Grassley. Good morning, everybody. I welcome all
of you to this very important hearing to consider the
nomination of former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. She's
serving as the 87th Attorney General of the United States after
her approval. Congratulations to your nomination, Ms. Bondi,
and thank you for your willingness to serve.
I thank Senator Durbin for his leadership as Chairman of
the Committee over the last 4 years. Although he and I have
differences of policies, I think the public could say we worked
well together on many issues over the years. As he steps into
his role as Ranking Member, I will work closely with Senator
Durbin to serve the American people. I also would like to
welcome three brand new Members of the Committee and a person
that's repeating his service here after a stint off. I welcome
to the Committee Senator Britt, Senator Schmitt, Senator Crapo,
and Senator Schiff. Welcome.
[Applause.]
Chairman Grassley. Before we get started, I'd like to set
out a couple of ground rules. I want to handle this hearing
using a similar structure to how Senator Durbin handled the
nomination hearing of Attorney General Garland. I want everyone
here to be able to watch the hearing without obstruction. If
people stand up and block the view of those behind them or
speak out of turn, it's not fair or considerate to others, so
officers will immediately remove those individuals.
Now, before I turn to my opening statement, let me explain
how we're going to proceed today. I'll give my opening remarks,
and then I'll invite Ranking Member Durbin to give his opening
remarks. Then I'll call on Senator Scott and Schmitt to
introduce this nominee, and following those introductions and
Ms. Bondi's statement, we'll begin the first round of
questioning. Each Senator will have an initial 7-minute round
for questioning. After the first round, we'll do a second, 4-
minute round of questioning. Members should do their very best
to adhere to these time limits so that we can proceed
efficiently with the hearing.
We're here today considering Pam Bondi's nomination to
serve as Attorney General of the United States. Ms. Bondi, for
a second time, I thank you for your nomination, willingness to
serve, but, more importantly, serve the important role of
Senate's advise and consent process. You're nominated to one of
the most important offices in our country. It took--let's see--
a lot of work on your part just to get here today.
The more than 14,000 pages of records, hundreds of hours of
media files, and more than 3,400 responsive entries you
disclosed to this Committee are a testament to your long career
in public eye and your cooperation with this Committee. I'd
like to also thank your family for being here today. I know
that many of them have traveled some distance to celebrate with
you.
I'd like to explain and expect that Ms. Bondi be treated
fairly. During Attorney General Garland's confirmation hearing,
Republicans treated him with respect. We asked tough but fair
questions, and we ultimately voted him out of Committee on a
bipartisan basis. Although Attorney General Garland wasn't who
we on this side of the aisle would've chosen to lead the
Department of Justice, we recognized that President Biden won
that election and that he was entitled to choose his Attorney
General. We were ultimately disappointed with some of the
things that General Garland and his Department did, but at the
time of his nomination, we gave him the benefit of the doubt.
As the recent terrorist attacks in New Orleans and around
the world have shown, our national security must be a high
priority. The American people deserve a secure Homeland and
borders, safe streets, orderly markets, civil rights, and a
protected environment, so delivering on these promises require
the swift confirmation of an Attorney General. This Committee
should give Ms. Bondi the same benefit of the doubt that this
Committee gave to Attorney General Garland.
President Trump has selected a nominee whose qualifications
speak for themselves. Ms. Bondi made history in 2010 as the
first woman to be elected Florida Attorney General. She held
that role for 8 years and was comfortably reelected by the
people of Florida to a second term. Eight years of service as
Attorney General of the third-largest State in the Nation is
excellent preparation for the role of U.S. Attorney General. As
Florida Attorney General, Ms. Bondi was a member of the Florida
Cabinet, chief legal officer of the State, and led a large
agency that tangibly impacted people's lives, and by all
accounts, Ms. Bondi handled her responsibilities well.
As the Florida Attorney General, Ms. Bondi achieved
numerous successes. She engaged in key initiatives to fight
human trafficking, counter the opioid epidemic, and protect
consumers, and protect the citizens of Florida from violence.
She didn't shy away from hard work or complicated problems. She
engaged in an aggressive campaign to eliminate pill mills, took
a leading role in securing a $3-and-a-quarter billion
settlement following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and
eliminated the backlog of rape test kits that had accumulated
in that State's laboratories.
Ms. Bondi's experience isn't limited to her service as
Florida Attorney General. She also served as a prosecutor in
Hillsborough County for 18 years and prosecuted terrible
crimes. She sought tough penalties and justice for victims of
violent criminals, domestic abusers, and sexual predators. She
prosecuted drug traffickers and, thus, protected her community.
She was also active outside of her professional role, serving
in the Junior League of Tampa, on the board of Special Olympics
Florida, and is well known for her animal rescue efforts.
Her experience and performance as Attorney General,
prosecutor, and community leader speaks volumes about her
character and her dedication to the rule of law. She's received
multiple letters in support of her nomination, including from
the Fraternal Order of Police, the Republican State Attorneys
General, more than 100 former senior DOJ officials, and a
bipartisan group of former State Attorneys General. In short,
Ms. Bondi is highly qualified, and, of course, as we all know,
a change is desperately needed.
When confirmed, Ms. Bondi will take the helm at a very
turbulent time for this country and for that Department. The
Justice Department is infected with political decision-making
while its leaders refuse to acknowledge that reality. Crossfire
Hurricane was a textbook example of government weaponization.
The FBI's investigation was built on the fake Steele
dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee
and Clinton campaign, who worked with foreign operatives. My
investigative work exposed that the FBI actually knew the
dossier was false information and was likely a part of a
Russian disinformation campaign.
Even with the knowledge of such dossier defects and
political infections, the Justice Department sought FISA
warrant renewals and took other actions. After directing my
oversight staff to investigate Justice Department's mishandling
of the matter, the Justice Department retaliated in issuing a
subpoena for my own staff's phone records--that's right--
challenging my constitutional rights of doing my oversight
duties.
What's next? Then a few Democratic colleagues pressured the
FBI Foreign Influence Task Force to supposedly brief me and
Senator Johnson related to our Biden family investigation. On
August the 20th, Senator Johnson and I had that infamous
briefing from the FBI. Later, this FBI's briefing contents were
leaked to the media, even though the FBI promised
confidentiality. That leak falsely labeled our oversight work
as--you guessed it--Russian disinformation.
To this day, over 4 years later, the Intelligence Community
and the FBI refuse to provide us the intelligence basis for
that briefing. The title of this Wall Street Journal's article
sums it up, quote, ``The FBI's Dubious Briefing: Did the Bureau
Set Two U.S. GOP Senators Up at the Behest of Democrats? '',
end of quote. So I know, as other people on this Committee and
in and out of Congress know, what government weaponization is.
And then we get to Special Counsel Jack Smith and his
lawfare operation. It involved an unprecedented FBI raid on
Trump's house, including agents that even searched the former
First Lady's clothing drawers. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden
certainly did not receive the same treatment by Government
regarding their records. Indeed, as my oversight exposed, the
FBI amazingly agreed to destroy laptop and records associated
with Clinton's staff. This ``Orwellian conduct should have no
quarter.'' On top of it all, the FBI Special Agent Thibault,
the anti-Trump agent that violated the Hatch Act for political
activities on the job, started one of Jack Smith's cases.
But Jack Smith wasn't the only Department official who
tried to influence this past election. The Washington Post
reported just last August about a previously undisclosed
Mueller investigation into Trump that was closed for lack of
evidence and it being, quote, unquote, ``a fishing
expedition.'' That news reporting was based on sealed court
records, Government records, and potentially classified
information roughly 90 days before the last Presidential
election. The Justice Department leaked that information to the
press to impact the election against President Trump, and they
did it while stiff-arming congressional requests for
information that would prove embarrassing to the Biden-Harris
administration.
So let us not forget some of the more and other flagrant
abuses of power that we've seen from the DOJ and the FBI over
the last 4 years. And I don't have the time to spend on these
that I spent on two or three others, but just to list them. The
Department of Justice used the might of the Federal Government
to prosecute individuals peacefully praying outside of an
abortion clinic. The FBI suggested that traditional Catholics
could be domestic terrorism threats, claiming that these
individuals adhere to, quote, ``antisemitic, anti-immigration,
anti-GBT, and white supremacy ideology,'' end of quote. The FBI
opened dozens of investigations into parents who voiced their
concerns at school board meetings regarding curriculum choices
and COVID-19 mandates. The FBI applied undue pressure to social
media platforms to censor so-called misinformation, downgrading
or removing flagged social media posts, and removing users.
These are only a few particularly egregious examples of rot
infesting the Department of Justice.
The impact to this political infection in our once-storied
law enforcement institutions is catastrophic. By every metric,
the Biden-Harris Justice Department conduct has failed to live
up to our country's ideals. So, Ms. Bondi, should you be
confirmed, the actions you take to change the Department's
course must be for accountability so that the conduct I just
described never happens again. The only way to accomplish this
is through transparency for the Congress and the American
people.
Now to my friend, Ranking Member Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. I appreciate
your commitment to the Judiciary Committee's long-standing
bipartisan practices for vetting Presidential nominees. That
was in doubt several weeks ago, but I spoke to Senator
Grassley, and he assured me that he's still personally
committed, as I am, to maintaining these practices which we've
established over the years. Our process is rigorous, and it
shows how seriously Members on both sides of the aisle take our
constitutional responsibility of advise and consent.
Ms. Bondi, thanks for coming to my office last week to
discuss your nomination. The importance of the Attorney General
to our justice system cannot be overstated. As our Nation's
chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General oversees
the Department of Justice, which is responsible for protecting
the civil rights of Americans, economic freedom and
opportunity, public safety, and, of course, national security.
In short, the Attorney General has real impact on America's
everyday life.
It is critical that any nominee for this position be
committed first and foremost to the Constitution and the
American people, not any President or political agenda. But
President Trump claims he has, quote, ``an absolute right to do
what he wants with the Justice Department,'' and that's how he
conducted his first term.
[Poster is displayed.]
Senator Durbin. He interfered with the criminal cases of
his friends and allies and successfully pressured DOJ to
investigate his rivals. He even tried to use the Justice
Department to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential
election. The President-elect made it clear that he values one
thing above all else, and he said it over and over again:
loyalty.
Speaking about Attorney General Sessions, Donald Trump
said, quote, ``The only reason I gave him the job is because I
felt loyalty. He was an original supporter.'' But when then-
Attorney General Sessions did the right thing and recused
himself from the Mueller investigation, Trump said he should
never have nominated him. And he fired him. Trump then
nominated Bill Barr to succeed Sessions. Barr successfully
auditioned for the job in an unsolicited memo to DOJ that
sharply criticized the Mueller investigation. Once confirmed,
Barr misrepresented and blocked the release of the report,
intervened in multiple criminal cases of Trump's political
allies, and spread falsehoods about election fraud. But in
December 2020, when Bill Barr finally announced there was no
evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the
outcome of the election, Trump dismissed him--fired his second
Attorney General.
This time around, President-elect Trump has vowed not just
to use the Justice Department to advance his political
interests, but also to seek, quote, ``retribution'' against,
quote, ``the enemy within.'' He has repeatedly threatened to
arrest, prosecute, jail, and otherwise punish those he
considers his enemies. This includes reporters, prosecutors,
judges, poll workers, military officials, and even his own
former political appointees. Even before taking office, Trump
has forced out his own FBI Director that he appointed--Chris
Wray--and he's trying to replace Wray with Kash Patel, whose
main qualification to be FBI Director seems to be his loyalty
to Donald Trump. Patel has even compiled an enemy's list of,
quote, ``government gangsters'' to target--that even includes
former Trump appointees, like Director Wray, Attorney General
Barr, and Defense Secretary Esper.
Trump's approach is a stark contrast with the bipartisan
view borne out of the post-Nixon era, that the Justice
Department should serve the interests of the American people,
not any one President. For those who need a reminder, Richard
Nixon ordered Department officials to fire Archibald Cox, the
Special Prosecutor investigating Watergate. Two of those
officials--Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus--resigned
rather than carry out Richard Nixon's orders.
When this Committee considered the appointment of Loretta
Lynch to be President Obama's Attorney General, a Republican
Member of the Committee emphasized, and I quote, ``What we need
from our next Attorney General more than anything else is
independence.'' That same Member, who now still serves on the
Committee, said, and I quote, ``The job is not to be the
President's wingman. The job is to represent all Americans. The
Attorney General must be willing to stand up to the President
and say no when the office demands it.'' When Attorney General
nominee Merrick Garland came before this Committee, another one
of my Republican colleagues, still serving, told Garland, and I
quote, ``My sole criterion for voting for your confirmation is
your pledge to make sure that politics does not affect your job
as Attorney General.'' So the view that the Justice Department
must be insulated from political influence should--should not
be weaponized against political rivals has historically been
bipartisan, certainly on this Committee. At this crucial moment
in history, that view, not Mr. Trump's view, must prevail.
Ms. Bondi, you have many years of experience in law
enforcement, including nearly a decade of service as Attorney
General in one of the largest States of the Nation, but I need
to know that you would tell the President no if you're asked to
do something that is wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional. Ms.
Bondi, you are one of four Trump personal lawyers that he has
already selected for top positions in the Department of
Justice. You joined Mr. Trump in working to overturn the 2020
election, you repeatedly described investigations and
prosecutions of Mr. Trump as witch hunts, and you have echoed
his calls for investigating and prosecuting his political
opponents. This flies in the face of evidence, like Mr. Trump's
call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. We've
all heard that audio recording. These are the kinds of anti-
democratic efforts that in the past you have defended, and it's
critical that we understand whether you remain supportive of
Mr. Trump's actions.
I also have questions whether you'll focus on the needs of
the American people rather than wealthy special interests. I'm
concerned that you failed to identify your extensive lobbying
for foreign governments and big corporations as potential
conflicts of interest. There'll be questions in this hearing on
that issue. That's why I've asked the Justice Department and
the National Archives for information on your lobbying of the
Trump White House and your foreign lobbying disclosures.
I'm particularly concerned about your work on behalf of the
government of Qatar, which reportedly paid you $115,000 a month
to launder their image on human trafficking and issue a
bipartisan concern on this Committee. We need an Attorney
General who will enforce our antitrust laws to prevent price
fixing and monopolies that lead to higher prices for American
consumers, not favor corporate giants that you've lobbied for
in the past, like Amazon and Uber. I also have questions about
some of your actions as Florida Attorney General. I'm concerned
that your office failed to investigate more than 2 dozen
complaints about the for-profit Trump University after Mr.
Trump donated to your reelection campaign and held a fundraiser
for you at Mar-a-Lago. In addition, you have a long track
record on the issue of civil rights, reproductive rights,
voting rights, and LGBTQ rights that needs to be discussed.
In contrast, Ms. Bondi, Merrick Garland didn't campaign for
President Biden, never served as his personal attorney, never
lobbied on behalf of foreign governments and corporate giants.
After years of relentless criticism about Attorney General
Garland from many of my Republican colleagues, I hope they're
prepared to hold you to the same standard. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Grassley. Thank you. Okay, it's now time for
Senators to introduce the nominee. The first one will be
Senator Scott at the table, as you see, and Senator Schmitt is
a Member of this Committee, at his place on the dais. Senator
Scott, please proceed.
INTRODUCTION OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI, NOMINEE
TO SERVE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY HON. RICK SCOTT,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Senator Scott. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Committee
Members, it is an absolute honor to sit before you today to
introduce my good friend, Pam Bondi, for her nomination
hearing. I'd also like to recognize some important people
appearing in support of her today: her husband, John, as well
as her mother, father-in-law, sister, brother, sister-in-law
and nephews, friends and family members of John. Many more
would surely be here if space allowed.
I can tell you wholeheartedly that President Trump couldn't
have a better leader than Pam Bondi for Attorney General. She
is undoubtedly qualified, brilliant, and committed to defending
and protecting the laws of this Nation and has a track record
to prove it.
It's no secret that the DOJ is facing a public trust crisis
after Democrats spent years weaponizing the justice system and
the entire Federal Government. It's become an agency that
attacks the American people instead of defending and protecting
them. That will change under Pam Bondi. Under her leadership,
the DOJ will actually fairly enforce the laws, protect the
rights of the American people, and keep our Nation safe, and
crack down on violent crimes and dangerous drugs, and the
American people will trust her to do so. I know that well
because I worked alongside Pam Bondi for 8 years when I was
Governor of Florida and she was Florida's elected Attorney
General, working to improve the lives of Floridians to make
Florida the best State in the Nation to live, work, and raise a
family. Pam was an incredible partner, working to keep Florida
safe and uphold the laws of our State, ensuring crime is
aggressively pursued by law enforcement and prosecutors.
President Trump has made clear that one of his top
priorities is to reverse the rising rates of crime, and
specifically violent crime, that have plagued our communities
over the past 4 years. Pam Bondi is uniquely equipped to
advance his priority as U.S. Attorney General because she has a
proven track record of success in achieving dramatic reductions
in crime and violent crime during her time as Florida's
Attorney General.
From 2010, the year before she took office, to 2018, the
last year she was in office, together, Florida experienced a
remarkable 26-percent drop in overall crime, including a 19.6-
percent drop in violent crime, and a 27.4-percent drop in
property crime. These aren't just numbers. These are tens of
thousands of lives saved and communities improved and made
safer, and families and businesses protected. As Florida's
Attorney General, Pam Bondi also spearheaded other lifesaving
initiatives, like tackling the opioid epidemic and fighting
human trafficking. Her achievements are too many for me to list
in this short introduction.
As U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi will restore law and
order to the Nation. She'll put Americans' interests first and
make the Nation a better and safer place. I urge every single
Member of this Committee to support my friend Pam Bondi, and I
look forward to voting for her confirmation soon on the Senate
floor and help her get to work for the American people. Thank
you, Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Scott. You are
welcome to stay.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Schmitt.
INTRODUCTION OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI, NOMINEE
TO SERVE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY HON. ERIC SCHMITT,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Durbin, and Members of the Committee. It is an honor for me and
a privilege to introduce Pam Bondi, President Trump's nominee
to be the 87th Attorney General of the United States. I have
known and worked closely with Pam for years, and I'm glad to
call her a friend. When Pam was nominated by President Trump,
my reaction was this is a home run. As many of us are, I was
only to be outdone by Senator Graham, who described the
nomination as a ``grand slam, touchdown, hole-in-one, ace hat
trick, slam dunk, Olympic gold medal pick.'' And he's right.
As the letter joined by more than a hundred former Justice
Department officials put it, quote, ``It's all too rare for
senior Justice Department officials, much less Attorneys
General, to have such a wealth of experience in the day-to-day
work of keeping our communities safe,'' end quote. Pam
exemplifies and personifies the Department of Justice's mission
to uphold the rule of law, to keep our communities safe, and to
protect our rights and liberties as Americans.
Pam has distinguished herself in her career in public
service that has taken her from her small-town upbringing in
Temple Terrace, Florida, to a hearing before this esteemed
Committee. After attending the University of Florida and
Stetson University College of Law, she started her career as a
local prosecutor in Hillsborough County, Florida. As a local
prosecutor for nearly two decades, Pam kept her community safe,
prosecuting violent criminals, drug dealers, those who had
threatened the local community, and those who stood in
opposition to the rule of law. Pam's fellow Floridians then
elected her to serve as Florida's Attorney General, where she
was the first woman in State history elected to that office.
As a former State Attorney General myself, I can vouch for
the deep experience that Pam Bondi has developed from serving
in that role. As the chief law enforcement official in her
State, she worked with local prosecutors to fight crime, worked
to protect our constitutional rights--or, the constitutional
rights of Floridians, and stood up for the little guy by taking
on abuses of power. As Florida's Attorney General, she worked
tirelessly to combat the opioid crisis, fighting pill mills,
and helping to combat the widespread misuse and trafficking of
deadly drugs, including fentanyl, which have devastated
families and communities all across our country. She stood up
for Floridians in the wake of a 2008 financial crisis, leading
to the National Mortgage Settlement Act, resulting in $56
billion in compensation to victims. And after the Deep Water
Horizon oil spill, Pam was there and stood up for Floridians by
getting $2 billion from the companies responsible. On a more
personal note, Pam has always taken it upon herself to help
others. She's incredibly generous and someone I could always
count on. She's truthful, she's tough, and she's a born leader.
She has charted her own course with the rare combination of
backbone and heart.
The next Attorney General of the United States must restore
trust by reversing the weaponization we've seen the last 4
years and refocusing that Department to its core mission:
administering justice. The next Attorney General must promote
the rule of law, take on violent crime, keep our communities
safe, and safeguard the God-given rights that each American has
protected in our Constitution. I can think of no one--no one
more up to that task than Pam Bondi, a career prosecutor and
widely respected Attorney General, with the prudence,
fortitude, and temperance for this incredibly important job.
Mr. Chairman, it is truly an honor for me to introduce Pam
Bondi to this Committee and to our country here today and speak
on her behalf, and it's my hope that her nomination will be
swiftly confirmed. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Schmitt. Now, Ms.
Bondi, would you please come forward, and before you're seated,
I'd like to administer oath. Would you please raise your right
hand and answer this question?
[Witness is sworn in.]
Chairman Grassley. Please be seated, and move ahead with
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member
Durbin, and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I've had
the opportunity to meet with almost all of you, and I greatly
appreciate that. I'm grateful to President Trump and to this
Committee for your consideration to be the 87th Attorney
General of the United States.
I would not be here without my family, and if you can bear
with me for just a moment, a lot of them have made a very long
trip, and I wrote them all down so I don't forget anyone. My
beautiful mother, who I wouldn't be here--a retired
kindergarten teacher--would not be here without my mom. As of a
week ago, it was 12 years since we lost my dad to leukemia. It
feels like 12 days. My amazing husband, John, and his two
incredible girls, Collins and Finley. Collins is a senior at
University of Florida, and I think all of you on this Committee
will be very happy to know Finley is in cybersecurity. There's
a third who is traveling abroad. I wish she could be here. My
amazing father-in-law, David, my sister, Beth. My brother-in-
law is home with my niece. My nephews, if you could just raise
your hand--Evan, Jake, and soon to be niece, Savannah. My
brother, Brad, a brilliant lawyer, my sister-in-law, Tandy, and
my nephews, Justin, who just got a 4.0 at UVA, Rex, a great
college tennis player, Brad, a great tennis player, and my
niece--my beautiful niece, Rhea, and the little guy is in
school because he's 10. My friends Leslie, Kathy, Dina,
Tiffany, Kim, Paula, and so many of my former co-workers. And,
Ranking Member Durbin, if you want to get dirt on me, these
women have known me since I was a child----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Seriously, most of them. So thank
you for indulging me in that. They've all made a very long trip
to be here, and thank you for holding my hearing, as well, and
not postponing it. I appreciate that. Thank you, all.
From the moment I interned at the State Attorney's office
in Tampa, Florida, all I wanted to do was be a prosecutor. The
Supreme Court certified me, and I had four jury trials while
still in law school--lost most of them, but had four jury
trials and never wanted to do anything else. I continued my
career there, trying everything from DUIs, domestic violence
cases, capital murder cases, the whole gamut. I became a lead
trial attorney in courtroom, every day trying career criminals.
Was deputy chief of a division, and then ultimately was felony
bureau chief, and eventually left to become Florida's 37th
Attorney General for the State of Florida. Nothing has impacted
my career more than my experience as a State prosecutor because
I got to know and still keep in touch with many victims and
their families from when I was a prosecutor.
Upon becoming Attorney General in 2011, I proudly served
for two terms. I was term limited. I would probably still be
there right now had I not been kicked out of office by term
limits. I loved being Attorney General. I did my best to keep
Florida safe, to continue to stand up for victims of crime, and
to fight the opioid crisis and the drug crisis that was not
only facing Florida, but this entire country.
Out of the top 100--this is one of the things I'm the most
proud of--oxycodone dispensers in the entire country, I believe
it was 98 of them--90 or 98 of them, lived in Florida. We
fought for tough legislation. Kids were dropping dead every
day. We fought for tough legislation, and after that
legislation, none of those opioid dealers/doctors practiced in
Florida. We fought to eliminate human trafficking by raising
awareness and prevention, and talking to parents and talking to
children. We also provided critical resources, including safe
houses that my State was lacking.
On the civil side, we worked to protect consumers. We
tackled everything, including off-label prescription marketing,
which affects, as you know, many, many people who can't afford
prescriptions, as well. We partnered with States attorneys
general from both parties and Federal agencies across
administrations. We went after price gougers during hurricanes.
If confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United
States, my overriding objective will be to return the
Department of Justice to its core mission of keeping Americans
safe and vigorously prosecuting criminals, and that includes
getting back to basics: gangs, drugs, terrorists, cartels, our
border, and our foreign adversaries. That is what the American
people expect, and that is what they deserve from the
Department of Justice. If confirmed, I will do everything in my
power, and it will be my great responsibility to make America
safe again.
Making America safe again also requires reducing
recidivism. We have to fix the Bureau of Prisons, and I am
looking on both sides of the aisle. The Bureau has suffered
from years of mismanagement, lack of funding, and low morale. I
was proud to support President Trump's First Step Act. I think
more can be implemented and more can be done on that front.
President Trump's leadership on criminal justice reform has
demonstrated what is possible when a President is unafraid to
do things that have been deemed to be too difficult. We have to
reach across the aisle and get solutions for all of these
problems. Like the President, I believe we are on the cusp of a
new golden age where the Department of Justice can and will do
better, if I am confirmed.
Last and most importantly, if confirmed, I will fight every
day to restore confidence and integrity to the Department of
Justice and each of its components. The partisanship, the
weaponization will be gone. America will have one tier of
justice for all. In all this work, I'll collaborate closely
with this Committee. I will work with all of you as I have
committed to do when I met with almost all of you, and I will
partner not only with the Federal agencies, but with the State
and local officials throughout our great country.
I look forward to answering your questions today and
working together for this country and our Constitution. Thank
you, Senators.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bondi appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Grassley. I will ask, first, questions, then
Senator Durbin, and then I'll call on the Democrat people the
way that Senator Durbin would say so on their arrival or here
by seniority in the same way on the House side, and I'll make
sure that I don't abuse the 7 minutes.
I want you to have your attention on this binder that I put
up here. It's a key factor of each Senator's role in oversight.
It contains 144 oversight letters that I sent to the Biden-
Harris Justice Department and its component agencies, with many
of those letters in there to the FBI. Adding letters to the
Inspector General, that would be about 165 letters, so I've
sent more letters since you've been in my office before
Christmas. Should you be confirmed, 144 letters will be your
responsibility. The responses I have received so far fall in
two categories. First, they weren't answered at all. Second, I
received a response, but it didn't fully respond. Said another
way, the Justice Department merely sent me words on a piece of
paper. So, should you be confirmed, you'll have an obligation
to respond even to the Minority and consider a letter from
them, even if my signature's not on it, as they want
information. Will you commit to responding to my oversight
requests, as well as the requests of other Members of the
Committee?
Ms. Bondi. Chairman, either I or my top staff will
personally review the letters and do everything we can to
respond to you.
Chairman Grassley. Your tenure as Florida Attorney General
was impressive. You fought against pill mills, human
trafficking, you eliminated a backlog of rape test kits in
State labs, you fought against organized retail theft, and you
were known to stand for law and order. With such achievements,
it's easy to see why the people of Florida reelected you in
2014 and why President-elect Trump nominated you to serve as
the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. So this gives you a
chance to tell us on this Committee and the people of this
country what you're proud of as your record as Attorney General
of Florida.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. I was truly
honored to serve the people of the State of Florida for 8
years, but it was a team effort. I had great people around me,
many of whom are in this room today, and we did a lot. We did a
lot to fight crime, and I've been reminiscing a lot since I was
asked to take this nomination.
Opioids, as I talked about, were a top priority right when
I took office. When I was running for office, I went through
the entire State of Florida. Parents were walking up to me,
handing me pictures of their children who were deceased from
opioid abuse. After I was elected, I took those pictures and I
framed them in my office as a goal of stopping that fight,
which I talked about in my opening statement. And if U.S.
Attorney General, I'll bring those pictures back out, and they
will be there to inspire me on the further drug abuse we're
facing throughout this country.
We also learned that something else was happening. Pregnant
women were having babies as a result of being opioid dependent.
We called it neonatal abstinence syndrome. We fought to educate
mothers. We fought that issue, as well. Fentanyl was wreaking
havoc in our country, but it was just getting started. I
actually fought my own party a bit on scheduling fentanyl
because at that time, people thought it was something you
merely got in the hospital on a patch after surgery--apples and
oranges--and, boy, do we all know that now, the difference.
Fentanyl is raging throughout our country, and I will do
everything I can to fight that with the agencies that fall
under the Department of Justice.
Human trafficking became a top priority for me as Attorney
General. I had the opportunity on a bipartisan trip to go to
Mexico, and the one thing I found out there, they were doing
better than we were. They had safe houses. I saw things I never
dreamed I would see, and all of these things in my past have
formed the person I am right now sitting here before you. I
came back to Florida. We started a Human Trafficking Council,
and we partnered with others, and we expanded and added safe
houses in the State of Florida. I don't know how many are in
this country right now, but I would like to partner with both
sides, if confirmed, to continue those efforts.
Chairman Grassley. I'd like to interrupt you----
Ms. Bondi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Grassley [continuing]. And go to another question,
and I'll have another round so you can finish on that point.
I'd like to ask you about something that's central to fighting
Government waste and fraud, the False Claims Act. I want you to
know that Attorney General Garland calls me once a year. He
called me yesterday to tell me the success of the False Claims
Act. Since 1986 when I got it passed and President Reagan
signed it, it's brought in $78 billion as of yesterday, his
report, $2-and-nine-tenths billion for the year of 2024. Most
of that's because of patriotic whistleblowers who found the
fraud and brought the cases forward at their own risk. The
Supreme Court has long upheld the law's constitutionality, but
I want to know your view. Is the False Claims Act
constitutional?
Before you answer that, one time in the 1990s, one of the
Attorney Generals said it wasn't constitutional, and when that
same person by the name of Barr was back 5 years ago to be
Attorney General, he said it was constitutional. So if
confirmed, will you commit--well, answer that first question.
Do you think it's constitutional? Would you defend the
constitutionality of it----
Ms. Bondi. I would defend the constitutionality, of course,
of the False Claims Act, Senator.
Chairman Grassley. Okay. Last question. If confirmed, would
you commit to continuing DOJ's defense of the constitutionality
of it, and will you assure the entire staff and funding levels
to properly support and prosecute False Claim cases?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, the False Claims Act is so important,
and especially by what you said with whistleblowers, as well,
and the protection and the money it brings back our country.
Yes, sir.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you for your answers. Senator
Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Ms. Bondi, if
you're successful in your nomination, this Democrat would like
to give you three words of advice: ``Answer Grassley's
letters.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Durbin. You'll never hear the end of it if you
don't.
[Laughter.]
Senator Durbin. At issue, I believe, in this nomination
hearing is not your competence, nor your experience. At issue
is your ability to say no. More than any other Cabinet
official, the Attorney General has to be prepared to put the
Constitution first and even tell the President of the United
States you're wrong. The political danger and personal costs of
such a decision are well documented. You have only to ask
former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, whom
Donald Trump sacked for lack of loyalty. And so I have three
basic questions I'd like to ask you.
Most Americans believe that central to the peaceful
transition of power in a democracy is the acceptance of the
results of an election. To my knowledge, Donald Trump has never
acknowledged the legal results of the 2020 election. Are you
prepared to say today, under oath, without reservation, that
Donald Trump lost the Presidential contest to Joe Biden in
2020?
Ms. Bondi. Ranking Member Durbin, President Biden is the
President of the United States. He was duly sworn in, and he is
the President of the United States. There was a peaceful
transition of power. President Trump left office and was
overwhelmingly elected in 2024.
Senator Durbin. Do you have any doubts that Joe Biden had
the majority of electoral votes necessary to be elected for
President in 2020?
Ms. Bondi. You know, Senator, all I can tell you as a
prosecutor is from my firsthand experience, and I accept the
results. I accept, of course, that Joe Biden is President of
the United States. But what I can tell you is what I saw
firsthand when I went to Pennsylvania as an advocate for the
campaign. I was an advocate for the campaign, and I was on the
ground in Pennsylvania, and I saw many things there, but do I
accept the results? Of course I do. Do I agree with what
happened? I saw so much. You know, not--no one from either side
of the aisle should want there to be any issues with election
integrity in our country. We should all want our elections to
be free and fair and the rules and the laws to be followed.
Senator Durbin. I think that question deserved a ``yes'' or
``no,'' and I think the length of your answer is an indication
that you weren't prepared to answer ``yes.'' Have you heard the
recording of President Trump on January 2, 2021, when he urged
the Secretary of State of Georgia to, quote, ``Find 11,780
votes'' and declare him the winner of that State?
Ms. Bondi. No. I've heard about it through clips, but, no,
Senator, I've not heard it.
Senator Durbin. What was your reaction to President Trump
making that call?
Ms. Bondi. I have--I would have to listen to the tape,
Senator.
Senator Durbin. Well, the quote that I give you is exact.
He said to the Georgia Secretary of State, ``Find 11,780
votes.''
Ms. Bondi. Do you have the entire context of that call?
Senator Durbin. It is----
Ms. Bondi. I feel like it was much longer than that----
Senator Durbin. It is----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And may have been taken out of
context.
Senator Durbin. It was an hour long----
Ms. Bondi. Right.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. And you can certainly listen
to it. I hope you will. Every American should. As a former
prosecutor, are you not concerned that the President of the
United States called a State election official and asked him to
find enough votes to change the results of the election?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I have not listened to the hour-long
conversation, but it's my understanding that is not what he
asked him to do.
Senator Durbin. You need to listen to it. I'll ask a third
question. Do you believe that the January 6 rioters who've been
convicted of violent assaults on police officers should be
pardoned?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, if confirmed as Attorney General of the
United States, the pardons, of course, fall under the
President. But if asked to look at those cases, I will look at
each case and advise on a case-by-case basis, just as I did my
entire career as a prosecutor.
Senator Durbin. You also advise the President on pardons as
part of your responsibility as Attorney General. And so I'm
asking you, do you believe that those who've been convicted of
the January 6 riot, violent assaults on our police officers
should be pardoned? That's a simple question.
Ms. Bondi. So, Senator, I have not seen any of those files,
of course. If confirmed, and if asked to advise the President,
I will look at each and every file. But let me be very clear in
speaking to you, I condemn any violence on a law enforcement
officer in this country.
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you about your work as a
lobbyist for Ballard Partners. You did not list your current
position as a partner at the lobbying firm, nor the work you've
done for your Ballard Partner clients, such as lobbying for the
country of Qatar for $115,000 a month, and for corporate giants
Amazon and Uber when you were asked about conflicts of
interest. Why do you believe your work as a lobbyist does not
constitute potential conflicts of interest?
Ms. Bondi. Well, Senator, first, that was the amount my
firm received. I believe multiple people represented the
country of Qatar within my firm. My role--and I am very proud
of the work that I did, it was a short time, and I wish it had
been longer for Qatar--was anti-human trafficking efforts
leading into the World Cup, which is something I'd like to talk
about later, too. I was registered as FARA along with many
members of my firm. That was the sole portion of my
representation for Qatar. Now, if there are any conflicts with
anyone I represented in private practice, I would consult with
the career ethics officials within the Department and make the
appropriate decision. I would also like to point out to you, I
don't believe that I would be the first Attorney General who
has represented and advocated for businesses in their past.
Senator Durbin. Of course not. The question is whether you
will recuse yourself from any case involving your Ballard
clients. One of those clients was the GEO Group. Was it not?
Ms. Bondi. GEO, yes.
Senator Durbin. A private prison company you lobbied for.
It manages correctional institutions and detention facilities.
The GEO Group has faced criticism for safety violations,
inadequate healthcare, and poor management. U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement is GEO's largest source of revenue.
Under the Trump administration, GEO stands to earn hundreds of
millions of dollars by detaining immigrants if there is this
mass deportation. Would you sense any conflict of interest if
you're asked to judge the performance of this Government
contractor?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will consult with the career ethics
officials within the Department of Justice and make the
appropriate decision.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you. Congratulations.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Graham. You forgot to say that John's family was
from South Carolina.
Ms. Bondi. The Upstate, I'm sorry.
Senator Graham. Yes, I'll give you a pass on that, and from
Anderson, by the way. So, listen, President Trump asked a bunch
of us who would you pick for Attorney General. How many of you
got asked that? On our side? Probably didn't ask Dick, but he
asked me. I said, Pam Bondi. That's, like, an easy decision. I
couldn't think of anybody more qualified that he knew, that he
trusted. And it's okay to have a--you were his lawyer. Right?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, sir. I represented him when they tried to
impeach him the first time as part of White House Counsel
Office of Special Counsel.
Senator Graham. Being Trump's lawyer prepares you for many
things. So, yes, you have a long-standing relationship with the
President, and he trusts you. That's a good thing. That's
probably why President Kennedy picked his brother, Bobby
Kennedy. I guess you can say no to your older brother, I'm sure
he would, but this idea there's something bad is ridiculous.
Who do you pick? You pick people you know. You pick people you
trust, people who are qualified. I'm glad he picked you. He
knows you, he trusts you, and you're highly qualified. So the
idea that there's something wrong with that is just absolutely
ridiculous.
So let's talk about the job you're about to have here. Do
you support making certain drug cartels in Mexico foreign
terrorist organizations?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I personally went to Mexico. I
personally dealt with these cartels when I was a State
prosecutor, and they are a grave and violent threat----
Senator Graham. Would you consider----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To our country.
Senator Graham [continuing]. Would you consider advising
the President?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham. Good. Good. Now, when it comes to Crossfire
Hurricane, are those days over if you're Attorney General?
Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Okay. Laken Riley, are you familiar with
that case?
Ms. Bondi. Sadly, I am, Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Do you know why the man who killed her was
released from custody? He was paroled due to detention
capacity----
[Poster is displayed.]
Senator Graham [continuing]. At the Central Processing
Center in El Paso, Texas. Now, that's not your call. It'll be
DOJ. But do you agree with me that the statute regarding parole
doesn't allow parole to be based on we don't have detention
beds? There's nothing in that statute would authorize parole
based on lack of capacity. Are you familiar with that statute?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, sir, and that's frightening.
Senator Graham. Yes, well, it is frightening. Are you going
to fix it?
Ms. Bondi. I am going to do everything in my power to fix
it----
Senator Graham. Well, are you----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. If confirmed as Attorney General.
Senator Graham. Are you going to advise President Trump we
need more beds? Tom Homan's the guy that's going to do this.
But would you, as Attorney General, say we need more bed space
so Laken Riley never happens again?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, my job, if confirmed as Attorney
General, will be to keep America safe----
Senator Graham. Do you think we need----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And that include----
Senator Graham [continuing]. More detention space?
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And that includes having enough
space for violent criminals, for people that should not be in
this country----
Senator Graham. Yes.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Who have committed violent crimes--
--
Senator Graham. To the public----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And Laken Riley is one of many.
Senator Graham. Yes, but 41,000 beds in this country to
detain people, we got, like, millions of people here illegally.
We let this dude go because we didn't have any place to put
him. I hope those days are over. And if, Tom, you're listening
out there, I hope you'll create enough detention space to make
sure we don't find this dilemma ever again. Do you think we're
at war, and if so, who with?
Ms. Bondi. Oh, Senator, we're at war on so many fronts. Of
course----
Senator Graham. Are we at war with ISIS?
Ms. Bondi. Of course we're at war with ISIS.
Senator Graham. They're at war with us. Do you agree with
that?
Ms. Bondi. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Graham. Do you think since our withdrawal from
Afghanistan, threats to our Homeland have gone up from ISIS?
Ms. Bondi. Yes.
Senator Graham. Okay. March 7, 2024, General Kurilla: ``I
assess ISIS-K retains the capability and will to attack the
U.S. and Western interests abroad in as little as 6 months with
little or no warning.'' That's March 2024. General McKenzie:
``ISIS-K has a strong desire to attack the United States after
it began to grow in Afghanistan following the U.S. exit in
August 2021.'' He also stated, ``The threat from ISIS-K is
growing.'' Major General Quantock: ``The U.S. remains target
number one for ISIS-K.'' Do you agree with that?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I don't have my security clearance, but
from everything I've read and heard, ISIS is one of the
greatest threats.
Senator Graham. Okay. Well, when you get your security
clearance, you're going to find out these people are coming
after us and they want to kill us. So I would like to have a
strategy to deal with the ISIS threat that's beyond just the
law enforcement model. Does that make sense to you, that we
should use every tool in the toolbox?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, that includes wrapping in our State and
local officials, too, and better cooperation throughout our
country and our world.
Senator Graham. I totally agree. Do you support
reauthorizing FISA in 2025?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I believe 702 is up in 2026.
Senator Graham. Okay, I'm sorry, '26.
Ms. Bondi. I believe it's 2026.
Senator Graham. Okay.
Ms. Bondi. I believe it's 2026, and we will closely be
looking at that. FISA is a very important tool.
Senator Graham. Do you agree that the--702 provides
important intel-gathering capability to protect our Nation?
Ms. Bondi. Extremely important.
Senator Graham. Okay. So, Pam, you're about to step into a
job that's one of the most important jobs in any democracy.
Let's go back to pardons. If I'm a lawyer for somebody in jail,
would you promise to listen to the application and read it
before you made a decision?
Ms. Bondi. Yes.
Senator Graham. Okay. No matter who you are. Good. That's
the way it works. People want to bargain with you up here--will
you do this, will you do that? All I ask you to do is call it
as you see it. Hire good, competent people, and give the
President the best legal advice you can. Run the Department of
Justice in a manner that other people would want to join it one
day. Growing up, I had a fondness for the FBI. I watched the
show, I think, it was every Sunday. Wanted to be an FBI agent.
Right now, the FBI needs an image overhaul.
So you have a real task ahead of you in two areas: to
restore trust to many Americans who have lost trust in the
Department of Justice, and to make sure that this country is
safe from drug cartels that are killing 3,000 Americans every 2
weeks for money, to go after these people and to protect our
Homeland that's under siege. I think you're the perfect pick at
one of the most dangerous times in American history, and I look
forward to supporting you.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome, Ms.
Bondi.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for meeting
with me. I greatly appreciate that.
Senator Whitehouse. It was a pleasure. Ms. Bondi, you were
a courtroom prosecutor for a great many years. As a courtroom
prosecutor, did you ever have an enemies list?
Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. And you went on to be Florida's
Attorney General. As Florida's Attorney General, did you ever
have an enemies list?
Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. As Florida's Attorney General, you were
responsible for hiring into the Florida Department of Attorney
General. Correct?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, the Attorney General's office in
Florida is the third largest in the State, approximately 1,400
employees and approximately 400 lawyers. Only California and
Texas are bigger offices, so yes.
Senator Whitehouse. And you were responsible for hiring
into that office while you were Attorney General?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Would you have hired someone into the
Florida Attorney General's office who you knew had an enemies
list?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, to cut to the chase, you're clearly
talking about Kash Patel. I don't believe he has an enemies
list. He made a quote on TV which I have not heard. I saw your
sign or Senator Durbin's sign about Kash, but I know that Kash
Patel has had 60 jury trials as a public defender, as a
prosecutor. He has great experience in the Intel Department,
Department of Defense. I have known Kash, and I believe that
Kash is the right person at this time for this job. You'll have
the ability to question Mr. Patel----
Senator Whitehouse. And I'm questioning you----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. When you do.
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Right now about whether
you will enforce an enemy's list that he announced publicly on
television.
Ms. Bondi. Oh, Senator, I'm sorry. There will never be an
enemies list within the Department of Justice.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. The FBI's--what is the FBI's
role in national security and counterterrorism, and how
important is that role?
Ms. Bondi. You know, Senator, I believe now more than ever,
counterterrorism is so important and vital in our country. We
are facing such incredible threats, here and abroad. If--I'm
sure many of you saw FBI--former FBI Director Wray's interview
on ``60 Minutes.'' He talked about the threats that--frankly,
again, I don't have my security clearance----
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, but given that----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. But the threats facing us, Senator,
from China--from China right now that are so great----
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Given that----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. With the sleeper cells within our
country.
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Given that importance, is
it responsible to call for shutting down the FBI's
counterterrorism and national security work, and will you, as
Attorney General, impede or shut down the FBI's
counterterrorism and national security work?
Ms. Bondi. Senator----
Senator Whitehouse. Two questions.
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I believe that national security is
vital right now for our country on so many fronts. I could
continue to discuss many others.
Senator Whitehouse. And the FBI's role in that.
Ms. Bondi. And the FBI plays a vital role in
counterterrorism throughout our world.
Senator Whitehouse. Which you will or will not shut down?
Ms. Bondi. I will look at each agency. I have no intention
of shutting anything down right now, Senator. I am not in that
office yet, and if confirmed, I will look at each individual
agency and how it should be managed, but counterterrorism right
now in our world is vital.
Senator Whitehouse. You have said that Department of
Justice prosecutors will be prosecuted in the Trump
administration. What Department of Justice prosecutors will be
prosecuted and why?
Ms. Bondi. I said that on TV. I said prosecutors will be
prosecuted, to finish the quote, if bad. Investigators will be
investigated. You know, we all take an oath, Senator, to uphold
the law. None of us are above the law. Let me give you a really
good example of a bad lawyer within the Justice Department--a
guy named Clinesmith, who altered a FISA warrant, one of the
most important things we can do in this country. So will
everyone be held to an equal--equal, fair system of justice if
I am the next Attorney General? Absolutely, and no one is above
the law.
Senator Whitehouse. Under what circumstances will you
prosecute journalists for what they write?
Ms. Bondi. I believe in the freedom of speech. Only if
anyone commits a crime--it's pretty basic, Senator, with
anything, with any victim, and this goes back to my entire
career for 18 years as a prosecutor and then 8 years as
Florida's Attorney General. You find the facts of the case, you
apply the law in good faith, and you treat everyone fairly.
Senator Whitehouse. And it would not be appropriate for a
prosecutor to start with a name and look for a crime. It's a
prosecutor's job to start with a crime and look for a name.
Correct?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I think that is the whole problem with
the weaponization that we have seen the last 4 years and what's
been happening to Donald Trump. They targeted Donald Trump.
They went after him--actually starting back in 2016. They
targeted his campaign. They have launched countless
investigations against him. That will not be the case if I am
Attorney General. I will not politicize that office. I will not
target people simply because of their political affiliation.
Justice will be administered evenhandedly throughout this
country. Senator, we've got to bring this country back
together. We've got to move forward, or we're going to lose our
country.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, I think the concern is that
weaponization of the Justice Department may well occur under
your tenure, and we want to make sure that that's not the case,
that you remain independent, that you remain able to and
willing to tell the President no when that's necessary to
protect the Constitution and the integrity of the Department,
so that's why I'm asking these questions.
We talked in the meeting about the contacts policy that has
prevailed, really since Senator Hatch sat in that chair and
demanded of the Clinton Justice Department--through all the
administrations since then, with the exception of a brief
period under Attorney General Gonzales, which he corrected and
which did not end well for him--there has been a contacts
policy that limits contacts between the White House and the
Department of Justice to a very few senior officials on each
side. In your role as Attorney General, if you are confirmed,
will you maintain, defend, and enforce that long-standing
contacts policy?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, yes. I will meet with White House
Counsel and I will meet with the appropriate officials, and
follow the contacts policy.
Senator Whitehouse. My time has expired. Thank you, Ms.
Bondi.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Ms. Bondi, your testimony is music to my
ears.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Cornyn. One of the things that I have been most
concerned about over the last--certainly the last 4 years and
extending back during President Trump's administration is
weaponization and politicalization of the Department of
Justice, which, together with the FBI, is one of the most
important institutions in this country. If people don't trust
that their elected officials will faithfully enforce the law or
administer equal justice under the law, they've lost faith in
America. And that--that disturbs me greatly, and I know it does
you, too, based on what you said. So I'm delighted to hear you
say what you have said, but I want to talk about some specific
topics. Time is short. First, the Border.
I believe President Biden and Vice President Harris had
presided over one of the biggest humanitarian and public safety
disasters in American history. Senator Cruz and I represent a
State with 1,200 miles of common border with America. But as
you pointed out with fentanyl, what happens at the Border
doesn't stay at the Border. Fentanyl poisoning is the most
common cause of death of young people between the age of 18 and
45. We know where it comes from. The precursors come from
China. They go to the cartels. They mix them up, make them look
like innocuous pills, and young people take them and die. It's
just that simple and that tragic.
So there's just so much that we could talk about with
regard to the Border, but, you know, I know people voted for
President Trump in large part because of his promise to restore
security at the Border. Will you do everything within your
power as Attorney General to enforce the laws on the book,
including the President's Executive orders, which I anticipate
he will be signing on January the 20th, when he is sworn in,
and help do everything you can and the Department of Justice
can is to restore security to our Southern Border?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator, absolutely.
Senator Cornyn. One example is, of course, if you come here
from anywhere in the country and you show up at the Border,
under the Biden and Harris administration policies, you'll
simply be released into the interior of the country, either to
await a trial date, which may never occur due to the enormous
backlog, or you will simply be paroled. And I know ``parole''
has a special connotation in the criminal law, but in this
context, as you know, it's designed to be administered on a
case-by-case basis. Yet President Biden and Vice President
Harris had granted parole, that is, released people into the
United States, on a categorical basis, or anybody who shows up,
or because they don't have the detention facilities to keep
them. So do you believe Laken Riley would be alive today if
President Biden and Vice President Harris had enforced the law
and secured the Border?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, he should not have been in our country,
and then Laken Riley would have been alive, and I don't think
it's just Laken Riley. There are so many victims throughout our
country. Not only that, we're all familiar with the violent
gangs who are coming into our country, walking into our country
freely through the open border, the cartels, the gangs.
Venezuelans let people out of their prisons--it's been
reported. I don't have the security clearance yet to see what's
happening, but I know--we all know, there are criminals
throughout our country, and it is my commitment to you, on both
sides of the aisle, that I will do everything in my power with
the agencies that fall under me, if I am confirmed, to make
America safe again. We have to do that, Senator.
Senator Cornyn. Well, many of us, of course, see classified
information on the Intelligence Committee or just generally in
our duties as a Senator, and so you're not going to feel any
better about the blinking lights, the danger that Director Wray
has talked about.
In my closing moments here, I want to revisit an issue that
is of particular importance. Sixty percent of the President's
Daily Brief, which is the intelligence brief that the Director
of National Intelligence and the CIA Director deliver to the
President, comes from Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. I've called this the most important law that
most people have never heard of. I know you have, and you're
familiar with it, but I want to ask you a few questions about
that.
It's been called the crown jewel of U.S. intelligence, and,
of course, it cannot be used--legally used to spy on American
citizens, and if it is, it ought to be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. I know you would agree with that.
But there've been some, as you know, and as you pointed out to
Senator Graham, we have a temporary extension of the existing
authorization for the use of the Intelligence Community to
target foreign threats to our national security that expires in
2026. And I'd like you just to confirm here on the record that
you will enforce that law and you can support the law as it is
written.
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I haven't read the entire 702 in front
of you, but I will commit to reading that and doing everything
I can to keep America safe again.
Senator Cornyn. Of course you will. So Director Ratcliffe,
who's going to be--I'm going to go to his hearing for CIA
Director--of course, he was confirmed as Director of National
Intelligence. He was--some have argued that in order to query
or look at lawfully collected FISA 702 product, that you need
to get a warrant requirement in order to show probable cause
that a crime, including espionage, perhaps has been committed.
But Director Ratcliffe has written that a warrant requirement
may not achieve its intended objectives and could hinder
national security efforts. Do you share Director Ratcliffe's
concerns?
Ms. Bondi. I would read his memo, and I will speak to you
after I read his memo, Senator.
Senator Cornyn. We need to have a--I hope you and I can
continue this conversation after this because I think there's a
lot of misinformation with regard to how Section 702 works. I
happen to be one of the Members of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, we read that product on a regular basis, and it is
not used to spy on American people. I think what's
fundamentally missing is a lack of trust in the Intelligence
Community, including the FBI, which I'm hoping you and Mr.
Patel can restore. Thank you.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had
a good meeting this week. Thank you for that, and I appreciated
your priorities on human trafficking that you mentioned today,
that work, as well as fentanyl and some of your other
prosecution experience. We have some similar backgrounds in
doing that. And I want to talk about--first of all, the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Minnesota, one of the premier offices in
the country. This office has been instrumental in combating
violent crime, dismantling street gangs, taking fentanyl off
our streets, enforcing civil rights laws after George Floyd's
murder, ensuring victims of fraud get justice. Do you agree
that it should be a priority to support U.S. attorneys,
frontline prosecutors, and case agents who work hard every
single day on our streets?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I think that is one of the most
important things in our country right now, and there are so
many good men and women within the Justice Department
throughout our country, as well as all the law enforcement
agencies. Yes, they work very hard, and they will be supported.
Senator Klobuchar. I'm concerned about some of the
proposals that could put cuts in the COPS Program, Byrne JAG
Programs--I know you're familiar with those. Senator Murkowski
and I lead the COPS Reauthorization bill. Will you commit to
continue to support those programs?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will read everything about those
programs because that is a top priority of mine, and I would
love to meet with you on that--and Senator Murkowski to support
law enforcement and those programs.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Independence from political
interference is vital to the legitimacy and success of the
Department of Justice. I was honestly troubled by some of the
answers to Senator Durbin's questions. We will continue that
discussion, I'm sure, on the Committee about the election, but
I want to focus on the investigation, charging decisions. As a
prosecutor, I'm sure you had this experience. I would get calls
from people, hey, that's just a kid, give him a break, and I
remember one answer I gave was, he's 40 years old, he's not a
kid. But that kind of interference is attempted all the time,
and one of my concerns here--whether it's a call from a friend,
a corporate lobbyist, a White House--it has been very clear
that the Attorneys General of both parties have established
clear policies to ensure the White House doesn't tamper with
criminal investigation and prosecutions. At Attorney General
Mike Mukasey's hearing, he made clear that any attempt by the
White House, and these are the words, ``to interfere with the
case is not to be countenanced. Any call to a line assistant or
to a United States attorney from a political person relating to
a case is to be cut and curtailed.'' Do you agree with this
statement?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, yes, I believe that the Justice
Department must be independent and must act independently. The
number one job is to enforce the law fairly and evenhandedly,
and that's what will be done if I am confirmed as the Attorney
General.
Senator Klobuchar. So you will provide an assurance to
every Member of this Committee that the Justice Department will
only follow the facts and the law, and the White House will
play no role in cases investigated or brought?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, it will be my job, if confirmed as
Attorney General, to make those decisions. Politics will not
play a part. I've demonstrated that my entire career as a
prosecutor, as Attorney General, and I will continue to do
that, if you confirm me as the 87th Attorney General of the
United States of America.
Senator Klobuchar. In an earlier question, some of my
colleagues talked about China and the risks, yet you have a
nominee from this incoming administration, Kash Patel, the pick
to head the FBI--I have serious concerns about him--has
referred to the FBI's Intel Division, which is responsible for
protecting us from foreign adversaries like China, as, quote,
``The biggest problem the FBI has had,'' and he said that he
wants to, quote, ``Break that component out of the FBI.'' Do
you agree?
Ms. Bondi. I have not seen those comments from Mr. Patel. I
would review them, but we have to do everything we can to
protect our country. Again, Mr. Patel would fall under me and
the Department of Justice, and I will ensure that all laws are
followed--and so will he.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. There are many decisions made by
the FBI Director, having seen a number of them do their work,
that can be made. While I agree you would be the boss of Kash
Patel, I'm not sure that you would be able to intervene with
every decision or position that he had or know what he's doing.
So let's continue.
Do you agree it is the duty of the Justice Department to
defend the laws Congress passes, and will you commit to do,
even when the President may disagree with an Act, campaigned
against its passage, or called for its repeal? President
Reagan's AG, William French Smith, said the Department policy
was, ``The Department has the duty to defend an act of Congress
whenever a reasonable argument can be made in its support.'' So
I am specifically referring to the 2022 law that I long led
that we passed to empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices,
major savings for seniors. Will you commit to defend the law
against the lawsuits from Big Pharma?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I was involved in Big Pharma cases when
I was Attorney General of the State of Florida, and I will
commit to protect the laws of the United States of America.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. That would also--same
question with the Supreme Court is going to be hearing a
challenge to the Affordable Care Act's coverage of preventative
services, and despite the fact that you twice joined suits to
have the entire Affordable Care Act invalidated, will you
commit to defending this law?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, I believe this is very different. It's a
very isolated--it's different. It's not the entire Affordable
Care Act. But I will--it's pending litigation, of course,
within the Department.
Senator Klobuchar. Since the 1990s, the Freedom of Access
to Clinic Entrances Act has protected patients, providers, and
facilities that provide reproductive health services. Will you
commit to continuing to enforce the FACE Act to address
violence and threats against those providing reproductive
healthcare services?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, the FACE Act not only protects abortion
clinics, but it also protects pregnancy centers and people
going for counseling. The law should be applied evenhandedly.
Yes, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar. So you'll uphold the enforcement of that
law?
Ms. Bondi. I'll uphold the enforcement of the law, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. And I will ask my antitrust
questions in the next round. We had a good discussion about
that, and I do appreciate the nominee that has been put in
place for the Antitrust Division, and there's incredibly
important work that has to be done in that Division. So, thank
you----
Ms. Bondi. Gail Slater is remarkable. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. I thank all my colleagues for abiding by
the 7-minute rule. Before I call on Senator Lee, I want
everybody to plan on our first break would be about 11:50, and
that would be 30 minutes for lunch. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms.
Bondi----
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Lee [continuing]. For being here today. I do share
the assessment that Gail Slater is great. Had a great meeting
with her yesterday, and just thrilled that you're here and that
you're willing to serve. I'd like to talk to you, as a longtime
lawyer and one who has handled a variety of criminal matters,
about the Fourth Amendment. What can you tell us about the
Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement and why it's so
important?
Ms. Bondi. Well, the warrant requirement is so important,
which I've dealt with that since I was in my twenties as a
State prosecutor--a warrant is so important because it protects
citizens' rights, and that's why it's so important.
Senator Lee. And it does that specifically because under
the Fourth Amendment, you're required to go to a judge, and
you're required to show a judge evidence, evidence providing
probable cause. And based on that probable cause, you can
describe with particularity the things or persons to be
searched or seized. And on that basis, the judge may issue or
not issue the warrant, but without it, you can't get it. Now,
this is time consuming, no doubt. Right?
Ms. Bondi. Oh, I've done many of them. Yes, it's very time
consuming, Senator.
Senator Lee. And there's probably not a law enforcement
officer anywhere in the world who wouldn't acknowledge that
that they could save time if they didn't have to go about it,
and yet we require it. Why is that so important that we do it?
Ms. Bondi. Well, it's so important for the reasons you just
laid out. When I said I've done many of them, I've approved
them and not approved them as a State prosecutor because law
enforcement--there are checks and balances. And law enforcement
must bring these warrants to prosecutors to see if there is
sufficient evidence. Then after that's done, they have to take
them to a judge to have a judge sign them. So there have to be
sufficient checks and balances throughout our system.
Senator Lee. So even after you, as Attorney General, as the
chief law enforcement officer and prosecutorial authority in
the State of Florida, approved it within your office, you still
had to go to the judge. And if it was late at night, early in
the morning, didn't matter when, you had to find a judge.
Ms. Bondi. All hours of the night. That was more when I was
a State prosecutor. As Attorney General, the Office of the
Statewide Prosecutor Nick Cox, would have done that many, many
times at all hours throughout the night and woken up many, many
judges throughout the State of Florida.
Senator Lee. Is there an exception to the warrant
requirement that exists any time it would be inconvenient for
prosecutors or anytime national security might be involved?
Ms. Bondi. I'm not certain about national security, but
absolutely no for a State prosecutor.
Senator Lee. Right.
Ms. Bondi. No.
Senator Lee. There's no----
Ms. Bondi. No exception. No.
Senator Lee. There's no catch-all exception that just says
this is important or it would inconvenient for the prosecutor,
and with good reason.
Ms. Bondi. Right.
Senator Lee. We've learned through sad experience over many
hundreds of years, not only in our own country, but also in
that of our mother country, what happens when you don't have
this in the loop.
So you've been asked today a little bit about Section 702
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as
FISA. There are those who have repeatedly assured Members of
this Committee, including myself, that don't worry. Content of
phone calls or electronic communications involving American
citizens sometimes resulting in the, quote, unquote,
``incidental collection'' of American citizens' private
conversations, don't worry, their Fourth Amendment rights are
just fine. And yet when they incidentally collect the
communications of American citizens, either because they're
perhaps unwittingly talking to somebody who might be an agent
of a foreign power and themselves under 702 surveillance, they
get onto this big database. And at times there are those in the
Government, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who
have gotten into that database and done so, of course, without
a warrant because there currently is no warrant requirement.
This has the effect of what we call a de facto back door
warrant list search.
Would you agree with me that that is potentially concerning
any time an American citizen's private conversations are
intercepted, stored, whether as an incidental collection or
otherwise, they ought not be searched without some kind of
probable cause showing. I assume you'd agree with me there.
Ms. Bondi. Yes.
Senator Lee. Yes, and it's important. Sometimes people will
defend that by saying national security is involved, as if
that's the beginning and the end of the inquiry. That has never
been the case, and I hope and pray it never will be the case
because that's not what the Fourth Amendment says, not what it
does, not what it ever can be. So it's my sincere hope that the
next time FISA 702 comes up for reauthorization, Congress
finally do what it has been avoiding for a long time, which is
to ensure that this doesn't happen.
We've heard again and again from people who, if you're
confirmed to this position, will soon be your predecessors,
prior occupants of the position to which you've been nominated
and to which Mr. Patel has been nominated, don't worry, we have
good people. Don't worry, we have good systems in place. Don't
worry, it's as good as a warrant requirement, the internal
approval procedure that we have within our system. And yet
we've found out time and time again that this has happened, by
some accounts, hundreds of thousands of times these things have
been accessed where searches for an American citizen's private
communications that have been intercepted and stored through
incidental collection have been searched without those
safeguards being met, including instances where people just
wanted to check on, to cite one example, whether his father was
cheating on his mother, or in other instances, doing background
checks on someone looking to lease an apartment that he owned
and was looking to rent out. This is unacceptable and we've got
to fix it.
Speaking of unacceptable, we have seen over the last few
years the weaponization of government, specifically within the
Department of Justice, against law-abiding Americans--law-
abiding Americans whose offense was something along the lines
of, you know, them exercising their constitutional rights,
ranging from Catholics attempting to practice their faith, to
parents showing up to school board meetings, to people showing
up to engage in peaceful protesting outside of abortion
clinics. As Attorney General, how will you prevent the
weaponization of the Department of Justice against Americans?
Ms. Bondi. And, Senator, you just gave the classic example
of what's been happening regarding the weaponization. Going
after parents at a school board meeting has got to stop. For
practicing your religion, sending informants into Catholic
churches must stop. We have----
Senator Lee. What about branding parents as domestic
terrorists or trying to incarcerate one's political opponent as
a sitting President of the United States?
Ms. Bondi. Will stop. Must stop, Senator.
Senator Lee. Exactly the sort of answer I was hoping and
expecting to receive from you, and I look forward to doing
everything I can to help get you confirmed. I've been pleased
with your answers thus far. I've enjoyed knowing you,
considering you a friend for many years, and look forward to
the great things you will do as Attorney General of the United
States. You have my emphatic support and my vote.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Attorney
General Bondi, and to your family and supporters.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Coons. Thank you for your service, and I look
forward to our conversation today. I have a simple three-factor
test when considering the executive branch nominees before us:
Do you have the qualifications and experience to do the job,
policy views to do the job in the best interest of the American
people, and the character and integrity to conduct your job,
and yours, in particular, with the independence that the role
requires? You demonstrably have the relevant experience. I
understand we will not see eye to eye on some or even many
policies, but we had a constructive conversation last week
about our shared interests in fighting the opioid epidemic,
countering human trafficking, criminal justice reform, and
supporting law enforcement. But I need to know that you share a
core value: ensuring the Department of Justice remains free
from partisan or political influence, in particular, by the
White House. So I look forward to our discussion about that
today.
As Attorney General, if confirmed, who would be your
client?
Ms. Bondi. My oath would be to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States of America. The people of
America would be my client, and it is also my job to advise the
President. My client are the people of America.
Senator Coons. A simple question of constitutional
interpretation, is President-elect Trump eligible to run for
another term as President in 2028?
Ms. Bondi. No, Senator, not unless they change the
Constitution.
Senator Coons. Thank you. One of the concerns I've raised
with you is safeguarding the Department of Justice's
independence in the face of some promises on the campaign trail
by then-candidate Trump that he would use the Department to
target his political adversaries--or that he might interfere
with prosecution. What would you do if your career DOJ
prosecutors came to you with a case to prosecute grounded in
the facts and law, but the White House directs you to drop the
case?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, if I thought that would happen, I would
not be sitting here today. That will not happen. Will not
happen. Every case will be prosecuted based on the facts and
the law that is applied in good faith. Period. Politics have
got to be taken out of this system.
Senator Coons. I agree with you.
Ms. Bondi. This Department has been weaponized for years
and years and years----
Senator Coons. Let me, if I might----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And it has to stop.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Let me, if I might, Madam
Attorney General, refer you back to Senator Durbin's opening
comments about previous Attorneys General--our former
colleague, Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr. I don't think it's
credible to say that it may never happen that the President-
elect would direct an unethical or illegal act. I think both of
those Attorneys General found themselves crosswise with the
then-President by doing things he didn't welcome or approve of.
Just answer the question for me, if you would. I know you may
not expect it, I know you wouldn't have accepted this
nomination if you thought it possible, but let's imagine that
once again, President-elect Trump issues a directive or order
to you or to the FBI Director that is outside the boundaries of
ethics or law. What will you do?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will never speak on a hypothetical,
especially one saying that the President would do something
illegal. What I can tell you is my duty, if confirmed as the
Attorney General, will be to the Constitution and the United
States of America, and the most important oath--part of that
oath that I will take are the last four words, ``So help me
God.''
Senator Coons. Given the importance of that oath, I hope
you can understand the importance of repeated questions from
some of us about the importance of having independence in the
Department of Justice. It has a long tradition of independent
special prosecutors, especially to handle high-profile or often
political cases. If you got credible evidence of a criminal
violation by a White House official, including even the
President, would you bring in a special prosecutor?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, that's a hypothetical. I can tell you
what I do know is special prosecutors have been abused in the
past on both sides. We have seen that for many, many years.
They have cost the taxpayers countless dollars--countless, and
I will look at each situation on a case-by-case basis, and
consult the appropriate career ethics officials within the
Department to make that decision.
Senator Coons. Attorney General, do you think special
counsels need to be confirmed by the Senate?
Ms. Bondi. I will follow the law, and I will consult with
the appropriate ethics officials regarding the law. Right now,
they do not need to be Senate confirmed, of course.
Senator Coons. But you did sign an Eleventh Circuit brief
arguing that they should be.
Ms. Bondi. I will follow the law, Senator. That's why I
said that.
Senator Coons. Understood, but I was just getting to the
clarity about the difference----
Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
Senator Coons [continuing]. Between a position you've
advocated and what the current law is. Thank you for that.
Look, bluntly, to me, refusing to answer a hypothetical when
there is clear and concrete previous history raises some
concerns for me. I think Chris Wray has done an outstanding job
as FBI Director at avoiding political pressure. And although he
was chosen by President Trump, he's being driven out so that he
can be replaced--my perception, I've not yet met with Mr.
Patel--by a loyalist who has publicly said he will do what the
President asks him. Given that Attorney General Barr was asked
to go find evidence of election interference and improprieties,
went and looked for the evidence and said I can't find any, and
was then dismissed, I'm just going to ask you one last time,
can you clarify for me that in following ethics and the law,
you'd be willing to resign if ordered to do something improper?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I wouldn't work at a law firm, I
wouldn't be a prosecutor, I wouldn't be Attorney General, if
anyone asked me to do something improper and I felt I had to
carry that out. Of course I would not do that. That's one of
the main things you learn when you're a young prosecutor is to
do the right thing, and I believe that has continued with me
throughout my very long career.
Senator Coons. As we discussed, protecting American
invention and innovation, American intellectual property, is a
real concern of mine and of several others on this Committee. I
look forward to talking with you about that pressing concern.
But the most important question I had for you today is whether
you will be willing and able to stand up to politicization and
interference in the Department of Justice, and I look forward
to further clarification from you about the specifics of that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Senator Cruz would be next,
but he's not here, so I call on Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi,
welcome. Congratulations. Can we agree that legitimacy is
important to America's criminal justice system?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Can we agree that legitimacy is important
to the Department of Justice, which, in part, administers our
criminal justice system?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. And if Americans come to believe that our
criminal justice system or our Department of Justice is acting
illegitimately, that makes Americans less likely to accept the
results of that system. Does it not?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. And that makes Americans less likely to
follow the substantive laws that we pass that are administered
by the Department of Justice. Isn't that true?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. And if that happens, we have chaos. Don't
we?
Ms. Bondi. Chaos.
Senator Kennedy. And the social contract is breached. Isn't
it?
Ms. Bondi. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Do you remember a person by the name of
Michael Avenatti?
Ms. Bondi. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Several years ago he was a media star here
in Washington.
Ms. Bondi. An attorney. Correct?
Senator Kennedy. Yes. He was a media star, and many members
of our media loved him because he persistently bashed Donald
Trump, and he was on TV every day. He was on CNN more than Wolf
Blitzer. Do you know where Mr. Avenatti is today?
Ms. Bondi. I believe he's sitting in prison, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. He's in jail because he was a crook, and
the Department of Justice helped put him there. Didn't it?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Do you remember a gentleman by the name of
Sam Bankman-Fried?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Boy genius, so smart and so powerful that
he thought he could command the tides----
Ms. Bondi. Mm-hmm.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. So smart and so powerful and
so rich that he would go to meetings with serious people, like
Bill Clinton, like Tony Blair, looking like a slob, looking
like a fourth runner-up to a John Belushi lookalike contest,
and he thought it was cute. Where's Mr. Bankman-Fried today?
Ms. Bondi. I believe he is in prison. And I believe that's
from the Netflix series I saw, as well.
Senator Kennedy. Mm-hmm, because he's a crook, and who
helped put him there?
Ms. Bondi. The Department of Justice, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Can we agree that there's some really,
really good men and women at the Department of Justice?
Ms. Bondi. Many, many great men and women in the Justice
Department, as well, Senator, as all the law enforcement
agencies that fall within the Department of Justice. They're
out there risking their lives, especially the law enforcement
officers, every single day.
Senator Kennedy. Can we agree, though, that there have been
and may be today some bad people at the Department of Justice?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. We don't know for sure because for the
last 4 years, the curtains there have been tightly drawn, but I
think some, a minority of people there have delegitimized
America's criminal justice system. The most destabilizing act
that I saw in the past 4 years, maybe in the history of the
Department, is when Attorney General Garland decided on the
basis of dubious facts and untested legal theories to
criminally prosecute a former President of the United States.
And not only that--this is, this is the special part--he
decided to do it after the former President of the United
States had announced that he was going to run against Attorney
General Garland's boss. Didn't he?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, are you referring to going after a
political opponent?
Senator Kennedy. I think so. Now, this is one person's
opinion. That kind of stupid takes a plan, and I say that
because, number one, this is America. That had never happened
before in America. That's the sort of thing that happens in a
country whose Powerball Jackpot is 287 chickens and a goat. It
doesn't happen here, and I call it stupid because it broke the
seal. It broke the seal. It normalized it. There are a lot of
ambitious prosecutors in America, Democrat and Republican, and
I'll bet you right now there's some prosecutor in a particular
State thinking about, well, maybe I ought to file criminal
charges against President Biden's inner circle for conspiring
to conceal his mental decline. And that's the road we're headed
down, and you've got to fix it, counselor. You've got to fix
it.
And here's, in my judgment, what I would ask you to do:
Find out who the bad guys are and the bad women and get rid of
them, find out who the good people are and lift them up, but do
it on the basis of facts and evidence and fairness, because the
temptation of some people is going to be they're going to tell
you, look, two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make it
even. Don't resist--resist that temptation. Help us restore
legitimacy to the Department of Justice.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms.
Bondi, and to your family.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you for visiting with me in my
office, and I have to say I'm sympathetic, always, to a former
Attorney General, particularly having been one myself, but I
am, I have to say also, really troubled, deeply disturbed by
some of your responses and nonresponses to the questions that
you've been asked today. You say the right things, that you're
going to be the people's lawyer--that's what you have to say to
be here--but I believe being the people's lawyer means you have
to be able to say no to the President of the United States. You
have to speak truth to power. You have to be able to say that
Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. You dodged that question
when you were asked directly by Senator Durbin. You have to be
able to say that January 6 insurrectionists who committed
violence shouldn't be pardoned. You have to be able to say that
a nominee for the FBI Director who says he has an enemy list--
and that's just the beginning of what he has said in terms of
politicizing, deeply weaponizing the FBI against political
opponents--that he shouldn't be the FBI Director.
You know, we have some history here with your
predecessors--Barr, Sessions, and others--who perhaps
sincerely, when they sat where you are now, said that they
would say no, but they were working with a President that
expected them to be his Roy Cohn, his personal attorney. Do you
really think that you can avoid the disgrace that they
encountered or the repercussions from the White House if you
say no to the President? And 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?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, first I need to clarify something that
you said, that I have to sit up here and say these things. No,
I don't. I sit up here and speak the truth. I'm not going to
sit up here and say anything that I need to say to get
confirmed by this body. I don't have to say anything. I will
answer the questions to the best of my ability and honestly.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you, an individual who says
that he is going to, quote, ``come after,'' unquote, people he
alleges ``helped Joe Biden rigged the Presidential elections,''
that he has a list of people who are part of this deep state
who should be prosecuted, that he's going to close down the FBI
building on his first day in office, is that a person who
appropriately should be the FBI Director?
Ms. Bondi. They----
Senator Blumenthal. Aren't those comments inappropriate?
Shouldn't you disavow them and ask him to recant them?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I am not familiar with all those
comments. I have not discussed those comments with Mr. Patel.
What I do know----
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I'm asking you----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Is, Mr. Patel was----
Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. For your view----
Ms. Bondi. Excuse me, what I do know is Mr. Patel was a
career prosecutor, he was a career public defender defending
people, and he also has great experience within the
Intelligence Community. What I can sit here and tell you is Mr.
Patel, if he works running the FBI, if he is confirmed and if I
am confirmed, he will follow the law if I am the Attorney
General of the United States of America, and I don't believe he
would do anything otherwise.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me just submit that the
response that I would've hoped to hear from you is that those
comments are inappropriate and that you will ask him to disavow
or recant them when he comes before this Committee because they
are indeed chilling to fair enforcement and the rule of law.
Let me ask you on another topic. When we met, I welcomed
your support to the goals of the Kids Online Safety Act, and
Senator Blackburn and I have spent a lot of time, devoted a lot
of effort to the passage of the Kids Online Safety Act, which
happened by an overwhelming vote of 91-to-3, 72 Co-Sponsors,
including Vice President-elect Vance. I appreciated our
discussion and your support for Protecting Kids Online when we
met last week. I'm hopeful that this area is one where we can
work together. Can we count on your support in working together
to protect kids online?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, absolutely, and thank you for that
legislation, and Senator Blackburn. I believe in this world
right now, we have to find the things we have in common, and
that is certainly one of them, Senator, protecting our children
from online predators. You've done so much on that front, and I
thank you. I tried--I attempted to do that, as well, when I was
Attorney General, but I am committed to working with you on
anything we can do to protect our children throughout this
country.
When I was Attorney General, we started something called
From Instant Message to Instant Nightmare and educating parents
about online predators. And that also, Senator, is one of the
core functions of the FBI, the Cyber Unit. They sit there--
these agents sit there all day long and investigate child
predators. We tell parents constantly----
Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Bondi----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. You think you're talking to another
child----
Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. I apologize----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And you're not.
Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. I'm going to interrupt
you.
Ms. Bondi. Sure.
Senator Blumenthal. I welcome your positive response. I
have----
Ms. Bondi. Oh, go ahead.
Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. One more question that I'm
going to try to fit into this round.
Ms. Bondi. Sure.
Senator Blumenthal. TikTok will be banned unless it is sold
because it has become a tool for the Chinese to collect
information and do surveillance and endanger our national
security. Can you commit that you will enforce that law
promptly and effectively? And I ask this question because
President Trump's pick for your Solicitor General in the
Department of Justice went to the United States Supreme Court
arguing that the ban should be delayed. Will you commit to
enforce that law on your first day when you are--if you are
confirmed?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, as I discussed with you during our
meeting, that is pending litigation within the Department of
Justice.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, it's pending litigation, but will
you enforce that law?
Ms. Bondi. I can't discuss pending litigation, but I will--
I will talk to all the career prosecutors----
Senator Blumenthal. Well, again----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Who are handling the case.
Absolutely, Senator, talk----
[Gavel is tapped.]
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Discuss with them.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Tillis.
Senator Tillis. Ms. Bondi, thank you for being here. I
think I told you when we met--thank you for the time we met--I
was born in Florida, have a lot of friends and family, and
follow Florida politics pretty closely, and you've had a very
impressive career there, though I do also have to admit, I'm a
Gator hater. So----
Ms. Bondi. Oh.
Senator Tillis [continuing]. For the Florida alum, I'm
University of Tennessee.
But anyway, actually, in some of these hearings, I created
a bingo card to see what some of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle were going to hit. I want to go back to a few
of them really quickly. One was about you being a lobbyist,
paid for and on the payroll of Qatar. Would you mind going back
and repeating what you said in case people did not hear the
involvement of your law firm and precisely what you were doing
for the Government of Qatar?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. I was very proud of that work. It
was anti-human trafficking in advance of the World Cup, and
human trafficking has been something that's been very important
to me my entire career, especially when I was Attorney General
for the State of Florida.
Senator Tillis. You also made it clear that you had a
number of practitioners within the firm working on it. So this
narrative that you were getting $115,000 a month from Qatar is
correct or not?
Ms. Bondi. Not correct.
Senator Tillis. Okay. Thank you. I want to talk a little
bit about--well, first off, I want to go back. You should be
happy that so many comments have been directed toward Kash
Patel, whose confirmation I am supporting--in fact, I'm meeting
with him today--because that means they're out of stuff for
you. So if it comes up again, you will once again know that
you've got a great reputation and a great resume, and they are
just trying to find things to put your integrity into question.
You have answered the question repeatedly that you're--that you
will be loyal to the Constitution, and you will live up to the
oath to the Constitution, and to protecting the American
people. And I think Mr. Patel, when he comes here, he'll be
able to get rid of the myth in the same way that you did as a
lobbyist for Qatar, he'll be able to get rid of that list of
the enemies, that he'll be able to deal with the enemy's list,
and the marketing department for your opposition is going to
have to come up with new material because that stuff is getting
old.
Section 702. You heard Senator Lee talk about some concerns
that he has with 702. I believe it's one of the most important
things that you can do early into your confirmation. You will
be confirmed and hopefully with some Democrat support. That
there have been dramatic reforms to 702. I've sat through an
extensive presentation to try and make sure that the abuses
never occur again and that you have a throat to choke if
somebody abuses the protocol that's in place. I believe that we
need to codify a lot of that. As a matter of fact, when I went
through it, I felt like there were so many blinding flashes of
the obvious. How could this not have already been a part of the
approval matrix?
So can you, after you're confirmed, commit that you or a
designate will come back and provide for this Committee an
update on all of the protocols that have changed and
recommended legislation for codifying so that when we do go to
reauthorization, we'll have what we need to make sure that that
program stays in place?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I or a designee will review all of 702
before it terms, of course, in 2026, and come back and report
to you, on both sides of the aisle.
Senator Tillis. Thank you. You have a great perspective
with your time in the State and working with the Department of
Justice. Give me an idea of things that we need to do better in
terms of, and I'm talking primarily in the law enforcement
role. I think many people don't understand the joint task
forces, the law enforcement efforts that are going every single
day in every one of our States. What an incredible job they do.
So can you give me some sense of things that you would look at
to say maybe we could do it better from your perspective of
having been a prosecutor in Florida?
Ms. Bondi. Yes. Thank you, Senator. Yes, having been a
career prosecutor, I think I have a unique perspective because
I was a State prosecutor, of course, prior to becoming Attorney
General. So I worked on a daily basis with local law
enforcement and State and Federal--not daily with Federal, but
I worked consistently with State, local, and Federal. Then when
I was Attorney General, I worked with all three, as well. I
feel like we have to have better coordination among all our
agencies, especially given all the terrorism issues that we've
discussed earlier in this hearing. We have to wrap in and
communicate better with our local and State law enforcement
officers throughout this country. There are so many great men
and women in law enforcement. We have to--I don't know exactly
how yet, but we have to figure out a better way to work
together with the Federal authorities.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, and I'm going to do a second
round, as well, but I think I also checked the Bingo card for
election denier. There were some people, you know, that seemed
to suggest that you were denying the election. I think that you
said that President Biden is our President?
Ms. Bondi. President Biden is the President of the United
States of America, and President Trump will be the 47th
President.
Senator Tillis. But I think you made a point that, or at
least I inferred from a comment that you made, a very important
point. Folks, there are election improprieties in every
election. The question is a matter of scale and whether or not
you can prove it. We've seen it in North Carolina and seen it
in other places. It's one of the reasons why I support voter ID
because we want to make elections easy to vote and hard to
cheat, but the fact of the matter is people are cheating. So if
anybody on this dais suggests that there aren't irregularities
in every election, then they need to spend more time at home
and really studying the facts. I don't think, though, that
you've said that Biden is an illegitimate President. In fact, I
think you said just the opposite. He is the President of the
United States, and President Trump will be the next President.
Right?
Ms. Bondi. Yes.
Senator Tillis. Okay. Last thing before the second round,
January 6th. A lot of people are going to say you're going to
have a rubber stamp for letting people have pardons or
recommending a pardon for people who did violence to law
enforcement. I'm not going to ask you a hypothetical because I
want you to be consistent in not answering them. But I have to
believe, as a Member--I was the last Member out of the Senate
on January 6th. I walked past a lot of law enforcement
officers--excuse me--who were injured. I find it hard to
believe that the President of the United States or you would
look at facts that were used to convict the violent people on
January 6th and say it was just an intemperate moment. I don't
even expect you to respond to that, but I think it's an absurd
and unfair hypothetical here, and you probably haven't heard
the last of it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Grassley. Before I call on Senator Hirono, after
her and Cruz's testimony, then we'll take a lunch break, and
that break will be for 30 minutes. And I can't control when my
Senators come back, but I expect you to be back after 30
minutes, and I'll be here.
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. And then I may leave the meeting to open
the Senate, so whoever's on our side is acting Chairman during
that period of time. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As part of my
responsibility to ensure the fitness of all nominees, I ask the
following two initial questions. First, since you became a
legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual
favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or
assault of a sexual nature?
Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?
Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Ms. Bondi, I am focused on two things in my
evaluation of President-elect Trump's nominees. The first is
whether the nominee is qualified and experienced enough to do
the job. The second is the fitness to serve, which includes
putting loyalty to the Constitution over loyalty to the
President. Unfortunately, in my view, many of President-elect
Trump's nominees are lacking in at least one of these two
requirements. Ms. Bondi, your experience as a prosecutor is the
kind of thing we would expect to see in a nominee for Attorney
General, but I do have questions and concerns about potential
conflicts of interest, about whether you will keep DOJ's law
enforcement responsibilities independent of the President's
political whims, and about whether you will let facts and
evidence guide your decisions. So let's start with the
importance of facts, which you say is important.
Ms. Bondi, we want an Attorney General who bases decisions
on facts, so I want to ask you a factual question. Who won the
2020 Presidential election?
Ms. Bondi. Joe Biden is the President of the United States.
Senator Hirono. Ms. Bondi, you know that there is a
difference between acknowledging it. You know, I can say that
Donald Trump won the 2024 election. I may not like it, but I
can say it. You cannot say who won the 2020 Presidential
election. It's disturbing that you can't give voice to that
fact.
Moving on to DOJ's independence from politics, Ms. Bondi,
if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will take an oath
to the Constitution and not to any individual, including the
President. To start, I'd like to know whether you agree with
some of the statements President-elect Trump made during the
election, during the campaign.
First, are the felons convicted of breaking into the
Capitol on January 6 hostages or ``patriots''--quoting Trump--
as President-elect Trump has said repeatedly? Do you agree with
his characterization of the felons that I referred to?
Ms. Bondi. I am not familiar with that statement, Senator.
Senator Hirono. I just familiarized you with that
statement. Do you agree with that statement?
Ms. Bondi. I'm not familiar with it, Senator.
Senator Hirono. No answer. He has also said, ``Illegal
immigration is poisoning the blood of our Nation.'' He said
that in December 2023. Do you agree with that statement?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I am not familiar with that statement,
but what I can tell you is I went to the Border a few months
ago. I went to Yuma, Arizona, and what I saw at that border was
horrific, Senator. It was horrific----
Senator Hirono. Ms. Bondi----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I went to a rape crisis center.
Senator Hirono [continuing]. That is not my question.
Ms. Bondi. If I can finish, I went to a rape crisis
center----
Senator Hirono. Let me----
Ms. Bondi. Well, I'm not familiar with the statement----
Senator Hirono [continuing]. Get to the next----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. But I went to a rape crisis
center----
Senator Hirono [continuing]. Let me get to----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I met with Border Patrol agents.
Senator Hirono [continuing]. The next question I have.
Ms. Bondi. I'm sure you've been to the Border----
Senator Hirono. Ms. Bondi----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As well----
Senator Hirono [continuing]. I want to get to my next
question.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. So you can answer that.
Senator Hirono. So, I believe that you responded to a
question from Senator Whitehouse, and let me get your response
again. You said that the White House--if I'm putting words in
your mouth, correct me--oh, you said that the White House will
play no role in investigative or charging decisions in the DOJ.
Is that correct?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, what I said is that it is the
Department of Justice's decision to determine what cases----
Senator Hirono. What----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Will be prosecuted.
Senator Hirono [continuing]. What role will the White House
have in investigative or prosecutorial decisions of the DOJ?
Ms. Bondi. It is the Department of Justice's decision,
Senator.
Senator Hirono. So that sounds to me that you're saying
that the White House will not have any kind of role. Meanwhile,
though, you have an incoming President who said, I have the
absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice
Department, and, in fact, President-elect Trump considers the
DOJ to be his law firm. I'll ask you this. If President-elect
Trump asks, suggests, or hints that you, as Attorney General,
should investigate one of his perceived political enemies,
would you do so?
[Video and audio malfunctions occur.]
Ms. Bondi. Senator Hirono, I wish you had met with me. Had
you met with me, we could have discussed many things. You
could've gotten to know me.
Senator Hirono. I'm listening to you now. Could you respond
to the question?
Ms. Bondi. Yes. You were the only one who refused to meet
with me, Senator, but what we would've discussed is that it is
the job of the Attorney General----
Senator Hirono. I'm very happy----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To follow the law.
Senator Hirono [continuing]. To listen to your responses
under oath, Ms. Bondi. So I think it's really important to us
that the Attorney General be independent of the White House,
and you have a President-elect who considers the AG's office
his law firm. I would like to know whether, if the President
suggests, hints, asks that you, as Attorney General, should
investigate one of his perceived enemies, what would you do?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I certainly have not heard the
President say that, but what I will tell you is two-thirds of
Americans have lost faith in the Department of Justice, and
it's statements like that, I believe----
Senator Hirono. Ms. Bondi----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. That make people continue to lose
faith. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, it will be my
job----
Senator Hirono. Getting to my next question----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To not only keep America safe----
Senator Hirono. You're not responding----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. But restore--but restore integrity
to that Department----
Senator Hirono. Why don't we move on----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And that's what I plan on doing----
Senator Hirono [continuing]. To something that you said.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Every single day as Attorney
General.
[Video and audio malfunctions occur.]
Senator Hirono. On August 25, 2025, on Fox News, you said,
``When Republicans take back the White House, the Department of
Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones. The
investigators will be investigated.'' Ms. Bondi, is Jack Smith
one of those bad prosecutors that you will prosecute as AG?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, you hesitated a bit when I said, the
bad ones. Every decision will be made----
Senator Hirono. Sometimes badness is in the eye of the
beholder. I'm just asking whether you would consider Jack
Smith----
Ms. Bondi. Senator----
Senator Hirono [continuing]. To be one of the people. How
about Liz Cheney?
Ms. Bondi. Senator----
Senator Hirono. How about Merrick Garland?
Ms. Bondi. I am not going to answer hypotheticals. No one
has been prejudged nor will anyone be prejudged----
Senator Hirono. I am asking whether these are the kind of
people----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. If I am confirmed.
Senator Hirono [continuing]. These are, in fact, the people
that you would prosecute. I'm not getting an answer.
Chairman Grassley. Your time is up. Would you like to----
Senator Hirono. My time is----
Chairman Grassley. Would you like to respond?
Senator Hirono. Mr. Chairman, she is clearly not going to
answer that question, so let me get on to----
Chairman Grassley. Would you like to----
Senator Hirono. I do have questions for the second round.
Chairman Grassley. You'll get--you'll have a second round.
Would you like to speak before I call on Senator Cruz?
Ms. Bondi. No, sir. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Okay. Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Bondi,
welcome.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Cruz. Thank you for your long career in public
service, and thank you for your willingness to take on this
incredibly important office.
You know, I have to say, I don't know there is a more
important position in this new administration than the position
to which you have been nominated, Attorney General of the
United States. I thought the exchange just a moment ago with
Senator Hirono was illustrative. She asked you how you would
respond if the President asked you to target his political
enemies. It's rather striking because it's not a hypothetical.
It has happened over the last 4 years, and I think perhaps the
most tragic legacy of the Biden-Harris administration has been
the politicization and the weaponization of the United States
Department of Justice. And we don't need to ask hypothetically
because Joe Biden publicly mused and allowed The New York Times
to report it, calling on Merrick Garland, why will he not
prosecute Trump more quickly. And Merrick Garland, sadly, he
sat in that chair and promised to be apolitical, and he broke
that promise almost the instant he walked into the Department
of Justice.
If you look on the west pediment of the Supreme Court of
the United States, just above the entrance, there's a simple
yet profound forward phrase, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' We
have seen over the last 4 years a Department of Justice that
systematically targeted the political opponents of Joe Biden
and Kamala Harris and that systematically protected his friends
and allies, and it is tragic to see the loss of confidence in
the American people in the Department of Justice and in the
FBI. I would note, I don't think there's an institution in
America who has lost more respect from the American people than
the FBI has in the last 4 years. That is a grotesque violation
of the obligation of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
So I want to start with just a very simple question. If you
are confirmed as Attorney General, will you pledge to fairly
and faithfully uphold the law, regardless of party?
Ms. Bondi. So help me God.
Senator Cruz. Amen. Look, and I want to be clear for folks
at home. I don't want a Republican Department of Justice. I
don't want a Democrat Department of Justice. I want a
Department of Justice that follows the damn law, and I think
the American people do, too. That shouldn't be too much to
expect.
Now, I'm grateful to President Trump for nominating you. I
think on any objective level, you're clearly qualified for this
position. You have been a prosecutor for decades. You have been
the elected Attorney General of the State of Florida, the third
largest State in America, for 8 years. Let me ask you, in terms
of your practice, how many criminal cases over the course of
your career have you personally handled?
Ms. Bondi. Handled? Thousands.
Senator Cruz. How many of those were before a jury?
Ms. Bondi. Hundreds. I don't want to overstate, but
hundreds. I was in a courtroom for many years. I tried four
when I was an intern, jury trials. I think you had to try at
least 20 in misdemeanor before you went to felony, then you
were in court every day, and I was also lead trial attorney for
many years, trying many cases, so.
Senator Cruz. And how many of those cases would've been
before a judge?
Ms. Bondi. Oh, hundreds and hundreds, as well, but hundreds
before a jury, I would assume.
Senator Cruz. And as Attorney General of Florida, how many
lawyers did you supervise roughly?
Ms. Bondi. Approximately 400, Senator.
Senator Cruz. Now, I also want to clarify something. During
the course of this hearing, several Democrat Senators have
referred to you as President Trump's, quote, ``personal
lawyer.'' Now, I don't believe that is an accurate
characterization. As I understand it, you represented President
Trump as a White House special advisor during his first
impeachment trial. Is that correct?
Ms. Bondi. Within Office of White House Counsel, yes,
Senator.
Senator Cruz. And is working within the White House
Counsel's office different than representing Donald J. Trump
individually as his personal lawyer?
Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
Senator Cruz. How's it different?
Ms. Bondi. You're working for the Government. You're
working for the Office of White House Counsel. You're not
representing him in his personal capacity.
Senator Cruz. And so you have not represented him in his
business affairs, in his personal life, or in any of the
criminal trials he has faced?
Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
Senator Cruz. And, you know, when it comes to
weaponization, it's worth noting that in more than 2 centuries
of our Nation's history, no President had previously been
indicted, no President had previously been prosecuted until the
Biden-Harris White House came along. And in the last 4 years,
we've seen Donald Trump indicted and prosecuted not once, not
twice, not 3 times, but 4 separate times.
Ms. Bondi. And two assassination attempts, Senator.
Senator Cruz. I have to say, Javert from ``Les Mis'' would
be chagrined at the efforts of Democrats to do anything
possible to take him down. And I believe the real target in
this was not President Trump, but it was the American people,
that these prosecutions were brought because partisan
prosecutors were terrified that the American people would do
exactly what they did in November 2024 and vote to reelect
Donald J. Trump.
Ms. Bondi. By 77.3 percent million Americans--77.3 million
Americans.
Senator Cruz. Will you commit every day as Attorney General
to follow the law, to follow the Constitution, to uphold the
rule of law without favor and without regard to the partisan
position of any criminal defendant?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Cruz. That's what we should all expect from an
Attorney General. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. We'll now recess for 30-minute lunch
break. That means we'll be back at 12:25, and when we resume,
Senator Booker will be recognized to ask his questions.
[Whereupon the hearing was recessed and reconvened.]
Chairman Grassley. Since Senators that would've been called
on before the Senator from Vermont, I'm going to ask him to
start the questioning so we don't waste any time.
Senator Welch. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this
hearing. Ms. Bondi, thank you so much for the visit to my
office.
A couple of things. First of all, congratulations on the
nomination, and number two, a couple of Vermont things that we
talked about. We're going to have a new U.S. attorney in the
State of Vermont, and in the last Trump administration, the
Justice Department and the Trump administration worked closely
with Senator Leahy, Democrat, and with Governor Scott,
Republican, and came up with a consensus choice. And I seek
your assistance in helping make sure that we are successful in
getting a very competent U.S. attorney in Vermont and,
hopefully, with the cooperation of Governor Scott, a
Republican, as I mentioned, and Senator Sanders, and me.
Ms. Bondi. And, Senator, as I discussed with you in our
meeting, I look forward to working with you and cooperating
with you and learning about many of the issues you have in
Vermont.
Senator Welch. Thank you. And then on that, by the way, one
of the issues we talked about, we are one of two States that
does not have a residential reentry program. That is outrageous
in my mind. I know you worked on the First Step Act, but our
Federal judges, our Federal prosecutors, our Federal public
defender are all in support of a residential reentry program.
Our State and Hawaii are the only two States without it and our
justice system and officials believe that we need it, and I
seek your energetic assistance in helping us get that
residential reentry program.
Ms. Bondi. Can I address that, Senator?
Senator Welch. Yes, I'd like you to. Thank you.
Ms. Bondi. Yes. Senator,hen I was a prosecutor, and those
are so vitally important. One thing that I just learned is the
Bureau of Prisons--98 percent of people in the Bureau of
Prisons will be released. They're not----
Senator Welch. Right.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Serving life sentences, so we must
do everything we can when people are in prison to help
rehabilitate them for when they get out, and that's why reentry
is so----
Senator Welch. That's really----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Vital.
Senator Welch [continuing]. Helpful.
Ms. Bondi. But we tell people----
Senator Welch. Right.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Get out of prison and become a
productive member of society, go get a job, yet people don't
know how to go find a driver's license.
Senator Welch. Well, I appreciate your help on that.
Ms. Bondi. They don't know how to get to work.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much----
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Welch [continuing]. And I have confidence that you
will do that, given your history on the First Step Act and
other things that you did. The next--I do have some concerns,
not so much about you, but what President Trump has said about
a desire on his part to go after what he considers to be
political adversaries. You know, he's--his own words----
[Poster is displayed.]
Senator Welch [continuing]. For instance, says that if he's
elected, he'd seek to appoint a special prosecutor to go after
Joe Biden. I assume you've had no discussion with President-
elect Trump about that?
Ms. Bondi. Absolutely not.
Senator Welch. And he----
Ms. Bondi. Nor against Senator Schiff. I'm looking at your
next one.
[Laughter.]
Senator Welch. Well, my colleague, Senator Schiff, who I
think did an incredibly good job, President Biden had different
points--or pardon me--President Trump had different views about
that where he said on a number of occasions that he should be
prosecuted--everybody on the January 6 Committee should be
prosecuted for their lies and treason. No discussion about
that?
Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
Senator Welch. And Liz Cheney, also, he said that she
should be prosecuted for lies and treason, as well.
Ms. Bondi. We have had no discussions about Liz Cheney.
Senator Welch. All right. And you've satisfied me that this
is not an agenda you have. President Trump has satisfied me
that when he says things that are pretty provocative, he's
often serious. And, as Senator Cruz wants, I want, and that is
to have a Justice Department that is not going after people on
the basis of them being political opponents. And my
understanding, in listening to your answers to the questions
along this line, is that you have no intention--no intention of
pursuing people on the basis of them being a political
opponent.
Ms. Bondi. No one will be prosecuted, investigated because
they are a political opponent. That's what we've seen for the
last 4 years in this administration.
Senator Welch. Well, I----
Ms. Bondi. People will be prosecuted based on the facts and
the law and fairly, Senator.
Senator Welch. That's good.
Ms. Bondi. You have my word.
Senator Welch. I disagree about the characterization of the
past 4 years, but we don't have to discuss that, with your
assurance that the next 4 years, there'll be no effort on the
part of the Justice Department to pursue political adversaries.
Right?
Ms. Bondi. Every case will be done on a case-by-case basis.
No one should be prosecuted----
Senator Welch. All right. Just----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. For political purposes.
Senator Welch. Thank you.
Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
Senator Welch. Thank you. I just have a couple of other
things. One is the False Claims Act. Senator Grassley, thank
you for that False Claims Act. In Vermont, there are incredible
challenges for folks trying to get healthcare. It's really
expensive, and there was a shocking report in The Wall Street
Journal about a major insurer that is ripping off taxpayers by
overbilling, over-prescribing on Medicare Advantage--billions
of dollars. And the report indicated that insurers are adding
diagnoses, basically, to make money, not to help the patient,
that insurers sent nurses to find diagnoses that doctors didn't
find, that insurers got paid to cover patients who were already
getting their coverage through the VA, and it adds up to
billions of dollars. And Vermonters are struggling under the
weight of incredibly expensive healthcare.
The False Claims Act Senator Grassley authored is an area
where the Attorney General can protect consumers against rip-
offs. I'm not asking you to comment on this particular Wall
Street report, but I want your assurance that in addition to
fighting crime--and we're all for you doing that--you're going
to be there protecting consumers and taxpayers from rip-offs.
Ms. Bondi. Absolutely, Senator. When I was Attorney
General, we went after a pharmaceutical company. It was
Medicaid fraud. I can't remember the settlement value. It may
even be ongoing, but it was a large, large number, and that--
you know, people don't understand that's--that's hurting the
taxpayers of Florida, of Vermont.
Senator Welch. So use that False Claims Act that we can
thank Senator Grassley for. It's cold out there in Vermont. We
need vigorous enforcement to protect taxpayers in Vermonters
from rip-off charges. Thank you. I yield.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Schmitt.
Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can--it's good
to see you, and I meant every word of that, those introductory
remarks.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Schmitt. I have the greatest deal of respect for
you, personally and professionally. This is a great pick by
President Trump. You're going to do a great job.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you. Thank you.
Senator Schmitt. I do want to say, though, that it appears
as though Trump derangement syndrome is alive and well. The
focus of these questions today are disturbing. I don't think my
Democrat colleagues learned very much from the November 5th
election. The American people rejected all this, their
obsession, but President Trump didn't bode well for them
electorally, and I think if they stay on this path they'll be
in a permanent minority----
[Poster is displayed.]
Senator Schmitt [continuing]. But that's----
Ms. Bondi. Three-hundred and twelve electoral votes,
Senator.
Senator Schmitt. A landslide. But that's up to them to
decide. I do want to comment a little bit, I guess, on this
newfound religion on independence from the Attorney General. I
will remind my colleagues that the last three Democratic
Attorneys General for the United States of America were perhaps
the most biased--politically biased AGs we've had in modern
political history in the United States, and there are some
receipts. Eric Holder described himself as Obama's heat shield
and wingman. This Committee moved forward, and one of my
colleagues referenced that the Attorney General shouldn't be
the wingman of the President. Eric Holder's bragged about it.
He bragged about it. Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the
tarmac in a private meeting while she was investigating Hillary
Clinton. And Merrick Garland probably gets, however many gold
stars you want to give, for the most politicized, weaponized
Department of Justice we have ever seen. And I think it's worth
exploring that, and then I want to get your comment on it.
To just sort of take a step back, I think part of
leadership is understanding the moment that you're in and the
landscape. We've never seen anything like this, and there is a
story to be told. The arc of this story begins when Joe Biden
gave a speech demonizing half the country----
[Poster is displayed.]
Senator Schmitt [continuing]. Calling them threats to the
republic, threats to democracy, these MAGA Republicans, and I'm
going to do everything I can to make sure President Trump ever
gets back into the White House. Miraculously, these zombie
cases are resurrected, and let's talk about a couple of those.
You've got, of course, Jack Smith, the overzealous and
disgraced special prosecutor, who time and time again has been
slapped down by courts for overcharging and taking an overtly
political position. He, by the way, in his postmortem this week
even acknowledged that it was unusual for him to be tasked with
going after the political opponent of the President of the
United States. It didn't stop him, though. The Supreme Court
did, thankfully. But you had Jack Smith take on these
unprecedented actions.
You had a raid at Mar-a-Lago, staged photos at Mar-a-Lago
for boxes of documents, which, by the way, boxes of documents
were in Joe Biden's garage from his Senate days, and by the
way, somebody who didn't register like you did under FARA,
Hunter Biden was staying in. We don't know if he's compromised
or not because that investigation was dropped, and give me a
break that justice was meted out fairly for Hunter Biden. It
wasn't. The Department of Justice went out of its way in
documents to try to get him absolved of all potential crimes in
the plea deal. It was only when the judge asked questions that
unwound that and they got back to the gun charge. But then
President Biden did the dirty work himself. It was always going
to be Plan B.
You had Jonathan Su, Biden's Deputy White House Counsel,
coordinated with the DOJ and Jay Bratt on those classified
document cases. Matthew Colangelo--who's that? The number three
guy at DOJ goes to where? Alvin Bragg's office. Alvin Bragg
then resurrects a zombie case in lawfare at a local level. Why
would the number three person go do that? Maybe there was
coordination. Maybe there was coordination, by the way, with
the number two assistant DA in Atlanta, in the Fani Willis
case, who was meeting with the White House. Why would the White
House care about a case in Atlanta? Well, the truth is, is
everybody knows, it was on full display, this was the worst
case of lawfare we've ever seen. If this was happening in
another country, our State Department will be warning us about
it. It's banana republic stuff.
And one of the reasons why I'm so glad that you have been
put up and nominated for this position is that I think you have
the ability to level set. So when the Democrats ask you
questions about your independence, it is beyond ironic that
we're sitting here today because of the lack of independence
from Merrick Garland--and Eric Holder bragging about being
Obama's wingman. So I just want to ask you--you've been asked
this a bunch of times--you're going to make decisions as you
always have, right, on the law, and let investigations go where
they're going to go, but they're not politically motivated.
Correct?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator, based on the law and the facts
that apply.
Senator Schmitt. And in my limited time, I do want to give
you an opportunity to talk about some of your experience
working with law enforcement as Florida's Attorney General.
This is something that, you know, as you and I talked about
over the years, you were known for this, the collaboration you
had. And I think getting the Department of Justice back to its
core function of taking on violent crime, protecting the
constitutional rights of Americans, but taking on violent crime
is really important. And how you went about doing it, you've
gotten bipartisan praise for that over the years. You've got
the support of all these law enforcement agencies. That's
something that you're going to continue and take forward into
this office. Is that right?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. Thank you so much, and I feel that
my experience with that goes back to when I was a State
prosecutor with State and local--our sheriffs, our police
departments, our police chiefs, and then as Attorney General on
a statewide basis. And now, if I'm confirmed, all of our
Federal law enforcement agencies, I would be very proud to
supervise those.
Senator Schmitt. I'll just close with this, Mr. Chairman.
We heard one of my Democrat colleagues ask you the question
that you're not going to pursue a case because of a name, but
because of the crime. I would argue that the current Department
of Justice adopted Lenin's claim, which was, ``Show me the man
and I'll show you the crime,'' and they did everything they
could to throw President Trump in jail for the rest of his life
because they didn't want to lose at the ballot box. That is not
what this country is about. That is not what this republic is
about. But they did it, and it's up to you now to restore the
integrity of that agency--of the Department of Justice, and I
have full confidence that you will.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Schmitt. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin, I
just want to remind us all for the record that the 34
convictions--not indictments--convictions of former President--
incoming President Trump were by a jury of his peers. Thank
you, Ms. Bondi, for being here today, and, I, too, would like
to welcome your family and friends who are here.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. I appreciated the opportunity to meet
yesterday to learn about your priorities and discuss a number
of issues that are important to me. But I got to tell you, as I
reflected on our conversation yesterday, and as I've observed
at the hearing today, I continue to have significant
reservations on your ability to function as a truly independent
Attorney General for your friend--that's how you keep referring
to him, your friend President-elect Trump. So I hope you can
address some of these concerns through your responses to my
questions here.
Now, the first issue area is something that we didn't get a
chance to touch on yesterday, so I actually want to follow up
on some of Senator Durbin's questions from earlier about the
2020 election. And to be specific, on the day after the 2020
Presidential general election, you traveled to Philadelphia to
appear alongside President Trump's then-attorney Rudy Giuliani,
and together, you falsely asserted that President Trump had,
quote, ``won Pennsylvania'' in that election. Now, I want to be
clear at that moment, there were still at least a million
ballots left to be counted in Pennsylvania. Of course,
President Biden went on to win the State by more than 80,000
votes. But in the following days, even after the results were
clear, you continued to double down on the Big Lie, promoting
falsehoods about election fraud and cheating without offering
any actual evidence. And I remember it clearly because I served
as California's Secretary of State at the time, and I invited
anybody associated with the Trump campaign who was making these
claims to come forward with evidence of irregularities in the
election or massive voter fraud. Four years later I still have
seen none.
So I ask you today, do you have any evidence of election
fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election?
Ms. Bondi. So, first, Senator----
Senator Padilla. Yes or no? It's a yes or no question.
Ms. Bondi. First, Senator----
Senator Padilla. Do you have evidence? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. First, Senator--first, Senator, I'm so sorry
about the fires, to you and Senator Schiff, and what you're
going through in your States. I have to say that----
Senator Padilla. I appreciate that----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And I think all of our----
Senator Padilla [continuing]. But my clock is ticking----
Ms. Bondi. I'll answer your question.
Senator Padilla [continuing]. And I want to hear your
answer.
Ms. Bondi. All our hearts go out to everyone in California
for what you're facing right now. I'm glad you asked the
question about Pennsylvania. I was hoping someone----
Senator Padilla. It's a yes or no question.
Ms. Bondi. I was hoping someone would----
Senator Padilla. Do you have evidence? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I was hoping you'd ask the question.
Yes, I traveled----
Senator Padilla. Do you have evidence? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. I traveled to Pennsylvania----
Senator Padilla. Do you have evidence? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. I traveled, Senator, to Pennsylvania----
Senator Padilla. Okay. You're not answering my question. If
you have no evidence to offer, let me ask you this. Will you
now retract your previous statements that Trump won
Pennsylvania in the 2020 election? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. Oh, Senator, I traveled to Pennsylvania, and let
me tell you what I saw firsthand.
Senator Padilla. Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. I didn't talk about California because I was not
in California. I talked about----
Senator Padilla. Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I talked about----
Senator Padilla. Last time I'm going to ask.
Ms. Bondi. I talked about Pennsylvania because I was there.
Senator Padilla. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move on because
she's clearly----
Ms. Bondi. We got a court order----
Senator Padilla [continuing]. Not answering my questions.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To observe----
Senator Padilla. And I want to know, colleagues--for
everybody, for everybody--Members of the Committee and
everybody watching, that the attorney you stood beside, Mr.
Giuliani, was making very similar statements, and he has since
been disbarred from multiple jurisdictions for making these
false claims about the 2020 election in court. And like Mr.
Giuliani, as you've noted today, you've taken an oath to uphold
the Constitution just as an attorney, and now you're asking us
to consider you to serve as the chief law enforcement officer
in our country. So it's imperative, Ms. Bondi, that you
subscribe to facts and evidence and not politically convenient
conspiracy theories. Your job will be----
Ms. Bondi. Yes----
Senator Padilla. I'm speaking. Your job will be to protect
voters and election workers, not to undermine and dox them. Now
I know that earlier you agreed that Joe Biden is, in fact,
President but many of the President-elect's inner circle
continue to spread the Big Lie about the 2020 election. Let me
move on to a different topic.
Ms. Bondi. Senator, you were speaking----
Senator Padilla. I know that's one that you're not
obviously not comfortable with.
Ms. Bondi. May I speak? You cut me off when I was speaking.
Senator Padilla. When I ask you the next question, you can
speak, and I hope you answer it, Ms. Bondi.
Ms. Bondi. Well, I'd like----
Senator Padilla. Now, when we met yesterday----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To answer the previous one,
Senator.
Senator Padilla [continuing]. When we met yesterday----
Ms. Bondi. You pointed your finger at me and said you were
speaking.
Senator Padilla [continuing]. You did not seem to be
familiar with the----
Ms. Bondi. Let me answer my question. I'm not going to be
bullied by you, Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla [continuing]. Citizenship Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States of America, which was
deeply disappointing, and----
Ms. Bondi. I guess you didn't want to hear----
Senator Padilla [continuing]. Apparently you weren't
familiar with it today after----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. My answer about Pennsylvania.
Senator Padilla [continuing]. I gave an opportunity to
study overnight. So can you tell me and this Committee what the
Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I'm here to answer your questions. I'm
not here to do your homework and study for you. If I am
confirmed as Attorney General----
Senator Padilla. Oh no, you're the one asking for a
confirmation----
Ms. Bondi. Hey, you cut me off. Can I please finish?
Senator Padilla. What does the Fourteenth Amendment say?
Ms. Bondi. Senator? Senator, the Fourteenth Amendment, we
all know, addresses birthright citizenship. I have been a State
prosecutor. I have been a State AG. I look forward to, even
given your remarks today, working with you and the people of
California, if I am confirmed as the 87th Attorney General of
the United States of America. I didn't take your homework
assignment. I'm sorry.
Senator Padilla. Okay.
Ms. Bondi. I was preparing for today.
Senator Padilla. So on the Fourteenth Amendment--now you've
testified repeatedly to this Committee that you will uphold the
laws of this country and defend the Constitution of the United
States. Do you believe birthright citizenship is the law of the
land, and will you defend it regardless of a child born in the
United States--regardless of their parents' immigration status?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will study birthright citizenship. I
would love to meet with you regarding birthright citizenship.
Senator Padilla. Ma'am, you're asking us consider you----
Ms. Bondi. Can I answer the question?
Senator Padilla [continuing]. As the Attorney General of
the United States, and you still need to study the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution? That is not helping me have more
confidence in your ability to do this job. One other
immigration-related question, and I'll steer clear of the
Constitution and the law.
Ms. Bondi. I have one regarding that I'd like to talk
about.
Senator Padilla. Senator Hirono asked you earlier, but I
don't think you answered her question. Can you please tell us,
do you agree with the statement that immigrants are, quote,
``poisoning the blood of our country? '' Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. I did not say that.
Senator Padilla. I did not say that you said that. I'm
asking if you agree with it. Yes nor no?
Ms. Bondi. I did not say that.
Senator Padilla. Do you agree with it? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, my great grandparents are immigrants.
Senator Padilla. Do you agree with it? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. They came here from Sicily through Ellis
Island----
Senator Padilla. Do you agree with it? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. When they were teenagers.
Senator Padilla. Do you agree with it? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, let me answer the question.
Senator Padilla. Yes or no? It's real simple.
Ms. Bondi. My great grandparents came here, immigrated to
this country from Sicily--recently went and found each of their
birth certificates. We are a Nation made up of immigrants. Do I
believe immigrants are poisoning our country? No, Senator
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I can't
wait for the second round.
Ms. Bondi. Same, Senator. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Do you need any more time?
Ms. Bondi. No sir. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. There have been suggestions about--
unfair statements about the 2020 election. I thought I'd remind
people that Senator Schumer and former Senator Casey raised
questions about the Pennsylvania Senate race just a few months
ago. In 2018, numerous Senate Democrats, some of them on this
Committee, claimed that the Georgia Governor's election was
stolen. In 2016, Hillary Clinton and a host of Democrats
claimed the election was stolen or illegitimate and blamed
Russia for the loss. And every one of my Democrat colleagues
voted last month to confirm Judge Anthony Brindisi. He engaged
in lengthy litigation regarding his loss of the 2020
congressional election and did not concede until 3 months after
the election. I think we all agree that our elections can be
more secure and better run, but I find these lines of attack
against the nominee very partisan. Senator Britt.
Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so
much for being here today and really glad to see your family. I
had the opportunity to help them find where to come back in.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Britt. They are all so excited and rightfully so,
and so proud of who you are and the work that you've done. And
speaking of, I think it is absolutely, completely ridiculous
that anyone on the other side of the aisle would ever say that
you were anything but immensely qualified for this job.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Britt. From your time as a career prosecutor to
then a two-time Attorney General of the third largest State,
with regards to all of the people that operated underneath you,
with what you were able to achieve, it is truly remarkable. The
United States of America could only be so fortunate if you were
confirmed and to have someone of your caliber, of your
intellect, and of your experience running a department that,
unfortunately, has been run into the ground. So I think that
that is full-on gaslighting, which, by the way, I had to get my
children to explain to me what that was.
Not only that, but to act like you would be the one that
would weaponize the Department of Justice. What I have heard
you say, time and time and time again, is that you will follow
the law. And this is coming from a side of the aisle that has
allowed the Biden administration--by saying nothing, they've
allowed them to go after parents who are at school board
meetings, who want nothing more than their children to be
taught and not indoctrinated. They have allowed them to go
after people who are trying to practice their faith, and they
have set idly by while the weaponization of the Department of
Justice has undermined the credibility and credence that
Americans believe that they should have and equal justice under
the law.
So I know that you will, as you have said here, you will
follow the law and you will return this Department to where it
should be in the eyes of Americans, so thank you. And I wish
the gaslighting on the other side of the aisle would stop
because, from my perspective, I'm over it. And I believe that's
exactly what the American people have said, too.
And speaking of my distinguished colleague who I have a
great deal of respect from on the other side of the aisle, just
said--tried to make you answer a question about immigrants and,
quote, ``poisoning the blood of America,'' when actually the
previous question by our colleague from Hawaii was illegal
immigration. We are a Nation of immigrants, but we are also a
Nation of laws. And the lawlessness under the Biden-Harris
administration has made every single State in this Nation a
border State.
I am so thrilled about what you've done when it comes to
opioid use and human trafficking. I look forward to you
instituting that at the Department of Justice. Your credentials
speak for themselves. When opioid and fentanyl overdoses are
the leading cause of death between the ages of 18 and 45 in
this Nation, we need someone who takes it serious. You not only
take that serious, you have a track record of proving to the
American people--you've done it for the people of Florida, and
I look forward to what that means to the families that I have
met. You talked about the families you've met across Florida
that showed you pictures of their loved ones that they lost--
their brother, their sister, their cousin, their friend, their
mother. And I know that there will be more lives that are saved
as a result of your service when you are confirmed. So on that
I say thank you.
And when it comes to illegal immigration, which we need to
put a stop to, I want to ask you a question that you and I had
an opportunity to discuss a little bit. You share my desire, I
know, to not only get away from the weaponization and wokeness
that we are seeing in the Department right now, but really
prioritizing safety and security. And I want to say thank you
for that commitment and your commitment to blind justice. When
we are looking at illegal immigration, the Executive Office of
Immigration Review within DOJ--there have been a number of
things that we have talked about with that.
And I know, as you are aware--some people call it EOIR,
some people call it EOR--but it houses our Nation's immigration
courts. Over the course of the Biden administration, the
immigration court backlog has grown from 1.4 million at the end
of 2021 to 3.5 million at the end of 2024. Over that same
period, the Biden administration pursued policies both at DOJ
and DHS to foster a culture within EOR of failure to adjudicate
cases. As an example, between FY25 and FY24, immigration judges
failed to adjudicate over 340,000 asylum claims. That is
compared to just under 13,000 non-adjudicated asylum claims in
the previous 6 fiscal years combined. Between cases dismissed,
terminations, administrative closures, and failures to
adjudicate, EOR during the Biden administration has allowed
around one million illegal aliens to remain in the United
States on an indefinite basis.
Now, I've heard Laken Riley brought up multiple times
today. Having talked to her parents, no parent should have to
go through the heartbreak and tragedy that they have. And we
are working diligently to rectify that and ensure that we are
keeping Americans safe and secure. But a House Judiciary
Committee report on this issue appropriately called it, quote,
``quiet amnesty,'' what we're talking here with EOR. Will you
commit to me that, if confirmed, you will make it a priority to
reform the way that EOR operates and put in place measures to
ensure that immigration judges actually adjudicate these claims
and cases?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. Thank you for meeting with me in
advance. And I learned so much from you about this topic, and I
look forward to learning more and working with you to do
everything we can to make sure that functions properly----
Senator Britt. Thank you.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. If I am confirmed, Senator.
Senator Britt. Thank you. Well, you are going to be
confirmed because America needs you. As a part of this effort,
I hope that you will consider a number of things, including
reinstating the performance metrics for immigration judges,
similar to that that were in place during the first Trump
administration, and a reevaluation of the Biden
administration's decisions and policies that have encouraged
the use of administrative closures. And I assume I have your
commitment to examine those issues thoroughly.
Ms. Bondi. We'll closely examine those, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Britt. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
time. Ms. Bondi, thank you for being here today.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator
Senator Booker. And thank you for being willing to meet
with me in my office. I really value that time that we had
together. If there's anything that's been demonstrated in this
hearing thus far is there is a serious crisis of faith in our
judicial system in America. And we are at a time where, as
Judge Learned Hand reminded us in his writings and speeches, is
that the power of the Constitution is only strong as long as it
is believed in and have faith by the American people. And that
faith is shaken by so much of the political tumult, and as we
have a new administration coming in and a lot of the
protestations about retribution or going after political
opponents, I know you could expend your empathy enough to
understand why there are many that really worry about your
independence. But I've heard you over and over again in this
hearing, as much as I've tried to focus on it as I've gone back
and forth between the Senate Foreign Relations and another
Floridian, Marco Rubio. But I am hearing from you that you
understand that the Attorney General's guiding star is the U.S.
Constitution and her client is the American people, that there
can be no argument about that.
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Booker. Yes. And more than that, though, I hope
that you, should you be confirmed, understand that there is an
urgency in not just demonstrating through your actions that
independence, but beginning to heal this country's lack of
faith and shaken faith in that independence in the U.S.
Constitution. History may not long remember what any of us
individually do here, but for the sake of our democracy, what
you do to restore and repair the American faith, whether they
be Democrats, Independents, or Republicans, is vital.
I want to switch here to say publicly that when Donald
Trump appointed Craig Carpenito as the U.S. attorney in New
Jersey, it was over the objections of myself and then-Senator
Menendez. I was wrong in my anticipation that he would not do
good things in our State. He partnered with local leaders like
those in Newark, New Jersey, to dramatically drive down crime.
He was good for the safety of the city in which I live and the
one that I led. Part of his strategy was to focus his resources
on the most violent criminals. But that also meant that he used
something that you know of called prosecutorial discretion. His
strategies aligned with that of local leaders and was able to
create historic drops in our murder rate.
You know through your experience, and you're intimately
familiar, that enforcement decisions prosecutors must make
every day, which charge to bring, which plea deal to offer, or
what sentencing recommendation it makes, it's very important
that local prosecutors understand that given this enormous
discretion our legal system gives them, that they are best
determined to make decisions about public safety. I'm very
concerned that many people are starting to call for a time in
our country where the Department of Justice should prosecute
State and local prosecutors who exercise that prosecutorial
discretion. As Attorney General, will you commit to respecting
the autonomy of State and local prosecutors?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, we have to work together with State and
local prosecutors. That's what I did my entire career, and if
confirmed as Attorney General, I will continue to do that. They
serve a vital function in our justice system.
Senator Booker. And you understand, like in my State, that
sometimes they will decide not to go after certain low-level
offenses in order to use their scarce resources to focus on the
strategy of pursuing more dangerous people.
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. I completely understand that.
Senator Booker. Those decisions shouldn't be politicized if
they're part of a larger public safety strategy.
Ms. Bondi. No, Senator. When I was a State prosecutor, we
used to sit down with the U.S. attorneys and talk about cases
and work together, and that's what I'm discussing about--
bringing back the cooperation between State and local
governments.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Ms. Bondi, and I just want to
continue. One of the most stunning hypocrisies I've found since
I've been down here in Washington is every politician gives lip
service to driving down gun violence. But the very Federal
authority--the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm--that is
primarily focused on enforcing America's gun laws and keeping
people safe is hamstrung by Federal leaders. The ATF's core
responsibility is assisting in local law enforcement. When I
was mayor, I detailed local law enforcement to the ATF. But I'm
stunned at how they have been stripped of resources, of their
budget, and all of their capabilities to go after illegal
gunrunning. When I was mayor of the city of Newark, we couldn't
find one gun crime that was done with a legally purchased gun.
But when I turned to the ATF, the ATF leader at that time told
me in private we don't have the resources, support, or legal
ability to go after these crimes.
I am concerned about our ability to fight gun crime in
America that threatens our law enforcement officers, as well as
people in communities, from red counties to blue cities. Will
you commit to doing everything you can to making sure the ATF
has its resources and the legal power to pursue illegal
gunrunners in our country?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will do everything in my power to
prevent illegal gunrunners in our country. When I left being a
State prosecutor to run for Attorney General, I almost didn't
run because I was working on a wire case involving illegal
gunrunners.
Senator Booker. The DOJ issued, in 2022, a use of force
policy for its Federal law enforcement officers. It was
approved by the heads of the DEA, FBI, U.S. Marshals, and ATF,
and many of them said it is actually a use of force policy that
actually protects law enforcement officers, as well as protects
others from having their rights violated. It was also endorsed
by the Fraternal Order of Police and NAPO, the National
Association of Police Organizations. This policy is considered
best practices in law enforcement. Will you commit to
continuing this policy?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I have not read the policy. I will
review the policy, and I will report back directly to you, if I
am confirmed as Attorney General, and consult with law
enforcement, absolutely.
Senator Booker. And I would appreciate if you looked at the
policy, and I'll submit questions for the record hoping that
you can elucidate maybe more of your thoughts on this.
Ms. Bondi. Certainly.
Senator Booker. And then I will also say, as my last
question, because I see my time has run out, and I look forward
to a second round. The DOJ issued a policy regarding
chokeholds, which limited the use of no-knock warrants and
chokeholds. It's worth noting that Florida has outlawed no-
knock entries altogether since 1994. Would you commit to
continuing the 2021 DOJ policy on these issues?
Ms. Bondi. I'm familiar with the policy. I have not read
it. I am committed to reading it and studying it and reporting
back to you on that policy, once again.
Senator Booker. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
Bondi, welcome. Congratulations on your nomination. I'm so glad
that you've been nominated, as we discussed when we had the
chance to meet.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Hawley. It was a pleasure to work with you as a
State Attorney General for a number of years, and I'm delighted
to see you here today before the Committee. I look forward to
your confirmation. You will be confirmed.
I, too, have taken note of the number of times you have
been asked about weaponization of the Department of Justice as
if it was a theoretical possibility that might happen in the
future. One of my colleagues on the other side said,
``weaponization may well occur under your tenure.'' We all know
that weaponization has occurred like we've never seen before in
American history under this administration, and I want to get
even more specific. In the last 4 years, this administration
has carried out an unprecedented attack and campaign against
people of faith. If you look at the numbers, we've never seen
anything like it before in American history. It has been one of
the most disgraceful chapters in the history of the Justice
Department and in the history of the FBI. And I hope that you
will reverse this and do right by every American citizen,
including, especially, people of faith. Let me give you some
specifics.
After the Dobbs case was decided by the Supreme Court, over
100 pregnancy care centers and over 300 churches in this
country were attacked, vandalized, fire bombed. Do you happen
to know off the top of your head how many prosecutions Merrick
Garland's Justice Department brought in those cases?
It's a----
Ms. Bondi. I do not, Senator.
Senator Hawley [continuing]. It's a stunning number. It's
two. Hundreds of churches, hundreds of pregnancy care centers,
and I might just add, these pregnancy care centers, the attacks
on them, which were violent, which were gruesome, were egged on
and encouraged by rhetoric from Members of Congress, including
Members of this body who have said that pregnancy care centers
aren't real medicine, that they're not real doctors. They have
legitimized these attacks. And the same thing was true of
churches. And this Justice Department couldn't lift a finger to
defend these Americans, but at the same time, they use
legislation, a law known as the FACE Act, to prosecute at least
53 different pro-life demonstrators, including people like Mark
Houck from Pennsylvania, to whom this Justice Department sent a
SWAT team to his door in the early morning hours. He has, I
think, seven children. In the early morning hours, an FBI SWAT
team shows up at his door to take him into custody and
prosecute him. By the way he was acquitted. This kind of
outrageous, disparate treatment has to end.
So here's my question to you. Will you protect churches and
pregnancy care centers when they are targeted for violence,
when they are targeted for intimidation, when their members or
parishioners are threatened with violence or other acts of
illegal behavior?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hawley. Will you stop the disparate treatment of
Americans on the basis of religious faith?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hawley. Will you stop the deliberate persecution of
pro-life Americans for nothing more than their pro-life
beliefs?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hawley. Will you ensure that nothing like the Mark
Houck case happens again, that Americans do not have SWAT teams
arriving on their front doors with armed weapons to terrorize
their children and their spouses, only in the end, of course,
to have the case lost because there was nothing to it? Will you
put an end to that kind of deliberate intimidation of good
American citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hawley. I'm glad to hear you say that because we
need it. We need it, Ms. Bondi. We need a new chapter at the
Justice Department, and we need it quickly, and I'm glad you're
committed to it.
Now, I also have heard you've been asked about your comment
that you thought that in some cases we need to investigate the
investigators, the ones who were bad. You know, I have to say
I'm glad to hear you stand by that. We need to do that. You
need to do that. And I'll give you another example. I'm sure
you've read about this memo, which I now hold in my hands, this
memo that was developed by the FBI field office in Richmond,
Virginia, 23rd of January 2023, targeting Catholic parishes for
spying, for recruitment of infiltrators. I mean, the memo goes
on and on and on about the FBI's plans to put assets into
Catholic parishes, into choirs. This is an unbelievable,
unbelievable assault on Americans' First Amendment rights, and
we only know of it because of a brave whistleblower who came
forward and released it to us.
And I will tell you, I have never been misled and lied to
like I was by the current Attorney General and the now-former
FBI Director when they sat right where you're sitting now and
told this Committee, oh, we don't know anything about it. Oh,
only one field office was involved. It was the single work of a
single field office and a very few individuals. As it turns
out, that's not true. Multiple field offices were involved.
Multiple individuals were involved. Under your leadership, will
you put a stop to the use of FBI or Department of Justice
resources to try and recruit informants and spies into
Christian churches or any church or house of worship in this
country on the basis of nothing more than faith?
Ms. Bondi. Of course, Senator.
Senator Hawley. Let me just say this. To our knowledge, no
one who was involved in the writing and performance--execution
of this memo has been discipline or fired. Will you conduct an
investigation like you talked about, Ms. Bondi, that will get
to the bottom of abuses like this? And to be clear, this is an
outrageous abuse. It is an outrageous abuse, one of the worst
abuses of Department of Justice and FBI authority in our
history. Will you conduct an investigation to find out who
signed off on this, who approved it, who advocated for it
within the Department of Justice? Will you open the books on
these abuses so that the American people can have confidence in
their DOJ?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, and I think what you're talking about
is the ultimate weaponization, what we've been discussing all
day. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, one of the first
things I will--there'll be many--but I will personally read
that memo, and if Mr. Patel is confirmed, discuss it with him
right away.
Senator Hawley. Fantastic. And will you work with this
Committee and our relevant Subcommittees? I'm going to chair a
Subcommittee called the Crime and Terrorism Committee. We're
going to do our own investigation into what happened here at
the FBI and the DOJ. Will you work with us as you discover the
nature of these abuses, and as you put a stop to them, will you
work with us to make sure the American people get all the facts
and this never happens again?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, yes. I look forward to working with you
and the Democrats. I would think this is something that we can
all agree on, on both sides, that this should not be happening
in the United States of America and work together on it.
Senator Hawley. That's fantastic. Let me ask you one other
question here in my just few seconds that are remaining. This
memo--this memo targeting Catholic parishes repeatedly refers
to, as an expert source, a group called the Southern Poverty
Law Center. Now, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a long
history as an anti-religious group that has repeatedly gone
after conservative and religious organizations, called them
hate groups, called them sometimes terrorist groups. They're
cited in this memo. They once, infamously, the SPLC called the
Family Research Council a terrorist hate group, and an armed
gunman came into their lobby and opened fire. Will you put a
stop to the use of the SPLC as an official source for any
Department of Justice memorandum or finding?
Ms. Bondi. That will be one of the first things we will
look at, as well, Senator, and report back to you and the
Committee.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Schiff.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi, as you
know, the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States held the
President has absolute immunity to commit crimes in certain
core areas of the President's responsibility. One of those core
areas is the Justice Department. So in a breathtakingly
dangerous and irresponsible decision, Justice Roberts and the
majority held the President could commit crimes using the
Department of Justice and be immune from prosecution. Justice
Sotomayor correctly said, ``This new immunity lies about like a
loaded weapon.'' So the fear and the concern we have is that
the incoming President will use that loaded weapon, that
immunity to commit crimes through the Department of Justice.
And for that reason, it is all the more important that we have
an Attorney General who has the independence, the strength, the
intestinal fortitude to say no to the President when it is
necessary.
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 nonhypothetical. The President has
said Jack Smith should go to jail. Will you investigate Jack
Smith?
Ms. 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--you're a long-practicing attorney--without
looking at a file.
Senator Schiff. So you would need a factual----
Ms. Bondi. Period.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. You would need predicate to
open an investigation of Jack Smith. Is that right?
Ms. Bondi. Not a summary by you sitting here, yes, sir.
Senator Schiff. And not a summary by the President either.
Right?
Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
Senator Schiff. So a summary by the President or his desire
to investigate Jack Smith would not be enough for you to open
an investigation of Jack Smith. Is that right?
Ms. Bondi. I will look at the facts and evidence in any
case. You know--you know----
Senator Schiff. And--and--and sitting here is----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Seventy-two percent----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Sitting here----
Ms. Bondi. Excuse me.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Sitting here today----
Ms. Bondi. Senator, 72 percent----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Sitting here----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Of Americans----
Senator Schiff. Please, I only have 7 minutes----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Have lost faith----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Sitting here----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. In the Department of Justice.
Senator Schiff. Sitting here today----
Ms. Bondi. It's because of statements like this----
Senator Schiff. Sitting here today, are you aware of any
factual predicate to investigate Jack Smith--sitting here
today? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will look at the facts and the
circumstances of----
Senator Schiff. You can't answer that question?
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Anything brought to me.
Senator Schiff. You're not a part of the Department yet.
There's no worry about divulging----
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I'm sitting here----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Law enforcement----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As a nominee.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Sensitive information. So just
tell us----
Ms. Bondi. I'm sitting here----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Are you aware----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As a nominee.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Just tell us, are you aware of
a factual predicate to investigate Jack Smith? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, what I'm hearing on the news----
Senator Schiff. Are you aware----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Is horrible.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Of a----
Ms. Bondi. Do I know----
Senator Schiff. You seem----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. If he committed a crime?
Senator Schiff [continuing]. You seem reluctant----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I have not looked at----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. You seem reluctant to answer a
simple question. Let me ask you a different simple question.
The President also wants to jail Liz Cheney. Sitting here
today, are you aware of any factual basis to investigate Liz
Cheney? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, that's a hypothetical, and I'm not
going to----
Senator Schiff. No--no----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Answer that.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. It's not hypothetical. I'm
asking you sitting here today whether you are aware of a
factual predicate to investigate Liz Cheney----
Ms. Bondi. Senator, no one----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Based on what you know.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Has asked me to investigate Liz
Cheney. That is a----
Senator Schiff. The President----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Hypothetical.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Has called for it publicly.
You are aware of that. Aren't you?
Ms. Bondi. No one has asked me to investigate----
Senator Schiff. But the----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Liz----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. President has called----
Ms. Bondi. You're all so worried about----
Senator Schiff. The President----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Liz Cheney, Senator.
Senator Schiff. The President has called----
Ms. Bondi. You know what we----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. For this----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Should be worried about?
Senator Schiff. Ms. Bondi, please----
Ms. Bondi. The crime rate----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Answer my questions.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. In California right now----
Senator Schiff. You are aware----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Is----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. You are aware----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Through the roof.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Ms. Bondi, my----
Ms. Bondi. Your robberies are----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Ms. Bondi----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Eighty-seven percent----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. My question----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Higher than the national average.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. My question is this----
Ms. Bondi. That's what I want----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. My question is this----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To be focused on, Senator----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Do you have----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. If I'm confirmed----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. The power to say no----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As Attorney General.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. To the President, and what
you're suggesting today by your nonanswer is you don't have the
independence to say no to the President. So let me ask you a
different question--it 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 hard 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?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, what I can tell you is I will never
play politics. You're trying to engage me in a gotcha. I won't
do it. I----
Senator Schiff. No, I'm just asking you a simple question--
--
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I--I--I won't play politics----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. If you can speak truth----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. With any ongoing----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. To power.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Investigation----
Senator Schiff. So let me ask you another----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Like you did----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Let me----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Leaking your colleague----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Let me ask you----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Devin Nunes'----
Senator Schiff. If----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Memo.
Senator Schiff. If----if you can't answer the question, let
me ask you a different--what should be a simple truth, not a
hard one. Was there massive fraud affecting the result of the
2020 election? Yes or no?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I'm glad you asked that question. If
you'll let me answer what I saw in Pennsylvania----
Senator Schiff. No, I asked a simple question about massive
fraud----
Ms. Bondi. I--I can only tell you----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Massive----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. What I saw in----
Senator Schiff. No--no----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Pennsylvania.
Senator Schiff. I know you want to answer a different
question. But my question is, can you tell us whether there was
massive fraud affecting the results of the 2020 election? Yes
or no--was there----
Ms. Bondi. I can tell you----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Or was there not?
Ms. Bondi. What I saw when I went----
Senator Schiff. That's not----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As an advocate----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. That's not my question.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To the campaign.
Senator Schiff. So--so you can't answer that question. You
can't speak that even easy truth to us, let alone to the
President. So let me ask you a different question. It will also
be important that you give good advice to the President. Are
you prepared to advise the President not to pardon people who
beat police officers?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, as I said, the pardons are at the
direction of the President. We will look and we will advise. I
will look at every case on a case----
Senator Schiff. Okay. So you look at----
Ms. Bondi. Let me finish--on a case-by-case----
Senator Schiff. Okay.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Basis.
Senator Schiff. Okay, good. Let me----
Ms. Bondi. And I----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Let me----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Abhor----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Let me----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Violence to police officers.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Follow up with that. So will
it be your advice to the President, Mr. President, I know you
said you want to issue hundreds of pardons on day one. Will it
be your advice to the President, no, Mr. President, I need to
go over them on a case-by-case basis. Do not issue blanket
pardons. Will that be your advice to the President?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I have not looked at any of those
files. If confirmed, I will look at the files----
Senator Schiff. And will you----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. For the pardons----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Be able to do----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As well as the----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Will you be----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Ongoing investigation.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Able to review hundreds of
cases on day one?
Ms. Bondi. I will look at every file I am----
Senator Schiff. Of course----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Asked to look at.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. You won't. So will you advise
the----
Ms. Bondi. Can I please----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. President----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Can I answer----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Will you----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. The question?
Senator Schiff. Well, my question is----
Ms. Bondi. I would have plenty of staff. You said, of
course you won't?
Senator Schiff. You--you'll be able to review----
Ms. Bondi. Listen, I'm not----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Hundreds of cases----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Going to mislead----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. On the first day?
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. This body, nor you.
Senator Schiff. All right. Let me ask you another question.
You don't want to answer that. Let me ask----
Ms. Bondi. You were censured----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. You another question.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. By Congress----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. You will also----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Senator, for comments----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. It will also----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Just like this----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. It will also----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. That are so reckless.
Senator Schiff. It will also--it will 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 6 investigation will be destroyed under your
watch?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will follow the law. I will consult
with ethical officials in the Department.
Senator Schiff. Do you see any ethical basis to destroy
evidence in the January 6 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 6
investigation. Why can't you give this Committee and the
American people that assurance?
Ms. Bondi. Are you frightened because evidence was
destroyed against President Trump that was false? Is that why--
--
Senator Schiff. Why do you----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. You're frightened now?
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Why do you have difficulty----
Ms. Bondi. I can't believe this is even an issue.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Why do you have difficulty
answering that question?
Ms. Bondi. I can't believe----
Senator Schiff. Why do you have----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. You're asking----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Difficulty----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Such a question.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. Why do you have difficulty
promising to preserve evidence at the Department of Justice?
Why is that a difficult question?
Ms. Bondi. I will follow the law.
Senator Schiff. It shouldn't be a difficult question.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Blackburn.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi, I
know that you are pleased that we are moving to the end of
round one----
Ms. Bondi. Round one.
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. And we appreciate your
being here. And I appreciate that you told my California
colleagues you were willing to work with them even in light of
the manner in which they have approached you.
Now, one thing I think we need to have everybody understand
that is watching this hearing today and everyone sitting in
here, what we have witnessed over the last 4 years with a
weaponized DOJ--my colleagues have talked about this, and the
American people know this. They know what was carried out
against President Trump in his administration, and in November,
they voted to see an end to two tiers of justice, two tiers of
treatment, two tiers of access because they have absolutely had
it with the lies, with the accusations, and with the attacks
that have come against so many people who were just seeking to
live their lives, and then all of a sudden found the FBI, or
another Federal agency, or the DOJ knocking at their door. You
know, Ms. Bondi, it would make you believe that my colleagues
have learned nothing--nothing--from the elections in November.
They don't see this as a movie script that someone may have
liked to write. What they see is this is real life, and they
want a restoration to equal justice, equal access, equal
treatment, abiding by the rule of law.
Many of us have talked today about making America safe
again, and in Tennessee, I hear a good bit about this. And as
we've discussed your nomination, one of the things I've
mentioned to people is your career as a prosecutor, and you
have touched on that some today, and you are bringing that
insight of being a prosecutor to bear. And I do appreciate
that. Now, one thing that I think is noteworthy, and I, in
preparation for the hearing, I looked some of these numbers up.
During President Trump's first term, violent crime in this
country actually fell.
Ms. Bondi. Yes.
Senator Blackburn. It fell by 17 percent, and in the first
2 years of the Biden administration, it soared by 43 percent.
This is crime that is taking place in all of our communities.
We've seen a rise. Whether it's California or Tennessee, we
have seen a rise. So I want you to talk to Tennesseans, to
Californians, to all Americans about what you're going to do to
get this crime rate down in this country.
Ms. Bondi. Senator, thank you for that question, and
despite the questions from Senator Schiff, I look forward to
working with you and the State of California to do everything
we can to fight violent crime in California. And you know, as
well as I, that crime is only going to go through the roof now
after these forest fires. You're going to have looting. You're
going to have price gouging. You're going to have so many
things that I have dealt with in the State of Florida, and I am
committed to working with California just as much as I'm
committed to working with you, Senator Kennedy, and the tragedy
that just took place in Louisiana--given all the human beings
that were murdered in your State. And we have the Super Bowl
coming up in less than 3 weeks now, I believe. Senator, I've
been a little busy, but we've got to ensure, if I'm confirmed,
that everyone in this country is safe. And I will work with
you, I will work with you, Senator, I will work with all of you
in this country for everything that Senator Blackburn said.
We have got to reduce violent crime, and we have got to
restore integrity to our law enforcement officers. Donald
Trump--we keep saying he won this election by 77.3 million
votes and 312 electoral votes. Look at the map of California,
Senator Schiff. It's bright red, the popular vote, for a
reason. People want law and order. They want to be safe so they
can go to--so they can take their children to school, so they
can go to church, Senator Hawley. People want safe streets. Of
course we care about our economy and what's happening in this
world, but if we're not safe, none of that works.
We have got to come together. We have got to work together
to make America safe again, and that, in turn, will make
America great again. And I don't know where that phrase has
become a bad word because I think that's a great one--making
America great again.
Senator Blackburn. Let me move on with you to something
else that's about law and order, and that is Section 1507
because making certain that our Justices are protected is
important. And we also, with our judges, Section 1507 makes
illegal any protest outside of a judge's residence if the
intent is to influence the judge's decision-making. And we have
heard about the protests outside of Justices' homes where they
were shouting loud and clear things like--and I'm quoting some
of that--``If you take away our choices, we will riot,'' end
quote. Another one, ``No privacy for us, no peace for you,''
end quote. In other words, if the Justices did not vote to
uphold Roe and Casey, the protestors would continue to harass
them. Despite this clear violation of the law, Merrick Garland
did not bring a single charge--not one single charge under
Section 1507. Will you commit to faithfully enforcing Section
1507 as Attorney General?
Ms. Bondi. I will faithfully enforce that law and all laws
that I am asked to review. And, Senator, I watched that on TV,
and it horrified me, the protestors outside their houses. You
can't do that for a reason, because our Justices have to remain
safe and unbiased and protected from threats--as do we all, but
they do enjoy a special protection, and, yes, that should be
enforced.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. We'll now have our second round that I
announced earlier. We'll each have 4 minutes.
When we were talking in my office, I brought up the
importance of your listening to whistleblowers and about 30 or
35 investigations I've got underway of the executive branch,
and not just because of a Democrat President--some of them are
probably carryovers from Republican Presidents. It's very
important that the executive branch understand the cooperation
that you must have with us to carry out our responsibilities to
see that the President faithfully executes the laws. And I
think that too often, whistleblowers, being patriotic people
they are, want Government to do what Government's just supposed
to do, and find something wrong. They want to report it, and
they want to report it within the agency. They don't come to
Congress unless they don't get any help in the executive
branch.
It seems to me that it's very important that you respect
whistleblowers. But I've seen them treated like a skunk at a
picnic by the agency they're in. I've seen them ruin themselves
professionally. One time, an FBI agent came to me, was escorted
out of headquarters with his gun and badge taken away from him
just because the laboratory there was not using science to make
sure that crime was actually committed. So now we have a new
$40 million science lab so that people are protected and get
their constitutional rights.
So will you protect whistleblowers from retaliation and
promote a culture--and I think that last thing, promote a
culture, is more important--that values the important
contribution of whistleblowers?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, and, Senator, I think, so people fully
understand the importance of whistleblowers, they have to be
able to tell the truth and come forward without fear of
retaliation----
Chairman Grassley. Yes.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And that's the purpose of the
whistleblower statute.
Chairman Grassley. And when there's retaliation, the
taxpayers' money's paying for that retaliation in most cases.
The Biden Justice Department issued guidance telling
prosecutors to stop charging mandatory minimums and ignore laws
setting penalties on drug type. It also allowed folks to pay
civil and criminal fines to politicize nongovernment
organizations instead of the Government Treasury. I put
together a list of their guidance. I find it very concerning
and unfair to the taxpaying public, and I'd like to have you
review those policies very soon after you're confirmed.
Ms. Bondi. Absolutely, Senator.
Chairman Grassley. In regard to antitrust, enforcing
antitrust laws is extremely important to ensure that markets
are fair and that consumers are protected. I've been active in
making sure that the Justice Department and the FTC carefully
scrutinize mergers and that they look out for anticompetitive
behavior and predatory practices. I keep a close eye on these
issues as they impact my State of Iowa, and particularly
agriculture, healthcare, and technology industries. And I'm
interested in your commitment to make antitrust enforcement a
priority.
Ms. Bondi. Antitrust enforcement was a priority when I was
a State AG, and it will be a priority, if I am confirmed as
Attorney General, and, again, I am so proud to have Gail Slater
handling that. She is----
Chairman Grassley. Do you agree that----
Ms. Bondi. She is loved by both sides of the aisle.
Chairman Grassley. Okay. Well, my time's up. Go ahead,
Senator.
Senator Durbin. Go ahead.
Chairman Grassley. Okay. The Civil Rights Division in your
Department, if you're head of it, is supposed to enforce laws
against race and sex discrimination. But under the Biden
administration, the Justice Department has arguably promoted
discrimination and turned a blind eye to racist hiring
practices. Do you agree that race and sex discrimination by
employers is illegal, even if the discrimination is called
diversity or equity?
Ms. Bondi. No one should be discriminated against.
Chairman Grassley. Go ahead. I'm done.
Senator Durbin. You owe me 44 seconds.
[Laughter.]
Senator Durbin. Ms. Bondi, I'd like to say something, and I
hope you agree with it. Violence is never acceptable when it
comes to political expression. Period.
Ms. Bondi. I think I said that initially. Yes, I do agree.
Senator Durbin. I----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Of course I agree.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. I abhor that sort of thing
happening when it comes to conservative Supreme Court Justices,
and I abhor it when it comes to Nancy Pelosi's husband being
attacked in his home----
Ms. Bondi. That was horrible.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. Which we should all say
unequivocally, both are unacceptable. I think you would agree.
Correct?
Ms. Bondi. Horrible.
Senator Durbin. All right. I guess, as I reflect on what
you've said today, a couple things surprised me. I did not
expect you to be as outspoken as you are about Kash Patel. He's
been characterized as a professional career defense attorney
and a career prosecutor. That's a pretty amazing achievement in
his life. But he also has said and done some things which are
impossible to understand and justify. For example, are you
familiar with something called the QAnon conspiracy?
Ms. Bondi. I have--I have heard of it. But I act--I do not
know what it is. But I have heard of it many times, Senator.
Senator Durbin. So let me tell you what I've learned about
it. The core belief is that a cabal of satanic, cannibalistic
child molesters are embedded within our Government and are
conspiring against President-elect Trump. They asked Mr. Patel
about it and he said, quote, ``I agree with a lot that the
movement says,'' end of quote. Does that sound like a good
preparation to run the FBI?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I don't know anything about--I,
actually, I had heard of QAnon, but I've never heard that
definition attached to it--at all. You're going to have to ask
Mr. Patel about those statements.
Senator Durbin. We will, and I'll tell you, until we get
answers to those questions, I don't know many people on this
side of the table who would give him an unequivocal
endorsement. This, and his enemies list--what he calls his
``government gangsters''--this is what you expect of Stasi.
This is what you expect of secret police. It is not what you
expect of justice in America as you've even described it at the
table today. So I would say this unequivocal support of Mr.
Patel should at least have some reservation until he explains
some of these outrageous positions he has taken.
Ms. Bondi. I look forward to hearing his testimony about
QAnon in front of this Committee.
Senator Durbin. You will.
[Laughter.]
Senator Durbin. Let me say another word about January 6 and
what happened. We lived through it, many of us. We'll never
forget it. To think that the United States of America's Capitol
Building was desecrated by an insurrectionist mob that came in
and did horrible things, particularly to our police force that
keeps you safe as you sit there and keeps us safe every single
day. Over a hundred of them were attacked by these
demonstrators. One, Kenneth Bonawitz, a member of the so-called
Proud Boys, another alt-right group, assaulted at least six
officers, placed one in a chokehold, and lifted him up in the
neck. Bonawitz injured one officer so severely, he had to
retire. Kyle Fitzsimons, convicted for five separate assaults
against law enforcement, including one that caused a career-
ending and life-altering injury to the U.S. Capitol Police
Sergeant Aquilino Gonell. Can you understand why when Donald
Trump says, the day I am inaugurated as President, I will issue
a blanket pardon to these, quote, ``political prisoners,'' we
view this with an outrage on our side? These men and women risk
their lives for us every day, and they almost died. Some of
them did die in the course of this attack. Why aren't we
treating them as such, and why do you have to reserve judgment?
Vice President Vance didn't. When he was asked this week, he
said the pardons should not be extended to those who were
guilty of violence against policemen.
Ms. Bondi. Yes--and, Senator, I do not agree with violence
against anyone, but especially police officers. And every time
I've been walking through these halls meeting with all of you,
I--the men and women of the Capitol Police Department are
incredible. They do a great job. They deserve to be safe, and I
do not agree with violence against any police officer.
Senator Durbin. I would hope----
Ms. Bondi. I never have, Senator.
Senator Durbin. You weren't able to answer my question
affirmatively earlier, but I would hope that if this moves
forward in a positive way on your nomination, you will speak up
at some point on behalf of these police officers who are
keeping you safe today and your family safe. I yield.
Chairman Grassley. Before Senator Graham, I want to enter
into the record, without objection from the Members of this
Committee, letters from law enforcement groups who support Ms.
Bondi's nomination. These groups include the Fraternal Order of
Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the National
Association of Police Organizations. They praise her, quote,
``support for law enforcement, crime prevention, and public
safety,'' end of quote.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears as submissions for the record.]
Chairman Grassley. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you. Well, I've been gone for a
while, so they're asking you about Kash Patel. It must be going
pretty well.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bondi. You didn't miss anything, Senator.
Senator Graham. That's just an observation. So, anyway,
thanks to my colleagues on the Democratic side. It's been a
good hearing--and, a couple things. Pardons. If somebody
applies for a pardon, you'll give the President legal advice as
to whether or not he should grant it. Is that the way the
system works?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham. Okay. So rather than prejudging what you
would do, you would look at the application and give him your
best advice, and you don't like people who beat up cops.
Ms. Bondi. Correct. I hope no one does.
Senator Graham. Yes. Okay, fair enough. So let's just get
back to the process.
Ms. Bondi. I'm not going to speak for the President----
Senator Graham. Yes.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. But the President does not like
people that abuse police officers, either.
Senator Graham. Yes, well, the hope is that through this
pardon process, you'll make a rational decision based on the
applicant rather than deciding the outcome in a Senate hearing.
That's all I'm asking. That's what I would want. If I, you
know, I represented somebody, I'd want, at least, to be heard.
Now, Section 230, are you familiar with it?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham. One thing that unites this Committee is
protecting children and society at large from social media
abuse.
Ms. Bondi. Mm-hmm.
Senator Graham. We passed online privacy legislation.
Senator Durbin's been great to work with. Everybody--
Klobuchar--we're all trying to find out how to empower people
who may be victims of social media. What do you--to empower a
parent whose child's been bullied, when you call the social
media platform and they blow you off, you go to court and they
kick you out of court because of Section 230. Sexual
exploitation of children on the internet, we've heard stories
that make us--just break our hearts. We're united in trying to
give people a say. If they take your content down, you're
appealing to the people who made the decision to take your
content down. So what I want to do, along with Senator Hawley,
everybody, is repeal Section 230 or replace it with a system
that empowers consumers who may have been hurt. Do you agree
with that?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I would love to look at that with you.
I'm not familiar with what you want to do on the issue. I've
talked to Senator Klobuchar. I think Senator Durbin and I may
have even discussed it. But I'm committed to looking at that
with you. There are so many issues online that--that's one of
the things--we have to find things that can bring us together
now, and this has to be one of them----
Senator Graham. Well, just----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Protecting our children.
Senator Graham. Here's what FBI Director said, Wray,
whether you agree with him or not, I agree with this: ``I see
blinking lights everywhere I turn regarding the national
security threats.'' Does that make sense to you?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. I was looking at that, the date of
that. That was a year ago. Yes, Senator. I also heard about--I
haven't seen it yet--his ``60 Minutes'' interview that was very
troubling to me----
Senator Graham. Yes. so----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. For our country.
Senator Graham. Right.
[Poster is displayed.]
Senator Graham. We know we found eight guys from Tajikistan
that were released--caught again because they were tied to
ISIS. So the point I'm trying to make is January 20th--we own
this. I just urge you, to the extent you can, to urge the
President to secure that border. We need money. The idea of
moving money around from Defense is not going to cut it. We
need a lot of money for bed space to finish the wall, do
technology, hire ICE agents to accelerate deportation of people
who are criminals and gang members. We don't have time to
waste. I hope you'll make that an urgency because the threat is
real. Are you worried about an attack on our Homeland being
generated from ISIS or their affiliates, and what should we do
about it?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I don't have a security clearance yet,
but only from the public reporting that I've seen, I'm
terrified.
Senator Graham. [Responds with a thumbs-up gesture.]
Chairman Grassley. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. I'm going to try
to fit in two questions in my 4 minutes. Lindsey, stick around
because I'm going to say something nice about you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. First, yes to 230. We've got to really
work on that. There's a lot of support for fixing 230--in fact,
outright repealing 230 in this Committee. First question.
Presumably your commitment to fairly enforcing the law based on
facts and evidence would also apply to environmental cases.
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. I'm concerned because, you know, under
Trump, criminal prosecutions for pollution dropped sharply in
his first term, and you will be running an Environment Natural
Resources Division that has things like, for instance, a
Methane Task Force that big polluters who spent big money to
get President Trump reelected don't like. And they're going to
be coming to you to say, hey, we don't want a whole lot of
enforcement on this. Methane leaks, carbon dioxide leaks, it's
a pollutant polluting our water, polluting our air--will you be
strong when that happens?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I--if you haven't learned yet, I'm
pretty strong, and I'm pretty independent. And I will--I think
you and I spoke about this in your office----
Senator Whitehouse. We did.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. A bit----
Senator Whitehouse. We did.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I don't know a lot about that
issue, but I am committed to meeting with the E&RD Division and
talking to you about it. I wish I knew more about the issue you
faced, but I don't. But I'm committed to absolutely looking at
it and doing what I can to help you----
Senator Whitehouse. Great.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. In your State.
Senator Whitehouse. I don't want environmental prosecutions
to be an ignored stepchild subset. It's law just like any other
law. The second question that I'd like to get to goes back to
Chairman Grassley's opening comments that it's going to be
really important for the Department of Justice under your
leadership to answer questions from Senators, both Republican
and Democrat, and to give us real answers. Sometimes the best
oversight comes from the other party, and, indeed, sometimes
the best oversight comes from one Senator who sticks to one
issue and persists at it without necessarily support from the
rest of the Committee. And that oversight has been really
consequential in the past and it's really important. So
Chairman Grassley has been very good about trying to enforce
that rule, and I want to tell you just a quick story about
something that went the wrong way, I believe.
Crossfire Hurricane was mentioned by Senator Graham. There
was a Committee investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. During
that Crossfire Hurricane investigation, boxloads of material
was provided by the Department and the Bureau to Senate
Republicans. They got files. They got investigative reports.
They got internal memos. They got stuff that would not be FOIA-
able. They really were able to do a deep dive because they got
everything they asked for, even stuff that the FBI would
ordinarily not produce. That was happening on that side of the
aisle. For me, I had questions about Justice Kavanaugh's
supplemental background investigation. And I asked for things
like, what is the Department of Justice policy for how tip
lines work? That's a FOIA-able question. I didn't get a single
piece of paper. I asked for things like, what are the ground
rules for investigations of supplemental background
investigations? I didn't get a single piece of paper. Senator
Graham called the Deputy Attorney General up into his office to
say, will you guys please knock it off and give this guy some
information?
So, you know, I have lived the example of if you're a
Republican on this Committee in a Republican administration,
you get everything you ask for and more, and if you're a
Democrat, you get zero. That was not a great moment for me and
not a great moment for the Department. And so I will take the
Chairman at his word that he wants the Department to be
responsive to requests from all of us, and I would ask you,
will you be responsive to all of us, irrespective of our party
affiliation, if we are asking legitimate questions that you
have the power to answer?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I think I've said that from the
beginning. Yes, especially on Freedom of Information Act. I
will follow the laws that apply to the Freedom of Information
Act. I believe in that. I actually dealt with the public
records when I was a State prosecutor. It's been so long ago,
I'd forgotten about that.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
Ms. Bondi. So I handled all the public records.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes. One just sort of point of order
here, the Freedom of Information Act process is one thing.
Anybody can get information----
Ms. Bondi. Right.
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Under the Freedom of
Information act process. As Senators, we should be able to do
better than that. When we're doing worse than that, that's a
sign that somebody's hiding something. When we're doing better
than that, that's a good thing for congressional oversight.
Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Senator Tillis.
Ms. Bondi. Can we take a minute off Senator Schiff since--
I'm joking--since he took an extra minute?
Chairman Grassley. Yes, you can.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bondi. I'm joking.
Chairman Grassley. You wanted to say something to Senator
Schiff?
Ms. Bondi. No, sir. I ask if we could take a minute off
Senator Schiff's since Senator Whitehouse----
Senator Whitehouse. I went over by a minute.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Took an extra minute. I was
teasing.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Tillis.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi, I
wanted to come back, and I'm glad I did because I got another
mark on my Bingo card. QAnon came up.
[Laughter.]
Senator Tillis. It's a little-known fact, but the so-
called--I think I heard someone say that that's an
organization--a cabal that has cannibalistic tendencies. I
don't know if you all know this. It's a well-documented fact
that the so-called QAnon shaman is a vegetarian who actually
had to be transferred to another prison to satisfy his dietary
needs after being sentenced to 41 months in prison. So I don't
know if all the QAnon people are cannibals, that's a little bit
absurd. I just wanted to add a little levity here and let you
all know I'm one mark away from hitting Bingo.
[Laughter.]
Senator Tillis. But, you know, it's important to talk about
this, folks, because this is the part I don't like about the
big Committee. I love Intellectual Property Subcommittee
because we don't get into this theater. But it's just absurd to
think that--and it was mentioned in reference to a comment that
Kash Patel made, who I spoke with earlier today. You know, it's
just absurd to kind of throw that stuff out there. Does anybody
honestly believe someone with a distinguished career like Kash
Patel thinks that a cannibalistic cabal controlling the
internals of Government really exists? Let me give you an
example why I resist that notion.
I resist the notion that most of the Members here, who all
raised tens of millions of dollars through ActBlue, that has a
subpage that--only until Senator Butler finally told them to
take it down after I spent a year ranting about it. On their
ActBlue--a subpage on ActBlue had the ``All Cops are Bastards''
subpage and fundraising drive. I came to this Committee for a
year and tried to encourage my Members to say this is absurd.
So would it be fair for me to say that President Biden is
embracing an organization that thinks all cops are bastards,
and you should have a fundraising run for 13.12 miles, and
protest outside of police departments, and put pressure on
them?
Saying that President Trump or you or anybody else are
somehow--or Kash Patel have an allegiance, it's so absurd. To
think in a big hearing like this, we actually just talked
about--that we--that we actually think someone of the stature
and the experience that would come before this Committee would
actually think a bunch of people-eating cabals controlling the
innards of Government was real. That's just being--I get the
theatrics. I get the marketing department, thought it'd be
really cool if it was said, but, guys, that's not us at our
best. And I just thought it was kind of funny that he's a
vegetarian, too.
But I want to go back to--this is a narrative that people
are going to force, and I'm going to trust you to do what you
do as a prosecutor. Like you said earlier, you're going to
examine the facts of a case. You're going to give the President
your best advice. If you--I cannot believe if there is
compelling evidence that you as a prosecutor know that this
person breached the Capitol and injured a police officer, that
the President would even ask you to consider it, and I
certainly can't imagine you recommending that they move
forward. It's a hypothetical. I don't want you to respond to
it, but your track record as a prosecutor would suggest
otherwise.
Last question. You mentioned that when you were dealing
with some of the opioid challenge--I think it was opiates,
OxyContin, I believe you mentioned--that you went up against
your own party or you got some pushback from your own party.
Would you explain how you have looked at your party and done
the courageous thing of speaking truth to them?
Ms. Bondi. Oh, I remember when that started. Several of my
former colleagues are behind me. They're probably smiling. But
I remember when that started, I said, oh, I'll never get
elected to a second term because, yes, I fought for what I
believed in based on meeting these victims' families and seeing
the need, and I fought--I fought the industry.
Whew, that was----
Senator Tillis. And you were in an elected position.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. That was a big industry and the
doctors----
Senator Tillis [continuing]. You were in an elected
position with a lot of people, with a target on you, and you
stood firm. Thank you.
Ms. Bondi. More than once, Senator. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Attorney
General Bondi, in our previous conversation, we talked about
criminal justice reform and, in particular, your contribution
to the enactment of the First Step Act in the previous Trump
administration. And I just want to talk with you about a couple
of bipartisan initiatives in this area.
Senators Cornyn, Lee, Durbin, Tillis, Booker, and I have
introduced a bipartisan bill called the Safer Supervision Act.
It focuses on the fact that Federal probation officers have a
massive caseload, often more than a hundred folks they are
supposed to be closely supervising. And this bill would work on
focusing supervised release resources on those who really need
it and creating positive incentives for those who are willing
and able to be rehabilitated and leave prison much less likely
to reoffend. What's your experience about the need to support
people when they get out of prison and to provide them with
positive incentives rather than just leaving them to their own
free will and the very high likelihood they may reoffend and
thus violate public safety concerns?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, and, Senator Coons, that's why--reentry we
call it, halfway houses, it's what you need, Senator Welch--are
so important. Because people--people, many people deserve to go
to prison. But many people are going to get out of prison----
Senator Coons. Almost all.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And we don't want a revolving door.
We want to do everything we can to make productive members of
society. And when someone goes to prison, I mean, I saw this
every day. You saw this as a revolving door. People get out.
And--first of all, I'll back up. We need drug programs. I could
go on. We need drug programs--more drug programs in our
prisons. We have to. Mental health, we would be here for
another 2 days. We have to get more mental health in our prison
system, counseling to help people. I think our local jails
actually do a better job of it, at least in Florida. But we've
got to work on that because when people get out, we expect them
to do well. Many people don't even know how to go get a
driver's license, yet we're telling you, go get a job, have a
place to live.
Senator Coons. So, if I could----
Ms. Bondi. So we have to do everything we can to help.
Senator Coons [continuing]. If I could move to the driver's
license question.
Ms. Bondi. Sure.
Senator Coons. I've also led a bipartisan bill with Senator
Wicker, Senator Grassley is also a Co-Sponsor. It's called the
Driving for Opportunity Act, and it recognizes that in many
States, there is a practice of suspending driver's licenses
where someone is too poor to pay their court-related or public-
safety-related fines and fees but where the driver's license
isn't suspended because they're dangerously driving. It's just
because they haven't paid their fines and fees. And then
without a driver's license, they lose their job or they're not
able to get a job. Would you be willing to work with this
bipartisan group of us on these two bills, Driving for
Opportunity and the Safer Supervision Act?
Ms. Bondi. I would love to read both of them, and I was
unaware of that happening with driver's license.
Senator Coons. Last two questions. Clemency. As we
discussed, often near the end of an administration, there's a
rush to consider pardons. Would you be willing to work at a
more institutionalized clemency process where there aren't just
lots of commutations near the end of a term, but where there's
a regular process where the DOJ and the clemency process is
looked at to see whether there are reforms that should be made
and recommendations that could be made to the President
throughout his term?
Ms. Bondi. I would love to look at that process. I can tell
you that the pardons, the commutations that Joe Biden just made
were abhorrent to me--absolutely abhorrent, taking people off
death row. I looked at the facts of many of those cases, and
they were so troubling to me. I would--I don't know what
process you intend to implement, but I would love to study that
with you.
Senator Coons. Well, we talked positively about your
experience and mine with drug courts, veterans courts, mental
health courts. There are some things we will continue to
disagree about and other things I hope we can work on together.
Thank you.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi, as you're
aware, criminal justice reform has been an important part of my
role on this Committee. I worked for the better part of a
decade with Senator Durbin, Chairman Grassley, Senator
Whitehouse, Senator Cornyn, Senator Booker, and a bunch of
others to eventually pass the First Step Act, which President
Trump signed into law in December 2018. The First Step Act, as
the name implies, was intended to be the first of multiple
steps. Much remains to be done, including with the
implementation of the First Step Act. The credits available
under the First Step Act are still being implemented and need
more. I assume you'd be willing, if confirmed, to help us
continue to implement the First Step Act.
Ms. Bondi. Yes. Yes, Senator. And also, I just learned,
it's my understanding--I don't know for a fact--but it's my
understanding that a lot of those beds for halfway houses, for
reentry have not been filled under the First Step Act. So if
that's true, I want to look at that right away and figure out
why.
Senator Lee. Right, and I think other reforms, like the
Safer Supervision Act, of which I'm a Co-Sponsor, can also be
helpful on that front. It's always important to make sure that
we're running--although ours is not the largest criminal law
enforcement institution in the country, meaning the States
themselves have far more criminal cases, far more prisoners
under their jurisdiction, collectively, than the United States
Government does, and nonetheless, it is a significant presence.
And States often look to the Federal Government, sometimes for
good, other times for ill, on leadership as to where they
should take their own criminal justice system. And so it's
important that we get this right, and especially given that
we've been wrong at times in the past.
I also think it's important to address the topic of
overcriminalization. A few years ago, a few of us on this
Committee decided that we wanted to find out how many Federal
crimes are on the books. We reached out to the Congressional
Research Service, the CRS, whose job it is to answer such
questions like this when Members have these questions. The
answer that came back was stunning. The answer that came back
was to the effect that the answer is unknown and unknowable--
but at least 300,000. A lot of the reason for this is that
there are a lot of instances in which Federal regulations
impose criminal penalties, impose criminal penalties, often
without Congress independently enacting anything, just using
some sort of delegated lawmaking authority from Congress, which
ought not be okay. Incorporating elements of a criminal offense
into a criminal regulation, which, you know, we add to the Code
of Federal Regulations, at a clip of around 100,000 pages a
year, give or take, depending on which parts of the Federal
Register that you add to the CFR at the end of each year, seems
highly problematic to me for multiple reasons.
Reason number one, of course, are that Article I, Sec. 1
and 7, make clear that you cannot make a Federal law or change
a Federal law without Congress, without both Houses of Congress
passing the same text, submitting it to the President. Reason
number two, oftentimes when this happens, you end up with an
either absent or hugely ambiguous mens rea--meaning the
standard of intent with which one must have acted in order to
commit the criminal offense in question is often absent or at
least so murky that nobody can tell what it means. Both of
these things, of course, lead to huge problems for defendants
and for the liberty interests of the American people. So I'd
ask that you, if confirmed, help work with us on these things
and share any thoughts you might have on them.
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator, and I wasn't aware of the mens rea
issue. Yes.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you for mentioning antitrust. I am really
proud of the work you and I have done together, as well as
Senator Lee and I. And I know we discussed with you, Ms. Bondi,
the work on allowing State AGs a bill that Senator Lee led, and
I was the Democratic lead, on letting State AGs keep the
antitrust cases involving tech in their States. And Senator
Grassley and I successfully passed our bill to finally update
the merger fees, which have allowed larger mergers have to pay
in more, smaller mergers less, and that has led, along with
other reasons, to beef up the Antitrust Division of Antitrust
during the last few years. And I want to make sure that you are
committed to continuing a strong Antitrust Division with
adequate personnel.
Ms. Bondi. And, if I am confirmed, I intend on bringing in
Gail Slater. She is amazing and I think bipartisan support for
her, and did a lot of antitrust. Well, I had someone who knew
antitrust much better than I when I was State Attorney General,
and it's very important--very important.
Senator Klobuchar. How about the resources for the
Division? It has been, under this administration--the current
outgoing one, they have added lawyers and others to it, and I--
what my question was, is if you'll continue that.
Ms. Bondi. Yes, I was actually looking at the structure of
that unit, and if I am confirmed--I've been a little busy--I
plan on working with Gail Slater----
Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And all the lawyers in that unit.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. And then, just--you and I
discussed some of the important cases--the Google case, Live
Nation-Ticketmaster, the Apple case--I don't know if we talked
about that one--but RealPage, and will you commit to continue
these cases and to pursue remedies that will fully protect
consumers from anticompetitive conduct? I'm not asking what the
result will be. I can imagine you couldn't answer that. But I'm
just asking that, under--if you are confirmed, that you will
continue the work on these cases.
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. I haven't looked at those on a
case-by-case basis, but I am committed to that type of case and
protecting consumers----
Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And I will look at that, and have
that unit look at that right away.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. At its founding in 1870, the
Justice Department's priority was to enforce civil rights.
That's what was founded, the reason guaranteed by the
Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments during
Reconstruction. Today, civil rights enforcement is led by the
Civil Rights Division. Do you believe it is a critical mission
of the Justice Department to vigorously enforce our Nation's
civil rights laws?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. Voting rights. Will you
commit to properly enforcing Federal laws that protect the
right to vote that are critical to ensuring free and fair
elections, like the Voting Rights Act?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. The--we're back to the FBI
nominee--again, I express my deep concern, Kash Patel. He has
vowed to retaliate against the President-elect's enemies,
quote, ``not just in the government, but in the media,'' end
quote. As we know, the President-elect has already sued a
pollster in Iowa, whose predictions turned out to be wrong,
which happens with pollsters all over the place, as we all
know, but a free press is essential to our democracy. Reporters
must be able to do their job without fear of being investigated
or prosecuted. Will you commit that the Justice Department,
under your leadership, if confirmed, will respect the
importance of a free press?
Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
Senator Klobuchar. And if the President or the--depends on
who the FBI Director is, I have some strong views on that--
tries to push to go after the media, how would you respond to
that?
Ms. Bondi. I have not--clearly, he's made some statements,
but I haven't talked to Mr. Patel about those statements. But
going after the media just because they're the media is wrong,
of course.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I admire
your spunk.
Ms. Bondi. Coming from you, Senator, that is a huge
compliment.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kennedy. Well, you know, I learned the hard way up
here--you may know it already--but up here, if you turn the
other cheek, you just get it in the neck. You're friends with
President Trump, are you?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator, and I spoke to him this morning.
Senator Kennedy. You're not enemies?
Ms. Bondi. No, Senator. I don't think I'd be sitting here
if I was an enemy. He'd be crazy to have me sitting here if I
was an enemy.
Senator Kennedy. So you're friends.
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. I find otherworldly this suggestion by
some of my colleagues that that somehow disqualifies you. Have
you ever--have you ever seen a President of the United States
appoint his enemies to his Cabinet?
Ms. Bondi. Exactly, Senator. I think many Presidents,
including President Obama, were friends with his Attorney
General throughout the years.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. I want to also ask you about one of
the suggestions of my colleagues. I wrote it down. He said he
was concerned that, quote, ``You would start with a name to
prosecute and then look for a crime,'' unquote. It made me
immediately think of District Attorney Bragg in New York, who
actually in 2019, ran a campaign, in large part, suggesting
that if you elect me, I'll prosecute Donald Trump.
Ms. Bondi. I believe there were others, as well, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Right. How long were you a prosecutor?
Ms. Bondi. Eighteen years.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Is there anything in your background
to suggest that my colleagues' suggestion that you would start
with a name and then look for a crime? Is there anything in
your background that would give him basis to say that?
Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Have you ever done that?
Ms. Bondi. No, Senator, and I think I have a lot of former
colleagues sitting behind me who would back me up on that, as
well.
Senator Kennedy. Do you plan to do that as Attorney
General?
Ms. Bondi. Of course not, Senator. I hope no Attorney
General, going forward, would ever do that.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I thank you for your time today. One
need not be clairvoyant to see that you're going to be
confirmed, and you talked a lot about bringing us together
today. I'll make this suggestion. Senator Durbin talked about
it. You can bring us together if you would just answer
Grassley's letters.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kennedy. That will be a really good start because
you'll never hear the end of it--nor should you. The man is--
he's like a dog on a bone.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
[Voice heard off microphone.]
Chairman Grassley. Senator Welch.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Bondi.
Three things. One, I do have some concern that whoever is the
Attorney General, you or anyone, is going to be, presumably,
will be under a significant amount of pressure at some point
from the President. Attorney General Barr was. Attorney General
Sessions was. And you've made it very clear your client is the
Constitution. I think that's very reassuring to us, but the
President does have now a Supreme Court-provided immunity. And
I just want to express to you my concern, and it really does
align with what Senator Schiff said. You have what I regard as
a very bad decision by the Supreme Court. The President should
not be above the law. Never has been. And my concern, on the
basis of statements that President-elect Trump has made, is
that he does identify people as political enemies--including
Senator Schiff--and there may come a day where there is
pressure on you. And I'm just going to express my hope that
that, the independence that you've had throughout your career
when it comes to the Constitution or pressure from a higher
official, that you're going to choose the Constitution. So you
don't even have to answer that, but it's a concern I share, I
think, not just with colleagues here, but with many Americans.
My colleagues have made the case about weaponization in
this administration, we can have a debate about that. But
there's been a universal statement here that we want the rule
of law to be the basis of going forward, so thank you for
allowing me to say that.
Second, I'm really interested in your focus on how do we
cut down on recidivism. I was a public defender, that's how I
got started as a prosecutor in Vermont. Prosecutors and
defenders were good friends. We each had a job to do. But my
experience with my clients--and I'm excepting folks who they're
really dangerous, you've got to lock them up, you've got to
throw away the key. But the vast majority of people had a
substance abuse problem, oftentimes had very limited education,
oftentimes faced these incredible dilemmas that Senator Coons
was talking about where they get fines and they get their
license suspended, so the job they had, now they lose. So can
you just elaborate a bit on what you want to do to inject some
energy into dealing with cutting down on recidivism?
Ms. Bondi. Well, first--we can address it at the Bureau of
Prisons level, of course, what we talked about, those are for
the people who will be locked up in prison, serving sentences
to make sure they get the resources that they need, upon
release--98 percent of the people in the Bureau of Prisons will
be released. I believe it's a mess right now--a mess. And when
you look at an organizational chart of the office, assuming I
may get confirmed, I was looking at all the slots, and my eyes
went down to the bottom to Bureau of Prisons because of my
career experience as a prosecutor and caring about what happens
there for the very reasons you said--we need more drug courts,
and you were talking about drug addicts, as well.
Senator Welch. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Bondi. It's more than that, and we both know that it's
also people who are dual diagnosed----
Senator Welch. Right.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Meaning you have a drug addiction
but also mental health issues, and that's--Senator, that's
something----
Senator Welch. Well, I'd like to----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I can't wrap my head----
Senator Welch [continuing]. I would like to----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Around yet.
Senator Welch [continuing]. I'd like to work with you on
that. And then the third thing is that I mentioned this
earlier. The consumer issues, the False Claims Act efforts that
you can bring, the challenge to rip-offs in the civil sphere
where companies are doing things that are just crushing our
consumers and charging rip-offs--and overcharging. That is
very, very important, and I hope that there will be as much
emphasis on protecting consumers as there will be on protecting
public safety, which obviously is a high priority for you and
for the Department.
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Welch. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Welch. I yield back.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Schmitt.
Senator Schmitt. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I think you're
doing incredible today. I'm not surprised. Mom, how are you
doing? Good?
Ms. Bondi. I told her not to react, no matter what.
[Laughter.]
Senator Schmitt. That's probably harder for her than it is
for you. Well, listen, I--we've talked about this over the
years. So for me, I didn't know--I didn't know any lawyers
growing up. I'm trying to think when I actually met a lawyer in
my life. I grew up in a really blue collar neighborhood, but I
was attracted to the law because I felt like it gave guardrails
for people to pursue their dreams. Right? That you would be on
equal footing. And I think that your fights for the little
guy--I referenced this in the opening statements--are
admirable. And you know, you got some questions earlier about
are you willing to stand up against corporate interests, or are
you willing to fight back. I mean, I think you've demonstrated
that. Right?
Ms. Bondi. I think we did it together when we were
Attorneys General, as well.
Senator Schmitt. Yes. Your client is the people, and it's
your job to fight for them, because in these jobs--especially
even a local prosecutor, I think is even--is an even more
appropriate scenario. There's only one local--there's only one
prosecutor in that county. So it's interesting when we have
these discussions about some of these prosecutors across the
country, and Senator Hawley and I know there's been a couple in
Missouri and they're all around, when they decide not to charge
violent criminals, there's nobody else who can do that. There's
nobody else that can do that. One of the things that, when I
was Attorney General, we were able to do when President Trump
was in office--sadly, the Biden administration dropped this
effort--was we had Assistant AGs deputized as assistant U.S.
attorneys to help fight violent crime to add capacity. And,
when, you know, there was a surge to take on some of the most
violent criminals on the streets, we were there to help.
Those are the kind of partnerships I'm guessing that you'll
look toward, right, to get back to the core mission of taking
on violent crime and fighting for the little guy. So I wanted
to give you a little bit of an opportunity to talk about that.
And also, sort of, what's your vision--you're answering a lot
of questions. What's your vision for the Department? I mean,
what do--how do you see your role? How do you want to go do
that? I think you're incredibly qualified to do it, but just in
your own words, what are the things that you're going to focus
on?
Ms. Bondi. You know, Senator, it's a--it's truly
overwhelming when you look at the volume of that Department,
the Department of Justice. It is the largest law firm in the
world and manages the largest law enforcement agencies, and
that's why, first and foremost, what I did when I was Attorney
General, you surround yourself with great people, and that
includes Gail Slater, that includes my chief of staff, if I am
confirmed, my Deputy, and so on and so on, and work from there,
but look at each and every department. And I don't know if one
department is more important than the other, but I will work
very hard every day.
And as Senator Welch had said, it's not only fighting
crime. I think that's just first and foremost on Americans'
minds right now, but that's why there is an entire huge Civil
Division that falls under the Department of Justice to protect
consumers, to do the antitrust cases, to do all the Medicare
cases, to do all of the other cases, so it's multifaceted. But
first and foremost, of course, to keep America safe and restore
integrity to that Department. I don't think I can stress enough
that 72 percent of Americans have lost faith in the Department
of Justice.
Senator Schmitt. Yes, and I think that the belief that the
American people need to have, again, is that people are going
to be treated the same. As you said earlier, there's only one
tier. There's not two tiers of justice, and I think that's--
when you really dig down to some of the comments you've heard
and questions, at least on this side, that's the big concern. I
don't want it tilted in anybody's direction. You just want it
to be fair, and you want, certainly, the top law enforcement
official in the country to view it that way. I think you do,
and I think your history, your qualifications, your demeanor,
your character warrant a bipartisan vote. I hope you get it. I
really do. You deserve it.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you,
Ms. Bondi, for answering our questions.
I want to come back to TikTok, and we ran out of time when
I was asking you before about the importance of the law that
was passed overwhelmingly bipartisan majority here in the
United States Congress. As you know, last year a Chinese
hacking group--it was called Salt Typhoon--broke into several
American phone companies, reportedly used that access to spy on
the White House, the FBI, other sensitive Government targets.
The threat of Chinese communist espionage goes beyond just
watching. It also involved potentially shutting down our grids,
other critical infrastructure parts. I assume you agree with me
that Chinese cyberwarfare, espionage, malign influence is an
existential threat to America.
Ms. Bondi. It is an existential threat, Senator, and also,
I have not seen it yet, but from what I've heard about former
FBI Director Wray's comments on ``60 Minutes'' regarding China
sleeper cells within our own country, infiltrating our water
systems, our natural gas lines, telecommunications--a very,
very real threat to our country.
Senator Blumenthal. I'm glad that we agree, and as you
know, and as the Department of Justice has noted, it's not
classified, so we can talk about it openly--the ByteDance is
beholden to the demands of the Chinese government. It is
controlled by the Chinese Government, and it, in turn, controls
TikTok. Do you agree that ByteDance's control, ownership,
exploitation of TikTok is a threat to American national
security?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, this is pending litigation within the
Department of Justice----
Senator Blumenthal. Let me put it a different way.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And I can't talk about that at all.
Senator Blumenthal. It's not pending litigation within the
Department of Justice. It's in the courts.
Ms. Bondi. In the courts.
Senator Blumenthal. And the Department of Justice is
currently defending----
Ms. Bondi. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. The constitutionality of
American law.
Ms. Bondi. Pending.
Senator Blumenthal. Will you continue to defend the law
passed by the Congress defending America's national security?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I--I cannot--it would be irresponsible
for me to talk about anything, and it is pending litigation.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, you know----
Ms. Bondi. We can talk semantics all day long.
Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. I was an Attorney General,
and very often----
Ms. Bondi. I'm not trying to hedge on anything, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. Oh, I'm--I'm----
Ms. Bondi. I just can't comment----
Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. I'm having a problem----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. On any----
Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. With the idea that you
won't tell me that the Department of Justice will continue to
defend against constitutional attacks, the law of the United
States. When I was Attorney General of the State of
Connecticut, I would say I have an obligation to defend the law
of Connecticut against any attacks. You have an obligation, or
you did, as Attorney General of Florida, to go to court when
those laws were attacked. You have an obligation as United
States Attorney General to do what this Attorney General is
doing. Whether you agree with it or not, and, frankly, whatever
the President thinks about that law, you have an obligation to
defend it. This is an easy question for you. Will you defend
laws of the United States of America against constitutional
attacks? I'm asking you in general.
Ms. Bondi. In general, yes.
Senator Blumenthal. And with respect to the law that would
require divestiture of TikTok, which is a law passed by this
body and supported by, I think, a majority of Members on both
sides of the aisle, why can't you tell us that you will defend
it?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I'm not hedging. This is all pending
litigation, and I just can't talk about pending litigation, if
confirmed as Attorney General.
Senator Blumenthal. I have to tell you, with all due
respect, that answer is unacceptable to me. Thank you.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Before I go to Senator Britt, I'd like
to enter a letter into the record from former Department of
Justice employees in support Ms. Bondi's nomination. This
bipartisan group of attorneys includes several former AGs,
Assistant Attorneys General, U.S. attorneys to share, quote,
``strong and enthusiastic support,'' unquote, for Ms. Bondi and
attest to her, quote, ``integrity--her integrity and devotion
to the rule of law,'' end of quote.
Without objection, I would enter these into the record.
Hearing none, so ordered.
[The information appears as submissions for the record.]
Chairman Grassley. Senator Britt.
Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have insinuated that
your friendship with Donald Trump is a problem. My colleagues
on my side of the aisle have leaned into this kind of exposing
the hypocrisy, given what we have seen before from previous
administrations, and I would just like to read something to you
from 1961. ``Washington, January 13. The Senate Judiciary
Committee approved without objection today President-elect John
F. Kennedy's selection of his brother Robert as Attorney
General. The vote came after a two-hour hearing''--would you
like a two-hour hearing, by the way?
Ms. Bondi. Can we redo this?
Senator Britt. Yes, that's right. ``The vote came after a
two-hour hearing devoted in large part to praise of Mr.
Kennedy. Forecasts that there would be severely critical
questioning, especially from'' Republicans, ``proved incorrect.
All fourteen committee members present voted to approve the
nomination when it is formally made.'' The New York Times. As
it said, blood is thicker than water--meaning family bonds are
stronger than any other relationship. I just think that that
needs to be before the American people once again, and I
appreciate you continuing to reiterate that you will serve the
people of this great country and that you will follow the law.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Britt. I'd like to move to something that has
become another theme of this hearing, and that is Senator
Grassley's letters. So I myself sent a letter to our current
Attorney General and, unfortunately, received the very same
treatment. So in front of this Committee, Merrick Garland--
Attorney General Garland had made a testimony that we found
evidence to possibly contradict what he had said. On March
23rd, I came in front--he came in front of the Appropriations
Committee where I was a Member, and I presented him with
evidence that the DOJ had actively discouraged the enforcement
of 18 United States Code Sec. 1507, at the homes of Supreme
Court Justices in the wake of the leak of the Dobbs decision,
evidence that appeared that he had clearly either misled or
misinformed this Committee, evidence that showed that the
Department was putting politics above duty.
Section 1507, as you well know, makes it illegal to picket
or parade near a judge's residence in the intent--with the
intent of influencing them in the discharge of their duty. It
was openly and flagrantly violated on numerous occasions in the
summer of 2022, yet never enforced by U.S. Marshals stationed
at the home of the Justices, in large part because of the
evidence that we showed that they had been actively discouraged
from making arrests. When we asked Attorney General Garland why
no one had been prosecuted, he said because no one had been
arrested, really going back to the fact that the U.S. Marshals
in these slides were actively discouraged from making them.
On May 3rd, 2023, I led a group of Senators, many on this
Committee, sending a letter to the Attorney General asking him
for response to 19 questions by the end of May, and to this
day, I have yet to receive any actual response to any of my
questions. To Senator Grassley's second point, if you do get a
response, which mine came almost a year late, it was just words
on paper. And so what I'd like to know from you is two things.
One, if confirmed, will you do everything in your power to have
yourself or one of your top officials respond in a timely
manner to those of us on this Committee? And second, since I am
almost out of time, will you commit to working to help me get
answers about why this happened in the Department of Justice so
that we can ensure that it never happens again?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator, and it sounds like we're going to
have to open an entire unit to handle Senator Grassley's
letters to respond to them.
Senator Britt. That's what we all like to hear.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you, and I'm grateful to Senator
Britt for bringing that up. It's probably one of the most
bipartisan commitments. If we're going to fulfill our duties of
the Constitution to give oversight, it's really important that
we get timely responses, and I'm grateful for that.
I want to jump back right in where were talking last is
just about the crack and powder cocaine disparities that we
discussed in my office. It's something that this Committee in a
bipartisan way have done a lot on. We discussed about the 18-
to-1 sentencing disparity, which came down from a 100-to-1.
I've been working in good faith with people like Senator
Grassley on trying to just get justice with that, move it as
much toward 1-to-1 as possible. We know that actually in
Florida, your home State, as well as 43 other States----
Ms. Bondi. 1-to-1.
Senator Booker [continuing]. It's 1-to-1. Thank you for
making my question quicker. Will you commit to continuing the
DOJ 2002 policy of just enforcing it as if it was 1-to-1?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, and I will look at that policy, if I am
confirmed as Attorney General. I had no idea it was 18-to-1.
That--I will look at that policy, if confirmed, and report back
to you right away. It sounds like, if I'm confirmed, I have a
lot of reporting backs to do right away.
Senator Booker. Thank you, but I----
Ms. Bondi. But I will, Senator, right away.
Senator Booker. Am I overly stating the fact that reading
from your expression that you seem to think that 18-to-1,
especially given what's going on in Florida, seems
unreasonable?
Ms. Bondi. I was unaware that that was happening and why
you would want it to be 1-to-1.
Senator Booker. Great. I know your sincere and heartfelt
beliefs on abortion in general, and I respect that and our
differences on it. But when it comes to medication and
abortion, over two decades ago, the Food and Drug
Administration approved the medication abortion pill,
mifepristone, as safe and effective. Decades of research
continue to confirm the drug's safety. However, access to
mifepristone was threatened by several lawsuits that second
guess the FDA's expert judgment about the drug. The Department
of Justice has vigorously defended the FDA's judgment about the
safetyness and effectiveness, and I guess a lot of people are
concerned about reversing a policy that could deeply affect
people's access to mifepristone. I'm wondering if you would
commit to continuing the U.S. Department of Justice's efforts
to defend the FDA's judgment in lawsuits against mifepristone.
Ms. Bondi. And I was not aware of that, Senator, until we
spoke, and I think I told you I will look at that policy. I was
not aware of the policy. I will look at that policy. I am
personally pro-life, I have always been pro-life, but I will
look at that policy. I will not let my personal beliefs affect
how I carry out the law.
Senator Booker. I wish I had more than 90 seconds to talk
to about an issue that you've been so willing to talk to me
about it, but the First Step Act implementation is, in my
opinion, in a dire state. We had a bipartisan bill with 87
Senators voting for it--88 if Lindsey Graham was not off
fighting the world's fight. I would like to make sure that you
work with us to have implementation done. One of the reasons
why it's so poorly implemented is because of the disastrous
realities in the Bureau of Prisons. We've had bipartisan
hearings here about the egregious stuff. The hearing was so
disturbing that one of my colleagues on the other side came
over and said, whatever I can do, let's work together. It is
understaffed, and, therefore, a lot of the people that are
supposed to be implementing the programs that would help for
people to earn time credit to get out, the education programs
that are proven to reduce recidivism, can't be done because the
Bureau of Prisons is a disaster in terms of staffing and
funding. People leave their Federal correctional officers jobs
to go to State because they can make significantly more money.
Is this a cause that----
Ms. Bondi. The morale is horrible.
Senator Booker. Yes. Morale is horrible. Is--do you feel a
sense of urgency like I do to focus on the Bureau of Prisons to
deal with the staffing issues and help with the full
implementation of the First Step Act?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. And yes, I spoke about that, I
think, when you were in another Committee hearing. But yes, I
will, of course.
Senator Booker. Thank you for the latitude, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Before I call on Senator Cruz, a
question for both the nominee and you, Senator Booker. You were
talking about this 1-to-1 equation. If your implication to her
was that it could be done through her actions, then it seems
we've been wasting our time trying to find a compromise between
you and me on that subject for legislation.
Senator Booker. I didn't prepare for this hearing, sir. I
didn't know I'd be asked questions.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. I look forward to working with you. I do
believe that it should be done judicially, as well as with
prosecutorial discretion.
Chairman Grassley. Okay.
Senator Booker. It should be done legislatively along
with--as well as prosecutorial discretion. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Bondi, I
congratulate you on an excellent job at this hearing, and I
want to go back to the topic you and I discussed before, which
is the politicization of the Department of Justice. I want to
focus on a different aspect of it. We talked about the
Department of Justice under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris being
used to target the President's political enemies. We talked
about it being used to protect the political friends and allies
of the White House. But there's another aspect of
politicization and lawlessness and that is refusing to follow
the law, utterly defying Federal statutory law, and I think
there's no area where this has been more egregious than as it
concerns our immigration laws.
We have had 4 years of a wide-open Southern Border. My
State, Texas, has borne a disproportionate burden as a
consequence of that as 12 million illegal aliens have flooded
into this country, and what the Biden administration has done,
no other President in the history of America has done. The
Biden administration has simply ignored the law, and when
illegal aliens are apprehended, they release them. Federal law
says they shall be detained, says they shall be deported, and,
frankly, our constitutional system is not meant--meant to deal
with a President who defies the law. Article II says the
President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
This administration utterly defied the law.
I have said, somewhat tongue in cheek, Joe Biden did
something I previously thought was impossible. He made me miss
Barack Obama because Barack Obama, for all my disagreements
with him, when it came to illegal immigration, he, by and
large, followed the law. Barack Obama deported millions of
people. The left got mad at him and called him the deporter-in-
chief. No administration has ever done what this administration
has done, which has said we are going to facilitate the
invasion of this country, we're going to release 12 million
people, and we are going to see Americans murdered, women
raped, children abused and murdered. We're going to see drugs
flood into this country--fentanyl flood into this country.
And so I want to ask you several things on this. First of
all, in your experience, what are the consequences of open
borders, and who pays the price when illegal immigrants and, in
particular, violent criminal illegal immigrants are released
into this country?
Ms. Bondi. American citizens, Senator, and I think they're
paying--I know they're paying the price, every single day.
We're seeing it. We're watching it. We've talked about Laken
Riley, of course, multiple times, but there are multiple
victims of violent crime in all of our States. And as we say
now, every State is a border State. I was at the Border, not in
your State, but in Yuma, Arizona, several months ago, and I
firsthand--I saw the Border Patrol agents and Customs showed us
IDs and drivers' licenses, Venezuela, from all of these
countries, IDs just thrown on the ground and people were
allowed to walk freely into our country.
Senator, I never knew the definition of a disposable child.
I never heard that term in my entire career until I was there--
a disposable child that the agents kept recognizing, a little
boy----
Senator Cruz. Yes.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Coming over and over--you're
familiar with it, I'm sure, same little boy over and over----
Senator Cruz. And let me ask----
Ms. Bondi. And he had been trafficked.
Senator Cruz. Let me ask because my time has expired, and
the issue you're raising is so incredibly important. One
statistic that every American should know is the number
300,000. There are over 300,000 children that this
administration has lost--little girls and little boys who came
here unaccompanied were in this administration's custody. They
handed them over to adults, many of them not blood relatives,
and they don't know where they are. I've never seen a single
Democrat on this Committee ask one question about the 300,000
children. I want to ask you a commitment. Will you as Attorney
General investigate and make every effort to find those
children? And if they are subject to abuse, get them out of
those abusive situations that the Federal Government has put
them into?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll just
follow up to Senator Cruz's final comment with suggesting that
we include targeting those children who are victims of
unscrupulous employers, as well, and happy to follow up with
the articles and reports to--as you prepare for this position.
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I'm sorry. Employers?
Senator Padilla. Yes.
Ms. Bondi. Okay. I didn't understand that.
Senator Padilla. Yes, many employers across the country who
are employing and exploiting----
Ms. Bondi. Got it.
Senator Padilla [continuing]. Dangerous conditions for----
Ms. Bondi. Yes.
Senator Padilla [continuing]. These children that we're
talking about. Ms. Bondi, we have even less time in this round
than the first round.
Ms. Bondi. Oh darn.
[Laughter.]
Senator Padilla. And I don't have some yes or no questions,
but a couple of important issues I do want to make sure to
cover for the record.
When you were a Florida Attorney General, you defended
restrictive abortion laws, including mandatory waiting periods
and parental consent requirements. If confirmed as Attorney
General, would you advocate for similar restrictions at the
Federal level?
Ms. Bondi. I will follow the law of the United States of
America.
Senator Padilla. Okay. Well, I'm asking this question
because there's a difference between Federal law and Florida
law. There's a difference between the law and your personal
views, so how do you----
Ms. Bondi. And according to Dobbs, those are left to the
States.
Senator Padilla. How would you ensure that your personal
views don't influence your decisions as Attorney General in
cases involving reproductive health?
Ms. Bondi. Oh, my personal--no, my personal feelings would
not influence, Senator.
Senator Padilla. Okay. My next question is on the topic of
gun violence, which continues to be a challenge and a problem
in many parts of the country. As you know, the Department of
Justice plays a key role in enforcing Federal gun laws and
working to prevent gun violence. In the wake of the Parkland
shooting in 2018, you expressed support for certain gun control
measures in Florida, including raising the minimum age for
firearm purchases and implementing red flag laws, which I agree
with, I support, and they're proven to make a difference and to
save lives. How would you use the position of Attorney General
to advance these commonsense gun safety policies on a national
level?
Ms. Bondi. First, Senator, let me say I am pro-Second
Amendment. I have always been pro-Second Amendment. I will
follow the laws of my State of Florida and our country, of
course, regarding any gun laws. I did--I worked that shooting,
meaning I was there when 17 family members were notified, I was
there, that their children were murdered. Also, Pulse
Nightclub. I also went to Nevada to help with the MGM shooting.
The Attorney General at the time asked me to come out there. I
believe over 60 people were murdered there. I am an advocate
for the Second Amendment, but I will enforce the laws of the
land.
Senator Padilla. Okay. Well I appreciate that. I would
certainly hope so, but any specific ideas that you have on
advancing the commonsense gun safety proposals that you support
as you were Attorney General? I gave you two examples--raising
the minimum age for firearm purchases or implementing red flag
laws. There's, I think, a growing national consensus on
universal background checks.
Ms. Bondi. I would be glad to meet with you and review any
legislation that you have, Senator.
Senator Padilla. Okay. All right. I'll have a few seconds
left, but thank you for your testimony. I know we asked some
tough questions in this hearing. That's what the confirmation
hearing process is supposed to be about. I know how to count
and I know how to read tea leaves. It seems to me you're very,
very, very, very likely to be confirmed, and I certainly look
forward to working with you and your office on the issues that
I've raised today and more. And I certainly look forward to
seeing you demonstrate the independence and respect for the
rule of law that you have suggested to the Committee today.
Thank you.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator, and my prayers are with you
in California, again, on the horrific fires and what you're
doing----
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To combat them.
Senator Padilla. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Blackburn.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know
you're so pleased that we're about to the end of the day, and
we thank you so much for your time, and your dedication, and
your desire to serve. And there are several things that we work
together on here in this Committee, and we will need your help.
Online privacy, we have never addressed. Senator Blumenthal and
I have worked on that. The Kids Online Safety Act, which we are
looking forward to finishing here, this--under President
Trump's leadership so that we can protect children in the
virtual space. And another portion of the work that I put a
good bit of time into is combating human trafficking, and I
know you have such a background in that, and we are so
appreciative that you bring that background to the AG's
position because this is an issue that has languished.
Now, Senator Cruz mentioned the 300,000 children that are
not accounted for. Nearly 2 years ago, I wrote the HHS
Secretary. It was at about 100--it was at 75,000 at that point,
and the number has increased. And there are steps that could be
taken that this administration, the Biden administration, has
tossed to the side. We have legislation to address those, but,
General Bondi, this is something that you can begin to do on
day one. This administration has stopped doing fingerprints,
they have stopped doing DNA testing, and because of that, we
know that about 40 percent of the kids that come to that border
are being trafficked, and there is a way to put an end to this.
So we have--we think creating a database--a human trafficking
database at DOJ is a good step forward. We do have legislation
on that. Another thing that we're working on is having Child
Protective Services actually record the interviews with
children and adults to help to protect these children. But I
would really like to get your commitment on the record for your
help and a statement about the work that you have done in human
trafficking and your commitment to ending that in our country.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator, and I have not yet reviewed
your legislation, but I would love to review that legislation.
Yes, I learned about the fingerprinting and the DNA when I was
at the Border a few months ago, and I really couldn't believe
that. And while I was there, I went to a rape crisis center,
and what I saw and learned at that border, there is nothing
humane happening at that border----
Senator Blackburn. No.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And so many women and children are
being trafficked coming into this country. And when I was
Attorney General for the State of Florida, I went to Mexico and
I went to a safe house, and I met victims of human
trafficking--women and children. I held babies who had been
trafficked----
Senator Blackburn. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And what gets young drug-addicted--
because they addict all these women to drugs when they're
trafficked, young drug-addicted mother to break free from her
captor? They were sending her to New York, and when they were
going to do that, what did they do? They were going to kill her
baby, and that's what got her to break away and get to a safe
house. So I am committed to fighting human trafficking
alongside you, and I have not yet read your legislation.
Senator Blackburn. I appreciate that. We appreciate so much
your commitment to that. There is nothing compassionate about
what is going on at that Southern Border, and we will need your
attention to fix those issues. Thank you.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hawley [presiding]. On behalf of the Chair, Senator
Schiff.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 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'll 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. Jeff Sessions may not
have believed it would come to him. It came to him. Bill Barr
may not have believed it would come to him. It came to him. It
came to everyone. It will come to you, and what you do in that
moment will define your attorney generalship, your public
service, everything you've done up to that moment will be
judged by what you do in that moment.
I would encourage you to talk to Secretary Mattis, someone
who had broad respect and has broad respect of Americans on
both sides of the aisle, who felt it incumbent on him to leave
his post because he could not in good conscience continue to do
as he was asked. I would encourage you to talk to Chris Wray,
who perhaps, as well as anyone walked that difficult line,
avoiding unnecessary and gratuitous fights with the former
President, but at the same time, defending his work force,
defending the democracy, and our institutions. I would talk to
those who have been where you're about to be because you will
surely be faced with that difficult challenge, if you are
confirmed.
Let me turn to some California-particular concerns. I'm
grateful for your acknowledgement of the trauma we've been
through with the fires. That is not over. We will need your
help in going after those who are committing arson, or who are
looting, or the inevitable fraudsters who will take advantage
of the situation to try to defraud taxpayers----
Ms. Bondi. Price gouging.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. As well as price gouging.
Indeed, on the subject of price gouging, and we talked quite a
bit about the 2020 election. The 2024 election was about the
high cost of living. I hope you will demonstrate a willingness
to go after anyone who's engaged in price gouging. I think the
oil companies are engaged in price gouging. The price of the
pump in California is through the roof. Are you willing to take
on even powerful interests like the oil industry if you
determine that they're gouging consumers?
Ms. Bondi. I handled the BP oil spill, Senator, when I was
Attorney General for the State of Florida. Right now as an
immediate concern, I would be concerned about helping you in
California with all the criminal acts that I'm sure are
happening throughout your State with the looting, which is--and
this is just from me watching it on the news. You've been there
on the ground, but crime is rampant in California, and it's
only going to get worse based on these fires and what happened.
And price gouging is when people come in and they try to raise
the price of goods--water, water--essential commodities--when
people have lost their homes, and not everyone lives in a big
home. Most people don't, and people have lost everything that
they have had----
Senator Schiff. But I'm----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And I am committed to working with
everyone in California constantly to help the people in the
aftermath of these fires----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. We----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And do----
Senator Schiff [continuing]. We will----
Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Everything that I can.
Senator Schiff. We will need your help on that. We will
need your help on attacking the scourge of fentanyl. We can't
solve this problem as a local government or State government or
Federal Government alone. We need to work together on that. And
let me ask one last question if I may, Mr. Chairman, important
to a great many Californians and people around the country, and
that is, will you respect their marriage? Will you respect
marriage equality? Will you defend marriage equality?
Ms. Bondi. I will respect the law, absolutely.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hawley. Thank you Senator. I'm sitting here in the
Chairman seat, General Bondi. It's really--it's a great feeling
of power, so----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bondi. Do you have documents you want me to review?
[Laughter.]
Senator Hawley. Maybe some things I'd like you to sign. Let
me just ask you here, and I think I may be your last
interlocutor for the day, so congratulations. You've just done
fantastic. Thank you for answering all of our questions. Let me
just ask you about another of the abuses that this past
administration perpetrated and that is still in place, and I'm
referring to the October 2021 memo from Attorney General
Garland targeting parents at school board meetings. Do you
remember this?
Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hawley. What happened was, as I'm sure you recall,
we now know the Biden administration, the White House, the
Secretary of Education solicited a letter from the National
School Board Association. They ginned it up. It was fake from
beginning to end. They ginned it up, calling on--calling for
law enforcement scrutiny against parents, tax-paying parents
who were going to school board meetings inquiring what their
children were being taught, inquiring about face masks,
Critical Race Theory. And Attorney General Garland--you talk
about bowing to political pressure--when the White House
demanded he activate the FBI against these parents, amazingly,
unbelievably, he did it, and he issued this memorandum in
October 2021. All of this time later, that memorandum has still
never been formally rescinded. Even after the National School
Board Association withdrew their letter, admitted they had been
wrong to call parents potential domestic terrorists who were
merely raising questions about what their children were being
taught, Garland never apologized for it. He never did anything
about it. It is still in effect.
Here's my question for you. As Attorney General, if and
when you are confirmed, will you finally rescind that
memorandum and do right on behalf of all of these parents who
have been wrongly unjustly targeted by the FBI and DOJ?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I have not yet read the memo. If I am
confirmed, I will read the memo and I will do the right thing,
just like I told Senators on both sides of the aisle regarding
their issues.
Senator Hawley. Good. I look forward to you doing that, and
I would hope this is something you could do on the first day
after you're confirmed to send a message to parents and law-
abiding citizens everywhere. This shouldn't be a partisan
issue. I bet the parents who went to these meetings, they're
Republicans, they're Democrats, they have no partisanship, but
they want to know that their First Amendment rights will be
protected. And you rescinding that memo formally after,
frankly, the current Attorney General lied to us about it for
years, would send a tremendous message.
Let me just ask you about the one other thing, and this is
something near and dear to me. We talked about this when you
came to my office. The Department of Justice administers a fund
called the Radiation Exposure Compensation fund. This is a fund
that helps pay for the healthcare bills of Americans who have
been exposed to nuclear radiation by the Government, through no
fault of their own, in the West and other parts of the country.
The Department of Justice has administered that program for
years. Senator Orrin Hatch actually wrote the initial bill. It
has been in existence since 1990. It's been supported by
Senators from both parties. It's extremely important to my
State because in the State of Missouri, we have a lot of
nuclear radiation that has occurred that's still in our
groundwater, still in our soil, not cleaned up yet.
My question for you is, since you'll be in charge of
administering it, will you administer that program fairly and
equitably? Will you defend it? Will you make sure that
radiation victims who are under the statute entitled to
compensation from their Government get what they deserve?
Ms. Bondi. Senator, I was speaking about that with someone
yesterday because I did not know--again, there's going to be a
lot, if I am confirmed, that I don't know. That's why it's so
important to keep an open dialogue with every Senator from
every State. And yes, I am committed to looking at that, and I
did not realize you had that horrific problem in your State.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much. Thank you for
answering our questions, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back my time.
Chairman Grassley [presiding]. Before I close down this
meeting, I would enter into the record from a bipartisan group
of attorneys who have served as Attorneys General in their
respective States. This includes New York, Delaware, New
Jersey, Illinois, and Hawaii. They write that Ms. Bondi has
worked, quote, ``across both State and party lines to solve
problems,'' and a further quote that she is, quote, unquote,
``a highly qualified nominee.''
Without objection, that will be put in the record.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Chairman Grassley. You've done extremely well. I thank you
for your testimony today, and I thank your family. Whatever
pressures they felt, we apologize for it, but thank you for
being so patient through all this process. You should be very
proud. Ms. Bondi, you performed well, I think admirably as
another adjective, and showed this entire country that you're
eminently qualified to serve as Attorney General. If confirmed,
you'll be a chief protector of the rule of law and I have every
confidence that you're going to do a superb job.
Now, for information for the future, written questions can
be submitted for the record until tomorrow at 5 p.m. Ms. Bondi,
when you receive these questions, please answer and return them
to the Committee as soon as possible because under our rules,
that has something to do with when we can schedule action for
your confirmation. You're excused at this point.
This Committee is adjourned. We will reconvene tomorrow
right here--is it right here in this room? Right here at 10:15
a.m., to hear from a panel of outside witnesses in regard to
Ms. Bondi's nomination.
The Committee is adjourned.
Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record for Day 1
follows Day 2.]
CONTINUATION OF THE
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE
NOMINATION OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI
TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2025
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:22 a.m., in
Room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Cruz, Hawley,
Tillis, Schmitt, Britt, Durbin, Klobuchar, Hirono, Booker,
Welch, and Schiff.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Chairman Grassley. Good morning everybody. Welcome back for
a second day of hearing on Ms. Bondi's nomination for Attorney
General.
As I said yesterday, I want everyone to be able to watch
the hearing without obstruction. If people stand up and block
the views of others behind them or if they speak out of turn,
it's not fair or considerate to others, so officers will remove
individuals as they have previously. We didn't have any of
these problems yesterday. I don't anticipate it today, but I
just think we ought to make everything pretty clear.
Before we begin with opening statements from the panel, I
want to go through a couple of bookkeeping items and explain
how we're going to proceed today. I will give an opening
statement and introduce the Majority witnesses, and I'll give
the opportunity to Senator Durbin to provide an opening
statement and introduce his witnesses, then we will turn to our
witnesses for their opening statements. Following their
statements, we will begin with the first round of questions in
which each Senator will have 5 minutes.
Yesterday we met from 9:30 until 3 p.m. so that every
Senator, both Democrat and Republican, could question Ms.
Bondi. We heard from Senators Scott and Schmitt, who gave their
strong endorsement of Ms. Bondi. Their introductions described
her extensive experience, outstanding qualifications, and
character.
Yesterday's testimony showed that Ms. Bondi is certainly
experienced and capable to serve as our Nation's chief law
enforcement officer at this very critical time. She is very
well qualified for the position, serving 18 years as
prosecutor, 8 years as Attorney General for the State of
Florida--Florida, the most third-most populous State in our
Nation.
She will enact desperately needed changes at a Department
that has been politicized and weaponized for partisan ends.
With almost 30 years of experience behind her, she will restore
both morale and law and order to the Department--badly needed--
in need of strong leadership.
Her commitment to the rule of law emerged as a central
theme of our discussions yesterday, and as I made clear in my
opening statement yesterday, that is what I believe the
Department and this country desperately needs.
Today, the purpose is to hear from an outside panel of
witnesses, and we're grateful that all of you are here this
morning to express your views on this nominee. I will go ahead
and introduce the three Majority witnesses before I turn over
to Ranking Member Durbin.
First is Dave Aronberg. Until just a few days ago, Mr.
Aronberg was the elected Democrat State attorney for Florida's
Fifteenth Judicial District. He served in that role for three
terms since he was elected in 2012. Mr. Aronberg also
previously served in the Florida State Senate and as a White
House fellow in both Clinton and Bush administrations at the
Treasury Department.
He has known Ms. Bondi since 2010, when he ran to be the
Attorney General of Florida, a position Ms. Bondi obviously
won. Notwithstanding their political differences, Ms. Bondi
appointed Mr. Aronberg to be her drug czar to combat the opioid
epidemic, and through that work he came to know Ms. Bondi very
well.
Second, we have Mr. Nicholas Cox, who is Florida's longest-
serving statewide prosecutor. He has served in that role since
2011. In his capacity as statewide prosecutor, Mr. Cox focuses
on cases involving human trafficking, drug abuse, fraud,
organized crime, gang violence, cybercrimes, and crimes against
seniors.
Mr. Cox also previously served as a member of the faculty
of Stetson University College of Law, where he taught trial
advocacy, consumer law, counseling and negotiations, and
criminal procedure. Mr. Cox has extensive experience observing
Ms. Bondi's work as a lawyer and administrator. Ms. Bondi began
her career as an intern in his office. While serving as
Attorney General, she appointed him to his current office.
Third and last, we have Sheriff Emery Gainey, a career law
enforcement officer with more than 40 years' experience.
Sheriff Gainey has served as a sheriff of two counties in
Florida. When Ms. Bondi served as Attorney General, he served
as her director of law enforcement and director of victim
services.
Through his work as law enforcement officer in Florida,
Sheriff Gainey is very familiar with Ms. Bondi's work with
State, local, and Federal law enforcement, as well as her work
to address drug abuse, fight human trafficking, and victims of
crime.
Thanks all of you for serving. Senator Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Grassley. I want to take a
moment to reflect on yesterday's session with Ms. Bondi. There
seemed to be a meeting of minds on criminal justice reform and
the pressing need to protect our children online. Those are
good things. There are still some outstanding issues from
yesterday's hearing that I'm struggling with. Let's start with
a very important issue: Who won the election in 2020? Why are
we still asking that question? For goodness sakes, we moved on
to a new election. You would think that'd be over. The reason
why that's still a relevant question is it gets to the heart of
our democracy: the peaceful transition from one President to a
new President by the will of the people without resistance and
without denial. Does the phrase, ``hanging chad'' have any
significance to our witnesses? It does to me and to every
American.
In the year 2000, Bush v. Gore, there was a contest that
went on into December and numerous court contests associated
with it as to who actually won that election. There came a
moment when Al Gore stood up and said, that's it, it's over,
I've gone to court, I can keep going to court, but I don't
think that's in the best interest of this country, I concede,
George W. Bush won. You didn't hear Democrats at that saying,
never say that in public, never concede that in public. We did.
George W. Bush won the election because Al Gore decided to step
out at a point when Bush was ahead. Period. End of story. That
is what a democracy is all about: one person concedes, the
other person wins, we move to the next President and,
ultimately, the next election. But that's not the case in the
year 2020.
We still have a candidate, in this case President Trump,
who's in denial as to what happened in 2020, and as
consequence, some characterize it a Big Lie, whatever you want
to characterize it. It really is an important question because
it gets to the fundamentals of anyone seeking a position in the
Cabinet of this President or serving our Nation. Do they
acknowledge the peaceful transition of power in 2020 from
Donald Trump to Joe Biden? The answer is yes. The reason is we
had the certification of the electoral vote--Senator Klobuchar
remembers that well--and we went through the process we're
supposed to go through in our Constitution. End of story.
But yet, when I asked that simple question of Ms. Bondi
yesterday, she was unable to say just expressly, yes, Joe Biden
received more votes than Donald Trump and was elected President
in 2020. Why is that such a hard question? I don't understand.
Why couldn't she state it plainly that that's what happened?
When a nominee for Attorney General is afraid to state a simple
fact, then what does it say about the future of our democracy
and the credibility of our system of justice?
She not only refused to acknowledge President Trump's
defeat in 2020, she also said, quote, ``There was a peaceful
transition of power.'' Let me repeat that: ``a peaceful
transition of power.'' Seeing the videotapes, what happened
here on January 6, can you imagine if the news came on and
said, did you hear what happened in London today? A mob stormed
the Houses of Parliament, crashed through the door of the House
of Commons, took control of the British Parliament, and we hope
that the police can take control back in a matter of hours so
they can continue their business. What would we say to that? In
London, in England, they went through what? A mob storming the
Houses of Parliament, knocking down the door? Incredible.
Whatever happened to that country? We thought they were leaders
in the world. Now, reflect for a moment on January 6, 2021, and
what we went through--all of us went through individually,
being spirited out of the Capitol Building taken to a safe
place because of a mob. That was not a peaceful transition of
power.
And I want to just say, Sheriff Gainey, thank you for
joining us today. You may have noticed--we all noticed,
rather--we're not supposed to notice, we should--the men and
women in uniform who protect us in this Chamber and throughout
these buildings day in and day out. God bless them. But what
they went through on January 6 is an outrage: attacks on them,
several lost their lives as a consequence of what they went
through, many were forced into retirement, and hundreds of
people were arrested for trespassing and much more serious
crimes. Donald Trump characterizes them as political prisoners.
The people who attacked our policemen are characterized as
political prisoners, and he promises that he's going to give a
pardon to all of them on the day that he's sworn into office. I
asked a basic question of Ms. Bondi as the chief law
enforcement officer, which she would be as Attorney General,
what do you think about the pardons? She wouldn't comment.
Well, she made it clear she stood behind the police, but you
can make it clear by saying to Donald Trump, this is a bad
idea. Anyone who is guilty of violence--certainly guilty of
violence should not be pardoned on the day that you're sworn in
as President. So I was at least disappointed by her answer.
And then this Kash Patel issue. Kash Patel, I'm going to
meet him next week for the first time. I've read an awful lot
about him. There's an awful lot to read. He has a lot to say,
and he's said it and he's published it in book form. One of the
things he said is that he has an enemies list. Secret police
agencies throughout history have an enemy list. The American
FBI does not and should not. I think there's serious questions
about this man, his judgment, and his political values that he
would bring to office. Yesterday, Ms. Bondi embraced him as a
person who's right for the job. I certainly don't feel that
way. He's going to have to convince me. So there are questions
raised.
Having said that, I want to concede two things. First, if I
were setting out to hire an attorney, she certainly has the
strongest resume and should be hired. Number two, the testimony
today, particularly from people in the opposite political party
in Florida, is a testimony to the fact that she's been
bipartisan and very effective as Attorney General. I will
concede that point.
When she talks about the things she achieved, I'm
impressed. I should be, but the question is when Donald Trump
knocks on her door as Attorney General, and he will--if you
question that, ask Jeff Sessions or ask Bill Barr--he will
knock on her door and ask her to do something that's going to
be a challenge ethically or morally. It's just his nature. He
views that office as an office he personally controls. He
doesn't. The American people and the Constitution control that
office, and we have to resolve whether or not Ms. Bondi is the
person to be the next Attorney General.
Our first Minority witness is Lisa Gilbert, co-president of
Public Citizen, a nonprofit organization with more than 500,000
members. The organization has an extensive record of
investigating conflicts of interest in public corruption, and
Ms. Gilbert will speak to the dangers of confirming someone
with corporate interests as Attorney General.
The second witness, Mary McCord, executive director of the
Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. She's a
visiting professor at the prestigious Georgetown Law Center.
Prior to these roles, Ms. McCord served for nearly 20 years as
assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, also
served as Assistant Attorney General for National Security from
2016 to 2017, and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
from 2014 to 2016. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I'll turn it
back to you.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you. You know, we have this
tradition of swearing people in regardless of how honest you
are and everything like that, so please arise. Would you raise
your right hand?
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chairman Grassley. I have seen all of you say ``yes'' to
that. Thank you very much.
And now you may proceed with your statements, and we'll
start with Mr. Aronberg and just go across the table that way.
So please start out.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM
BEACH COUNTY, AND FOUNDER, DAVE ARONBERG LAW, P.A., WEST PALM
BEACH, FLORIDA
Mr. Aronberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Durbin, Senators. In 2010, after serving 8 years as a State
senator in Florida, I ran for Florida attorney general. I faced
a fellow State senator in the Democratic primary and one of
three Republican candidates in a potential general election.
Pam Bondi was one of those three candidates. This was her first
run for political office, and she was the only candidate in the
race on either side whom I did not know. At our first
candidate's forum, she came up to me with a big smile and told
me her younger brother, who may be here today, Brad, worked
with me at my old law firm as a summer associate and had very
complimentary things to say. That was vintage Pam Bondi. My
potential future opponent immediately disarmed me by ignoring
partisanship to reach out to me as a human being.
Pam won her primary and I lost mine. I then endorsed my
Democratic primary who faced her in the general election, and
then Pam won that election, too. Despite the fact that I was on
the other side of the aisle and did not support her campaign,
Pam called me to offer the position as her drug czar to combat
the opioid epidemic that was ravaging Florida and to shut down
the State's ubiquitous pill mills that fed the Nation's
addiction. She offered me this position because she knew from
the campaign that fighting the opioid epidemic had been my
career priority and an important part of my campaign platform.
It did not matter that I had a ``D'' after my name. She
believed I was the best person for the job, regardless of party
affiliation.
I accepted the position and received a little pushback from
my side of the aisle, but nothing compared to what Pam Bondi
received. At a party event, one county Republican chairman was
so angry that he wagged a finger in front of her face to
condemn her decision. He didn't argue that I was unqualified,
just that she was resurrecting a Democrat's political career
who had just lost badly in a statewide election. On that, he
may have had a point. I served as drug czar, though, for 2
years and then got elected as a Democratic State attorney for
the next 3 terms, 12 years until last week, but you don't wag a
finger in Pam Bondi's face and get away with it. Pam's kind and
genuine, and loves people, but she's also tough as nails. Pam
met this guy's fire with fire, putting her own finger in the
party leader's face to defend her new employee, and she didn't
care that I was a Democrat or that she didn't know me that well
at the time, or that one day this could help me run for office,
which it did. She didn't do it because she one day hoped I
would have her back at a Senate confirmation hearing. It was
just the person she was and still is.
When AG Bondi and I began our anti-pill mill initiative,
seven people a day were dying from prescription opioid
overdoses, and there were more pain clinics in Florida than
McDonald's in Florida. A year later, she convinced a reluctant
Republican Legislature to pass crucial, long-overdue reforms,
including a prescription drug monitoring program that
dramatically reduced doctor shopping. AG Bondi used her bully
pulpit and her bipartisan relationships to get it done. Today,
Florida's pill mills are no more. The steady stream of cars
from Appalachia that constituted the ``OxyContin Express'' are
a distant memory, and countless lives have been saved because
of our State's days as the drug dealer for the rest of the
country is an ignominious part of our past.
Pam Bondi and I have always had our political differences,
although that has never come between our friendship. I
supported the Presidential campaigns of Barack Obama, Hillary
Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. I've been outspoken on
cable TV and streaming channels on a host of legal issues,
including with Professor McCord, including the dangers of
targeting one's political enemies. I was critical of the Durham
investigation, which led to questionable criminal cases and
embarrassing acquittals. A prosecutor's job is to file the
evidence and the law--without fear or favor. Pam Bondi is a 20-
year prosecutor who understands this. Even if she does
something as Attorney General of the United States that I
disagree with, I believe she'll always remain tethered to the
law.
And there are some important issues where she and I are in
complete agreement, such as the need to stop the flow of deadly
fentanyl that has become by far the largest killer within the
ongoing opioid epidemic. We agree on tough punishments for
those who engage in the modern-day slavery known as human
trafficking, and for laws that allow victims to have their low-
level crimes expunged, and to utilize the T visa program when
needed. We agree on the need for treatment courts, which are
proven to be a better alternative to incarceration with a lower
recidivism rate for many nonviolent drug offenders. And we
agree there should be a stronger response to the growing number
of antisemitic incidents in our country, and especially on
college campuses.
Senators, I'm grateful for the time to speak with you today
and look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aronberg appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Grassley. Thank you very much. Ms. Gilbert.
STATEMENT OF LISA GILBERT, CO-PRESIDENT,
PUBLIC CITIZEN, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Gilbert. Chair Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, thank
you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Lisa Gilbert, co-
president of Public Citizen. Public Citizen is a 54-year-old
nonprofit organization with 500,000 members and supporters
across the country. We champion the public interest in the
halls of power, working to ensure that our Government and our
economy work for the people, not for wealthy special interests
and corporations.
On behalf of our members, we stand in opposition to the
nomination of Pam Bondi for the role of Attorney General. The
mission of the Department of Justice is to work on behalf of
the American people, keep our country safe, protect civil
rights, uphold the rule of law. Unfortunately, Pam Bondi has
numerous troubling potential conflicts of interest from her
time as a lobbyist, which calls into question her ability to
hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. I'll focus my testimony
on our concerns about this problem.
Public Citizen recently examined the Federal lobbying
disclosures and Foreign Agents Registration Act reports filed
by Bondi and Ballard Partners, her lobbying firm. Our review
showed that her client list is full of controversial clients,
some of which stand to benefit directly from having their
former lobbyist in charge of the DOJ. Over the last 5 years,
she represented 30 clients from large corporations and
contractors to a foreign government. In addition, during her
earlier time as Florida Attorney General, a recent New York
Times review found several pieces of evidence that seemed to
demonstrate her general tendency to assist corporate allies,
and corporate lobbyists' strong belief that Bondi was
exceptionally accessible to lobbyists and amenable to the
agendas of their corporate clients. Bondi had a large number of
domestic clients, but today, I'll highlight just two: GEO
Group, the Nation's largest private prisons company, and
Amazon, an e-commerce giant.
Bondi was registered to lobby the first Trump White House
in 2019 for GEO Group. Both DOJ and DHS Inspectors General had
been critical of prison management of GEO Group, and they stand
to profit substantially if the Trump administration's new
immigration detention and deportation policies result in
filling empty or underutilized beds in their facilities. As a
real precedent for this concern, Public Citizen did research
back in 2019, which showed GEO Group's contract dollars rose by
over 40 percent in the first 2 years of the Trump term.
Now to Amazon. They're, of course, a very well-known tech
company. Bondi was registered to lobby for them in 2020. In
recent years, they've been investigated by the DOJ over injury
rates and workplace safety at their warehouses, been referred
to the DOJ by a bipartisan group of lawmakers for potential
criminal obstruction, and had their Robo Tax unit federally
investigated over safety concerns. In addition, DOJ and the FTC
recently reached a settlement with Amazon regarding children's
privacy violations via Alexa, and, of course, Amazon also
receives multi-billion dollar contracts from multiple Federal
agencies, ranging from DOD to NASA.
Beyond these examples of potential domestic entanglements,
Bondi was registered as a foreign agent lobbying on behalf of
foreign governments and officials. To highlight just two, Bondi
worked for both the Embassy of Qatar and a Kuwaiti investment
firm. For Qatar, the goal was the improvement of their often-
criticized human rights record before the 2022 World Cup. For
the Kuwaiti investment firm, the work was an attempt to free a
Russian money manager arrested in Kuwait on terms of
embezzlement from her and her staff to the tune of tens of
millions of government funds.
So to conclude, we believe a person with this deep record
of controversial business and foreign government lobbying
should not be considered for Attorney General. A well-
functioning DOJ needs to be tough on corporate crime and work
to improve the lives of our communities. This level of
corporate entanglement just speaks to exactly the wrong
incentives.
During the first Trump term, corporate enforcement
plummeted at the DOJ, and we really fear a repeat of this
pattern. Public Citizen, to that end, recently created a
tracker of ongoing Federal investigations that are at risk of
being dropped or weakened or modified. The tracker includes 237
investigations which has cases against 192 distinct companies.
Shockingly, nearly one-third of those companies have known ties
to the incoming Trump administration, and as highlighted
throughout my testimony, Pam Bondi is no exception. To be
clear, we do not think that this level of corporate alignment
can be addressed simply by recusals. Bondi's broad
representation of and lobby registration for corporate
interests is much more than a list of potential conflicts. It
instead represents an overall sense of prioritization. It's a
net of potential conflicts that there really isn't a realistic
escape from. If her nomination as Attorney General proceeds, we
are really concerned that she will take actions that reflect
the needs of these types of entities.
So with that, I want to thank you for giving me the
opportunity to present the views of Public Citizen and welcome
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gilbert appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Sheriff Gainey, you may
proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. EMERY GAINEY, FORMER
ALACHUA COUNTY SHERIFF, ALACHUA COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
Mr. Gainey. Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member
Durbin, and the Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today on behalf
of the United States Attorney General nominee, Pamela J. Bondi.
My name is Emery Gainey. I am a 40-year career law enforcement
officer who has served at all levels of law enforcement, to
include the sheriff of two Florida counties. It has been my
distinct pleasure and honor of knowing and working with Ms.
Bondi since 2010. As a member of her senior executive staff, I
served as the director of law enforcement, victim services, and
criminal justice programs when she assumed the Office of
Attorney General in 2011, and I continued to serve in those
capacities through her 8-year tenure as Attorney General. To
this day, we maintain a very close professional, personal, and
family relationship.
I want to speak this morning on Ms. Bondi's commitment to
the just and proper enforcement of the law, demonstrated
through her well-earned relationships with local, State, and
Federal law enforcement partners throughout the United States.
During her service as a prosecutor in Florida's Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, Ms. Bondi had well-established, deep-rooted
relationships with local, State, and Federal law enforcement
agencies. Upon becoming Attorney General, she immediately began
the process of meeting all law enforcement leaders throughout
the State of Florida to establish partnerships to ensure that
our citizens and visitors to our State received the most
effective law enforcement and victim services available.
One critical issue that she immediately took on was the
emerging proliferation of deadly designer drugs, specifically
those referred to as bath salts, that our State had been facing
prior to her being elected as Attorney General. Ms. Bondi
called together our stakeholders, to include prosecutors, law
enforcement, our Office of Drug Control, our State lab
directors, and many others, to not only seek to understand this
new trend in our State, but to seek immediate solutions to stop
the spread of these deadly substances that had taken the lives
of our citizens. From these stakeholder meetings, she developed
a strategy and a call to action to immediately outlaw these
dangerous bath salt substances.
Utilizing Florida's rulemaking statutes and bipartisan
support from Florida's Legislature, she was able to permanently
ban the sale of these deadly drugs, despite the continuous
efforts by those who altered their formulas in order to
circumvent Florida law in an attempt to keep multiple versions
of these harmful substances on some of the shelves of some of
our retailers. These actions, in conjunction with our public
and private partners, began to effectively address a growing
trend in illegal substance abuse in our State.
Ms. Bondi's commitment to the rule of law was also evident
in her taking the lead role, investigating and prosecuting
crimes involving gang activities, organized retail theft, human
trafficking, and a host of other criminal activities. She
demonstrated her deep commitment to keep and restore the lives
of victims of human trafficking through her leadership on
Florida's statewide Council on Human Trafficking by investing
in and supporting safe houses for victims. She also partnered
with multiple private businesses to help combat human
trafficking in both the sex and labor industries by
establishing a zero tolerance toolkit to train their staff in
identifying and reporting suspected cases of human trafficking.
I want to now focus on her compassionate side of her tenure
where she was and remains a staunch supporter of crime victims
and crime victim rights. One of her roles as Florida's Attorney
General was the delivery of crime victim services. The Florida
Attorney General's offices were the recipient of and
administered the third-largest annual award of Federal crime
victim compensation funds, in addition to State of Florida
crime victim funds. Ms. Bondi dedicated a team of experienced
victim advocates and crime compensation professionals to work
with our local governmental and non-governmental agencies to
ensure crime victims receive all the benefits allowable under
the State and Federal laws.
Her personal compassion was constantly on full display when
meeting with crime victims and their families. I stood behind
her--beside her at crime scenes when she visited victims in
hospital rooms, at family relocation centers, at conferences
for victims of crimes, and many times one-on-one in her
offices. She demonstrated her commitment to fairness and
justice by not only rigorously seeking to hold perpetrators of
crime responsible for their acts of violence, but she also
demonstrated the same level of passion, care, and empathy for
those innocent citizens who found themselves, through no fault
of their own, a victim of some of the most horrific crimes
committed by individuals against fellow human beings.
Mr. Chairman, the United States of America and the American
people will be well served by confirming Pamela Jay Bondi as
our next United States Attorney General. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gainey appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Sheriff. Ms. McCord.
STATEMENT OF MARY B. MCCORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND
PROTECTION, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. McCord. Distinguished Members of the Committee, thank
you for inviting me to testify about the importance of the
independence of the Attorney General and the Department of
Justice when making investigative and prosecutorial decisions.
Before my current position at Georgetown Law, I served for
nearly 20 years as a Federal prosecutor under Republican and
Democratic administrations, and 3 years at Main Justice, first
as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and later the
Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security. I
stayed through the transition into the Trump administration
before leaving in May 2017. I do not know Pam Bondi. I am here
today to speak because of my long career at the Department, my
reverence for the Department, and its mission and its
independence.
The lawyers and law enforcement officials at the Department
of Justice are critical to preventing the weaponization of the
Department and preserving impartial adherence to the rule of
law. For the Attorney General, this means taking seriously
their oath of office, which is to the Constitution, not the
President. It means recusal if their impartiality regarding any
particular investigation or case could reasonably be
questioned, and it means reaffirming long-standing policies,
limiting context between the Department and the White House on
specific investigations and cases.
The oath to the Constitution means that if there is
inconsistency between what the President may ask the Attorney
General to do and what the Constitution requires, the Attorney
General must choose the latter. Although she is a member of the
President's Cabinet and, therefore, expected to implement the
President's policy priorities, her duties are limited by the
Constitution. That means, among many other things, not
targeting people or associations for investigation or
prosecution based on protected speech or association, not
executing searches without a warrant, not denying the equal
protection of the law to all people within the United States.
It also means that any prior role as part of the President's
legal defense team is over, once the oath of office is taken.
The Attorney General is not the President's personal attorney.
She is the attorney for the United States.
When President Ronald Reagan nominated William French
Smith, his former personal attorney, to be the Attorney
General, Smith was asked during his confirmation hearing how he
proposed to ensure that his former relationship would not
compromise his independence. Smith responded, ``I would have to
be very conscious of situations where it could appear that,
because of that relationship, a problem might be created.''
Smith recognized that legitimate concerns might require his
recusal in certain cases to avoid the appearance of
impropriety. As relevant to Ms. Bondi, her work defending
President Trump during the first impeachment proceedings and
public statements she has made about potential prosecutions of
those involved in cases against President Trump could create,
at the very least, the appearance of a lack of independence if
she were to open investigations into people involved in those
matters.
Similarly, any involvement in a civil case against the DOJ
about which President Trump's attorneys have given notice and
which seeks more than $100 million for alleged rights
violations rising out of the Mar-a-Lago search, could
reasonably raise concerns about Ms. Bondi's impartiality that
could only be addressed through recusal. In 1978, 4 years after
President Nixon's resignation after Watergate, Attorney General
Griffin Bell established the first of what has become known as
the Department's White House context policy. It has been
reaffirmed by Attorneys General under both Republican and
Democratic Presidents ever since.
The DOJ policy recognizes the tension between protecting
the Department's independence in making decisions about
criminal and civil law enforcement, while also preserving the
President's ability to perform his constitutional obligations
to take care that the law be faithfully executed. The policy
thus bars the Department from advising the White House about
pending or contemplated enforcement actions, subject to limited
exceptions, while permitting communications about the
advancement of the administration's policies.
Just as in Bell's time, in order to insulate those who
initiate and supervise law enforcement investigations, such as
line prosecutors and their supervisors, communications with the
White House about specific cases must involve only the Attorney
General or Deputy Attorney General at the Department and the
Counsel or Deputy Counsel of the President or Vice President at
the White House. A parallel White House policy memorialized by
counsels to the President over multiple administrations and
directed to all White House staff contain similar restrictions
on context with all Departments and Agencies. The incoming
Attorney General would be well advised to continue to adhere to
the White House context policy and to urge the White House
Counsel to do the same.
In closing, public respect for the Department of Justice
begins with public respect for the Attorney General. That
respect comes from the impartial adherence to the rule of law,
free from improper political influence. The Senate should
ensure that the next Attorney General is committed to taking
the steps to earn that respect.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCord appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Ms. McCord, and now Mr. Cox.
STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS B. COX, STATEWIDE PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF
STATEWIDE PROSECUTION, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF
FLORIDA, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Mr. Cox. Thank you. I just want to say thank you very much
for allowing me to be here today. For a man from a small town
in Florida whose father was a trucker and mom was a mail
carrier, this is--being before the United States Senate, this
is a true blue honor, so thank you for allowing me to be here.
I know Pam Bondi. I've known her for about 35 years, and
I've known her as a prosecutor. I've been her colleague, I've
been her supervisor, she's been my supervisor, and I know her
as the statewide prosecutor of Florida. And I hope to share
with you a little bit today about what I know about Ms. Bondi
professionally and what I know about her as a prosecutor. And
what I do know about her is as to how she will handle the job
of United States Attorney General, if you all so decide.
When it comes to criminal prosecution, Pam Bondi is
unquestionably an ace. She did everything from batteries, DUIs,
first-degree capital murder cases--she has experienced almost
everything within the American justice system. From going to
the scenes of these tragedies, to the courtrooms, to the
witness rooms, holding hands with the victims of these crimes,
Pam really has done it all. She appreciates the rules that make
our criminal justice system the best in the world, and I
wholeheartedly believe she will apply them and she will follow
them.
Ms. Bondi is a tenacious but a very thoughtful prosecutor.
Crimes of violence upset her the most. She and I tried dozens
of cases together before juries, including first-degree
murders. Her level of preparation was simply outstanding. Her
ability to connect with and speak to them on an understandable
level was excellent. Juries loved her, defense counsel
respected her, and courts listened to her. It was clear that
Ms. Bondi was there because she believed what she was doing,
she believed in the case she was presenting, and she really did
have that undefinable something that made everybody in the
courtroom--juries, judges, maybe even defense lawyers
sometimes--want her to succeed. She was excellent and still is.
Ms. Bondi is tough. She quickly earned the title of career
criminal prosecutor at a very young age due to her very clear
feelings about repeat offenders and also her outstanding
abilities in the courtroom. Her task was clear: prosecute the
habitual offenders, seeking out the highest sentence possible,
and she did just that. She wouldn't budge in plea bargaining
with these repeat offenders that had proven time and time again
they weren't going to comply with our laws. And she always held
them responsible for their offenses. Due to her tough-on-crime
approach, she found herself in court trying cases before judges
and juries routinely, and she loved to be in the courtroom. She
loves being in trial.
You know, the impact that prosecutors have on lives of
people was never lost on Ms. Bondi. I sometimes find myself
telling our prosecutors at the Office of Statewide Prosecution,
please remember what we're doing here. Our jobs are great, we
are so fortunate to have these jobs, but the amount of power
that we wield and how this power will impact people is
remarkable. Just the issuance of a simple subpoena can ruin a
life, and that's an everyday thing for us. Pam Bondi
understands that. She realizes it. As you've heard, she's done
it for 18 years in the courtroom and also the 8 more as the
Attorney General.
When she became the Attorney General, she didn't forget her
experiences as a prosecutor. One of the things that she brought
for me, as Florida's statewide prosecutor--which I'm very
fortunate now to have continue under our current Attorney
General in Florida, Ashley Moody--one of the things she did is
she really shielded me from the politics. She understood how
politics can impact what we do every day in a courtroom, and I
will forever be grateful to both of them for shielding me from
those politics. With all due respect, prosecutors, we don't
usually want to be politicians. We just want to go in and do
what we're supposed to do. And Pam Bondi made the job not only
capable for me to complete, and, I feel, complete well, but she
made it fun. She made it something I really enjoy doing, and I
will be forever grateful to her and General Moody for allowing
us to do that.
You know, I said a lot more in my statement and I'll let my
statement stand. I know it's in the record and you all will
hear it, and I've got about 12 seconds left. But I do want to
say that on the question of independence, I've experienced
times with Pam Bondi where I've said to her--it's a different
role than what you all are talking about--but where I've said
to Pam Bondi, General, no, we can't do that. She might disagree
with me, she may let me know she disagrees with me, but in the
end she'd look at me and say, do what you've got to do. And
that happened several times--a lot. She understands that, and I
think she will be an excellent Attorney General.
Chairman, if I might say to my colleagues at the Department
of Justice, the prosecutors, as Mr. Aronberg said publicly,
they have nothing to fear from Pam Bondi as a prosecutor. And
to the contrary, I truly believe they will love working for
her. Pam Bondi understands the rule of law, she understands the
impact on lives, she understands what we do, and I believe
wholeheartedly that all of them will love working for Pam Bondi
like I have. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Grassley. I thank all of you for being very
careful about not going over the 5 minutes. Thank you all very
much for that.
I'm going to start with you, Mr. Aronberg, and my staff
gives me information that maybe you don't mind telling people
that you vote for Democrats and that you voted against
President Trump. If you--I'm just saying that you probably
don't mind us saying that or you wouldn't have told us. You
clearly have political differences with Ms. Bondi, and I'm sure
you disagree with her on many issues. So what would you say to
critics of Ms. Bondi who believe that she is, quote, unquote,
``too partisan'' to serve as our Nation's Attorney General?
Mr. Aronberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those critics should
talk to her political opponents in the past, like me, like Dan
Gelber, who was the Democrat who beat me, who ran against her
in the general election. They're friends. It's rare these days
that you see people who battle it out in a general election
remain friends after all these years. She had relationships
across the aisle within the Florida Legislature. I know because
I was in the Florida Legislature before I ran for Attorney
General, and I saw it up close. I think some of the criticism
comes in that she is loyal to President Trump, and she is, she
is. But I never believed that if asked to do something illegal,
that she would knowingly do that. She would never step across
the line. In my mind, I can't imagine her doing that.
I echo what Nick Cox said, is that she's always been
tethered to the law. She understands as a 20-year prosecutor
that prosecutors have to follow the evidence and the law. And
because of her background as someone who is not a super
partisan--she had never run for office before running for
Attorney General, she doesn't come from the world of politics,
she comes from the world of prosecutors and the criminal
justice system--that I do believe that she will act in a way
that is always tethered to the law and will not cross that line
to making purely political decisions.
Chairman Grassley. You worked with her on drug issues very
much. Seeing how Ms. Bondi handled the opioid crisis in
Florida, how do you think she will handle the crisis on a
national level?
Mr. Aronberg. I think she's going to get tough on fentanyl
across the Border. I don't know the specifics on how she plans
to tighten up on it, but I know she's going to make it a
priority because when we had an opioid epidemic in Florida and
we were the drug supplier for the rest of the country, she went
to a reluctant Republican-dominated Legislature and told them
we needed to pass this Prescription Drug Monitoring Program,
something that had been stalled for a decade in Tallahassee,
and she got it done. I had run on that platform. If I had been
elected attorney general as a Democrat, I don't think I
could've persuaded that Legislature to do it, but she had the
credibility. It took Nixon to go to China. It took her to
convince a recalcitrant Republican Legislature to pass these
needed reforms. So I don't know specifically what she will do,
but I know that she will not shy away from standing up to
people in her own party who will disagree with her on it.
Chairman Grassley. Mr. Cox, you've worked with Ms. Bondi
for three decades, and you're also the longest-serving
statewide prosecutor. Some have suggested that Ms. Bondi's
lobbying and political career will influence her decision-
making. In your decades of working with her, have you ever
known her to make a decision that was illegal or unethical?
Mr. Cox. Absolutely not. Ms. Bondi, as Mr. Aronberg
referred to, and quite honestly, Ms. McCord could tell you, as
well, you know, being a prosecutor is about focusing on the law
and focusing on the evidence and focusing on, really, what's
right. That's what our job is, to do justice. I know that she's
embraced that. She's practiced that. I have never seen anything
untoward in any of the cases I ever worked with Ms. Bondi.
Chairman Grassley. And, Sheriff Gainey, you served as Ms.
Bondi's director of law enforcement and victim services. You
spoke in your opening statement about Ms. Bondi's work with
State and Federal and local law enforcement. What would you say
is Ms. Bondi's biggest achievement as far as Attorney General,
from the perspective of you as a law enforcement officer?
Mr. Gainey. Senator, her willingness to partner with law
enforcement. It's not uncommon for her to call together
sheriffs and police chiefs, State law enforcement and Federal
to seek from those leaders and directors what the issues are.
Florida's a large State, those issues are vast and they change
from one State to the other. She sits down with those partners,
discusses those issues, and then fiercely do everything in her
power to assure that the men and women in our State and our
Federal offices in our State have the resources and the tools
to do their job. It was not uncommon we had--during legislative
sessions, Sheriff's Association met in her office, the Florida
Prosecutors' Association met in her office. She provided space
so we can be there to consult with her and her team and her
staff on a regular basis as we addressed issues before our
Legislature every single year.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Sheriff Gainey, let me follow up with you
on a subject. You're aware of what happened here January 6 in
the Capitol Complex and the law enforcement personnel who were
attacked by the mob, the demonstrators, and a number of them--
hundreds of them have been prosecuted and some are serving
sentences for violent felonies against our police. Was there
anything like that in your background dealing with Ms. Bondi
where she's been called on to make a decision on standing up
for law enforcement in similar circumstances?
Mr. Gainey. Senator, every single day, quite frankly. She
had worked with--we, unfortunately experienced law enforcement
officers killed in the State of Florida. She was there not only
to work with those law enforcement agencies and those families,
with respect to prosecutors, whether it was our statewide or
our local prosecutors or our Federal prosecutors, she was a
fierce supporter to make sure that the laws of the State of
Florida was enforced, that men and women of law enforcement
were supported, and their families knew that she supported them
on a regular basis.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Cox, you talked about several
instances, experiences you had with Ms. Bondi when she was
under political pressure. Could you tell us a little bit more
about one of those?
Mr. Cox. Well, candidly, there was some pressure at the
beginning when Mr. Aronberg mentioned about the--oh, I
apologize.
Senator Durbin. You want to pull that microphone close to
you.
Mr. Cox. That is the first time anyone's asked me to pull a
microphone closer.
Senator Durbin. I may change my mind. Go ahead.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cox. You wouldn't be the first, many judges have.
Ranking Member Durbin, yes. Right from the beginning when Mr.
Aronberg mentioned about the problems we had with the opioid
epidemic and the pill mills, she was actually--I will say
this--was getting some pushback from our Governor, Senator Rick
Scott, and it was about the PDMP. And I was there when she sat
down with Senator Scott--I believe Sheriff Gainey was there
with us, as well--and we had a couple sheriffs, and we were
speaking with Ms. Bondi about it. She called the Governor--now
Senator, I apologize--right then and put him on the phone with
us, and had us discuss with him the need for the PDMP, the
Prescription Drug Monitoring database, and--which ended up
making a massive change. And to the Senator's credit, he sat
down and listened to us, asked us questions, and in the end,
she convinced him we needed it. And as I recall, it was within
the next week or two that he came up here and he announced his
support for our PDMP. You know, she didn't have an agreement
with a person who she loves. I mean, she very much got along
very well with then-Governor Scott, and she confronted him
about it and changed his mind.
Senator Durbin. Now here's a track record.
Mr. Cox. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. This newly elected President--as former
President, fired two Attorneys General under circumstances
where they disagreed with him. Senator Sessions in one instance
and Bill Barr on another, and they were both fired. So it's
pretty clear that he is not adverse to taking a different
position than his Attorney General and having a pretty short
temper when it comes to dealing with it. That's the reality of
what we see on the record--not once but twice. Can you
understand our concern about whether she would react positively
if he put that pressure on her?
Mr. Cox. I can understand your concern, yes, sir. But the
Pam Bondi I know as a prosecutor, where her heart is as a
prosecutor, and having my experience with her myself telling
her no when she was the Attorney General, I believe she will
stand up to it. I truly believe that. She understands what our
duty is. She understands, I think, the boundaries of the ethics
that she mentioned several times yesterday. She understands all
of that, and she's a true prosecutor. Yes, sir, I believe she
will do it.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. Ms. Gilbert, on this question of
conflicts of interest and recusal--Ms. McCord, I invite you to
answer this, as well, in the short time left--you seem to
suggest that she can't recuse herself out of her current
situation, her background as a lobbyist and attorney
representing private interests, that she might be able to find
some response to it but can't overcome what you called
systemic--or whatever characterization you used. Haven't we had
Attorneys General in the past with backgrounds in the private
sector facing similar circumstances?
Ms. Gilbert. We have had lobbyists become Attorney General
in the past, but nowhere near the scope and scale of Ms. Bondi
with 30 clients of her own in just the last 5 years, and coming
from a firm that represents such a broad swath of corporate
America. It would be very hard for her to remove herself from
every situation that touches on these corporate interests. One
easy example, I mentioned, GEO Group. There's not a pending
enforcement action or investigation into them. There is one
into their top rival, the other biggest private prison company,
CoreCivic. She would not be expected to recuse herself from
that. However, ramifications from it could impact GEO Group.
And so it's just one small example of how interconnected
corporate America is and how hard it will be for her to remove
herself from all these situations.
Senator Durbin. I think my time is up. Are you next up?
Senator Tillis [presiding]. I'll be acting on behalf of the
Chair, and I am next in the order.
Mr. Aronberg, you ran in a primary, got defeated by a
Democrat, endorsed that Democrat in the general election
against Pam Bondi, and Pam Bondi hired you?
Mr. Aronberg. Correct.
Senator Tillis. Thank you.
Mr. Aronberg. Correct, Senator.
Senator Tillis. Thank you. And so, and actually, I can tell
that you've still got a liberal leaning because in the same
sentence that you complimented Pam Bondi, you took a shot at a
Republican-led Legislature by calling them recalcitrant. So, I
mean, folks, you need to pay attention to that. This is
somebody who's been a foe, who probably spoke against her in a
public setting, and she had the temperament and the good
judgment to look past your political views and hire you into
her organization. I think that says a lot about people. In
fact, I've made friends with the guy that ran against me, and
nobody on the Democrat side seems to like him anymore.
So, Ms. Gilbert, this lobbying thing, and I don't mean
this--in the time allowed, can you talk about specific things
that she lobbied for versus the firm that was retained? I don't
know if Qatar hit the Bingo card today. It may have for you,
but then when Ms. Bondi explained that this was $115,000 a
month for a firm that was handling human trafficking cases, is
that bad?
Ms. Gilbert. [Voice heard off microphone.]
Senator Tillis. So I'm assuming not, so let's go to the
next one. What specifically did she or the firm do for these--
yesterday, she focused it with Senator Booker on the abysmal
state of the Bureau of Prisons. So she's clearly going to drill
down on that. What, in your due diligence, what specific acts
did she--not her firm--did she engage in that makes you feel
like her sincerity toward Senator Booker yesterday was not
genuine?
Ms. Gilbert. I can't speak to her specific sincerity or
motivations, but I can look at----
Senator Tillis. Speak specifically to what she lobbied for
that you expressed as a concern for the Bureau of--or for the
private prisons, specifically what she lobbied for.
Ms. Gilbert. Absolutely. So from what we know about her
engagements with GEO Group, as mentioned in my testimony,
they've been condemned for not having a lot of----
Senator Tillis. I get it. Private pri--there are problems
with them, but I guess I'm trying to get to what specific
issues do you think she carries into this office that would
undermine her credibility in trying to do a better job with the
Bureau of Prisons? I'm just trying to get to the facts. I'm not
an attorney, I don't even play one here, but I'm just trying to
figure out what specific acts did she do. Other than the--
around here, it'll be on the Bingo card for Kash Patel because
we know where that's headed. But what specifically for any of
the high tech, any of them, what specifically did she advocate
for, other than the by reference concern that we may have?
That's all I want to know from your organization. What
specifically have you found about Pam Bondi in a filing, in an
argument, in a letter that she specifically said that you
believe would undermine her credibility?
Ms. Gilbert. Yes, and I think from our perspective, it is
about the appearance of impropriety. It's actually not about--
--
Senator Tillis. Okay. Actually not just appearance, so you
don't have a specific example.
Ms. Gilbert. It's about the engagement with this entity
and----
Senator Tillis. Yes, okay.
Ms. Gilbert [continuing]. And the fact that----
Senator Tillis. So I get it, I get it. But in the same way
that we know the facts about Qatar now because we ask about it,
it'll be interesting to see what specific role that she played.
Thank you. I appreciate you being here.
Ms. McCord, you worked in the Obama administration. Were
you a career or political?
Ms. McCord. The entirety of my time at the Department of
Justice, I was in a career position.
Senator Tillis. You were a career position? Okay. Thank
you. And, Mr. Gainey, it sounds like--in the same--I did the
same thing or I have done the same thing that I think Pam Bondi
has done, just call somebody out of the blue and say we got to
take it a different direction. Isn't it also, I mean, she got a
lot of blowback from the Republican Legislature for some of the
work that she was doing, to point that Mr. Aronberg made. Is
that true?
Mr. Gainey. That is true, Senator. In fact, it's the call
that Mr. Cox referenced. It was on a Saturday morning, to be
more specific.
Senator Tillis. So I bet if we went back at a time, like I
sometimes get attacked, I bet if we went back at the times,
we'd probably find several examples where people were taking
shots at her from her side of the aisle for doing something
that's proven to be very important. So she strikes me as
somebody that can--that was her power, that was her influence
back in her time as prosecutor, and she stood up to them and
did the right thing, and didn't really care whether or not she
got reelected. Is that correct?
Mr. Gainey. That is correct.
Senator Tillis. Thank you all. On behalf of the Chair,
Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Thank you, also,
Senator Durbin, and thank you to the witnesses before us today.
I'm going to start with you, Ms. McCord. Welcome back to
the Committee. If we could just go through these answers
because I think it's really important to put this outside of
personal friendships, all these things, whether or not the
Attorney General is a Democrat, Republican, who's in charge.
And you testified that the Attorney General is not the
President's personal attorney. In fact, the person is the
attorney for the United States, the AG is. And you referenced
Attorney General William French Smith's comments at his
nomination hearing. Can you talk about the importance of
maintaining this distinction that the AG is the attorney for
the U.S. and not for the President?
Ms. McCord. So it's important not only to have the
confidence of the career prosecutors and law enforcement
officials within the Department, but also to the country
because the loyalty does need to be to the United States and to
the Constitution. And there may be times, and I think Senator
Durbin pointed out times in the previous Trump administration
where the Attorney General did not show sufficient loyalty to
Donald Trump, and those Attorneys lost their positions.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. And in your written
testimony, you described the Justice Department's White House
contacts policy that was established following the Watergate
scandal. It's been reaffirmed by AGs under both Republican and
Democratic Presidents ever since. The policy states that, ``All
communications about particular cases from the White House or
Congress must be referred to the AG or other high-level
officials in the Justice Department in order to preserve the
integrity and independence of DOJ investigations from political
interference.'' Yesterday, I asked Ms. Bondi if she agreed with
former Attorney General Mukasey, Republican Attorney General,
that any attempt--his words--any attempt by the White House--
his words--to interfere with a case is not to be countenanced
and any call to a line assistant or to a United States Attorney
from a political person relating to a case is to be cut and
curtailed. She affirmed that she agreed with that statement.
You also testified to a parallel White House policy, Ms.
McCord. Can you speak to the importance of both the Justice
Department and the White House maintaining and abiding by
strict contacts policies?
Ms. McCord. Well, historically, like I said, post-
Watergate, these policies have been instituted under Republican
and Democratic administrations. In fact, Don McGahn, the White
House Counsel in the first Trump administration, reissued that
White House contacts policy in January of the first term
because he recognized the importance that it not just be a DOJ
policy, but that all within the White House staff know not to
pressure the Department--or other Departments and Agencies when
it comes to specific matters.
Senator Klobuchar. And how can Congress exercise its
oversight authorities to ensure that the policies on both sides
are being followed?
Ms. McCord. I think starting with the questions you asked
yesterday, Senator Klobuchar, is a good start, and if it should
come--if there should come any time where it seems like these
policies are not being complied with or if there is a refusal
to adopt or continue those policies, those are something that
Congress should be very concerned about.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Ms. Gilbert, you've been before us
many times on the subject of antitrust, and as you know and I
know and many Democrats and Republicans on this Committee know,
monopolies will go very far to preserve their power. Tech-
funded groups, for instance, spent hundreds of millions of
dollars against Senator Grassley and my bill, which was, of
course, not just supported by consumer groups, but also by
groups as conservative as the NFIB, the Small Business
Association, because of the unfairness of monopoly tech
companies putting their own products at the top of their search
engines and the unfair competition that results when they have
that kind of power. You know there are cases out there right
now that are really important on monopolies, Google, Apple,
Live Nation-Ticketmaster, RealPage that are being litigated to
their fullest. Why is it important that the new AG continue
these cases to protect consumers, enhance competition, and--
just a general question about the rules of the road--and how
important this is as Senator Grassley and I reintroduce our
bill.
Ms. Gilbert. Absolutely. Thank you for that question and
for your and Senator Grassley's great work in this space. We
are hopeful that the new Department of Justice will continue
the cases that have been begun over the last 4 years. We've
been really excited to see the strong forward momentum for
dealing with corporate concentration, taking on monopolies head
on. It's so important for consumers. Public Citizen is a
consumer organization, and as we think about regular people and
engaging with the markets, you know, if they are squeezed out,
if they can't sell their products, if there isn't fair
competition, if small businesses can't get ahead, these are all
problems for regular Americans. And so just really hopeful that
the DOJ will continue what they've started that these cases
roll on. And then I also want to put a plug in for your
fantastic bill, yours and Senator Grassley's. We hope as the
DOJ continues, so can the work here in the Senate on this
important policy to stop self-preferencing, as you mentioned.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Well, thank you, and I wanted
to thank also others on the panel for their important work when
it comes to pill mills and what it was and is going on with
these horrible, horrible situations where people are getting
hooked while people are profiting off of it. Thank you.
Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, Senator Schmitt.
Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've heard a lot
about the newfound concern that my Democrat colleagues have
about independence in the AG's office. And given over the last
4 years, it is ironic. Ms. McCord, I do want to ask you, you're
talking about the importance of independence. Is it concerning
to you that Eric Holder, while he was Attorney General,
described himself as Obama's heat shield and his wingman? Is
that concerning to you?
Ms. McCord. That's probably not the best description of the
job of the Attorney General, but I think the record probably
speaks for itself and speaks differently.
Senator Schmitt. Okay. Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton
just days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton on the
investigation as it relates to emails. Does that meeting with
the spouse and former President of the subject of the
investigation, is that concerning to you as it relates to the
appearance of independence?
Ms. McCord. My understanding of that is a chance encounter
at an airport on the tarmac, and that does not actually give me
concern.
Senator Schmitt. Okay. I don't think that's what happened,
but that's an interesting characterization of that. But, I
think--and I'm going to switch to you now, Mr. Cox, because
these are sort of related. I think the frustration a lot of
Americans feel and why the decline in trust and faith in the
Department of Justice is they saw exactly what happened over
the last 4 years, which was a very obvious attempt to try to
jail a political opponent, and I'm not going to ask you to
comment on that.
Mr. Cox. Thank you.
Senator Schmitt. Yes. I'm not going to ask you to comment
on that, but I think that's why you see a lot of the questions
that are asked by my Republican colleagues on this Committee.
It is just this lawfare. We don't want to see it continue, but
what we've seen over the last 4 years is a total disgrace. And
I think for the hardworking men and women in the Department of
Justice who aren't engaged in this, you know, it's affected the
Department's reputation and why I'm such a big believer in Pam
Bondi and what she can do, and try to restore credibility to an
Agency that has been weaponized and politicized, and get it
back to its core function, which is objectively administering
justice and taking on violent crime.
And I just want to ask you, in your experience with Pam
Bondi, this has been what she's done. She's a career
prosecutor. Right? I mean, you can see her embracing this role
of working with, whether it's the U.S. attorneys or other law
enforcement around the country, of taking on violent crime
because we need leadership there. We've got a lot of, you know,
crime has gone up, and I'm from a State that has, you know, St.
Louis and Kansas City, and we had partnerships when I was
Attorney General with the U.S. Attorney's Office to take on
violent crime. And when Joe Biden came into office, those were
severed for political reasons. Which is wrong. It's not a
partisan issue. Do you see that as a role that she will play as
Attorney General?
Mr. Cox. Absolutely, but what you just described about the
relations with law enforcement is what not only she practiced,
she encouraged all of us around her to do. And I could not
agree more with you about your assessment of Ms. Bondi on that.
Look, we're prosecutors. I mean, in her heart, Pam's a
prosecutor, and, you know, our job is to go in and fight crime.
But, you know, we don't take lightly, those of us that are
career prosecutors, that our job is to do justice. I mean,
that's what the courts have said, and at her heart, 100
percent, that's Pam Bondi. It really is. So yes, and she--Pam
loves law enforcement. I mean, let's not kid each other. We all
love law enforcement, and everybody and everything they stand
for. And so, yes, sir, I believe she would do that with law
enforcement and prosecutors. She did it in Florida.
Senator Schmitt. And we'll talk offline about your role.
It's an interesting role because in Missouri the local
prosecutors are the ones--we don't have--there's no office of
statewide prosecutors, so I'm not going to ask you about that.
I just find that's interesting.
Mr. Cox. Not common.
Senator Schmitt. It's not a common thing, but in your
experience in serving with Pam Bondi, did you find her
committed to enforcing the law equally and impartially?
Mr. Cox. Oh, yes, sir, I did. I mean, that's what we're
supposed to do. And she embraced it, yes, sir, she did.
Senator Schmitt. Thank you.
Mr. Cox. She is complete prosecutor, she is a total
prosecutor, and that's why when I speak to her independence,
it's because she believes in it, and it's in her heart. I mean,
you know, seeing her recently, I mean, I know that's where she
is. I really truly meant it when I said to my colleagues at the
U.S. Department of Justice, if confirmed, you're going to love
working with Pam Bondi.
Senator Schmitt. I couldn't agree with you more, which is
why I was thrilled to be able to give that introduction
yesterday of Pam. I think she's going to be an outstanding
Attorney General, and I think, like I said yesterday, I think
she deserves a bipartisan vote, not only in this Committee, but
on the Senate floor. Thank you for being here today.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Grassley [presiding]. Senator Welch, you're next.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much, and I thank all the
witnesses. I read your statements, and watched, and I want to
thank the Florida folks for being here on behalf of somebody
that you know well and worked with a long time. She clearly is
a competent person and has quite a resume, so you reaffirmed
that.
A couple of questions that I have are less about her and
her qualifications and more about this question that looms out
there, where there's a mutual concern here about not using the
justice system for political reasons. And there's a point of
view with my Republican colleagues it's been used that way in
the prosecutions against Donald Trump. I don't agree with that,
but I hear them on that. And there's a concern on my part, and
I think a lot of our--others, that Donald Trump has made very
explicit statements that he intends to pursue political
adversaries and he's named them, including my colleague, Mr.
Schiff, Liz Cheney.
And, he's a--he is now a President who enjoys the benefit
of the--he will be a President who enjoys the benefit of the
immunity decision by the Supreme Court. I strongly disagree
with that decision. I don't think anybody is above the law.
That's the whole basis upon which our country was founded. But
I take him seriously when he says he wants a prosecutor to go
after his political adversaries. And the tradition in the
Justice Department, since Watergate, has been to really create
a near firewall between the administration--the Executive and
the Justice Department because of its special role. And all of
you are law enforcement so you just know how awesome that power
is that you have, and you have to have restraint, as well as
aggression.
So how does an Attorney General handle a President who has
already put an immense amount of pressure on Bill Barr, one of
his Attorney General, who did it on Mr. Sessions. And shouldn't
we take seriously the President's threat--President Trump's
threat that he's going to go after his political adversaries?
And how do we deal with that? And how do we assess that in
terms of this decision? I'll ask you, Ms. McCord, to start.
Ms. McCord. Thank you, Senator. You know, as we know that
in the first Trump administration, Attorney General Sessions
made the decision to recuse himself from the Russia
investigation because of his work with Donald Trump during the
campaign and because of meetings he had had with the Russian
ambassador during the campaign. He recognized that appearance
of impropriety and the need for independence. He also appointed
a special counsel to take over that investigation. Those are
the kind of steps that are required when--when there could be
pressure, and there was pressure put on Attorney General
Sessions. Indeed, I think forever after that recusal decision,
he fell out of favor with the President and, ultimately, was
fired. But those are the things that an independent Attorney
General needs to take seriously and needs to do to demonstrate
that commitment to independence from political influence.
Senator Welch. You know, what's difficult here is that none
of us know whoever is in that job and is confronted by a very
determined President Trump to do something that, from the
prosecution point of view, may not be appropriate--a political
prosecution of an adversary for payback--there's no way to know
how any of us, as committed as we are, would be able to
withstand that pressure. But I'll just--I'll talk to you, sir.
Yes, you worked with Pam Bondi and have a high opinion of her.
I'll give you the opportunity to say how she would be able to
withstand what I think is inevitably going to be an enormous
amount of pressure by the President at a certain point when he
decides, directed toward whoever serves as his Attorney
General.
Mr. Cox. Let me start out by saying I've been fortunate
enough not to be in that situation because I've had Attorneys
General that I work for, like Pam Bondi and Ashley Moody.
However, a prosecutor's job is a solemn thing. The impact we
have on lives is--you mentioned the power, and you're
absolutely right. It's got to be respected, it's got to be
appreciated, it's got to be embraced. And sometimes that
means--I've been in positions before where I've thought, if I
do or say this, I could lose my job. But you've got to be
willing to do that. I don't know how else to say it. It's
tough. It's very tough. My job, fortunately, is really not a
political job because of my AGs.
Senator Welch. Right.
Mr. Cox. But you do have to be in the position sometimes
when right is right to have to stand up and buck up.
Senator Welch. All right. Well, thank you very much. I
yield back.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to each of
the witnesses who are here today. Mr. Cox, let me start with
you.
Mr. Cox. Yes, sir.
Senator Cruz. You worked with Attorney General Bondi for
over 35 years.
Mr. Cox. Yes, sir.
Senator Cruz. Can you speak to her leadership style and
then, how she managed the Attorney General's office?
Mr. Cox. Fair--of course very kind, but firm. She was very
decisive. That's what I liked about her. But in her decision,
Ms. Bondi always listened. There were times she and I
disagreed, several times, many times where we would disagree,
and she would hear me out. Sometimes I'd change her mind,
believe it or not. It wasn't often, but it happened. But
sometimes, you know, she would listen to me and go the way she
felt. That was her job. She was the Attorney General. But she
is very firm. She's very decisive.
And I will tell you, the number of times I walked with
her--she appreciates my role and our role as prosecutors. The
number of times I would walk away from her, and she wouldn't
agree with my decision maybe on a particular case, and she
would tell me, do what you got to do. I mentioned it earlier in
my statement. That's the Pam Bondi that I worked with. That's
why I'm so confident in her that she can fill this role.
Senator Cruz. So I think the single most important
responsibility that General Bondi will have at the Department
of Justice is restoring integrity to the Department. I think
over the last 4 years, we have seen a pattern of politicization
and weaponization of the Department of Justice that has done
massive damage to that institution, a storied institution that
is incredibly important for the rule of law. Speak to your
assessment of General Bondi's integrity and her ability to
restore integrity to DOJ.
Mr. Cox. Might I just answer that first off by saying she's
a prosecutor, and that's what we're supposed to do. I've spoken
to it several times, and I won't repeat myself, Senator. At her
heart, she believes in the system. She believes in what we do.
I don't think it gets--with all due respect to everybody in
this room and that may be listening, I don't know how much more
serious it gets on impacting lives than being a prosecutor and
being a judge who has to handle these cases. And she's always
respected that. You know, I mentioned in my statement, she's
never forgotten, she's never lost her humanity, and she hasn't.
You know, she, might I say--I don't know if this is answering
your question--Pam Bondi likes people, and she wants people to
like her, and I don't know that that's so bad for an Attorney
General, either. Bbut she appreciates the impact of this job. I
hope I've answered your question, Senator.
Senator Cruz. All right. Mr. Aronberg, let's turn to you.
So you and I have known each other 30 years. We were classmates
in law school. It's good to see you. Welcome to the Swamp. You
live in Palm Beach, which is a lot nicer weather than it is up
here, and you spent 3 terms as the elected State attorney in
Palm Beach County. You're a Democrat, you ran as a Democrat,
were elected as a Democrat, and you also, in this last
election, voted for Kamala Harris. Is that right?
Mr. Aronberg. Correct.
Senator Cruz. You've also worked closely with General
Bondi.
Mr. Aronberg. Correct.
Senator Cruz. In your judgment, describe--same question I
asked Mr. Cox, how would you describe her leadership style, and
how would you describe her integrity?
Mr. Aronberg. Well, Senator Cruz, in full disclosure, we
didn't--we weren't just classmates. You and I, we lived in the
same dorm----
Senator Cruz. Yep.
Mr. Aronberg [continuing]. First year before either of us
had any gray hair.
Senator Cruz. And burn those pictures.
Mr. Aronberg. Fair enough. Mr. Cox is right. She has a very
hands-on style. Everyone in the office knows her. She was not
isolated from the rest of us. She walked the hallways. She was
friends with everyone. She brought her dog to work sometimes,
even though it probably violated code. And it was a big dog, a
St. Bernard. And she's a very likable person.
Senator Cruz. It didn't have a barrel of whiskey under its
neck. Did it?
Mr. Aronberg. Only in Bugs Bunny cartoons. She's a very
likable person, and I think you'll find that from everyone who
knows her in Tallahassee and throughout Florida. It's hard not
to like her. You can disagree with her politically--and she and
I have our political differences--but as far as a boss, she
never tried to big time anyone. She's a person like everyone
else. She is--she expects the best from people, but she has a
real human touch about her.
Senator Cruz. Now, you also worked with her very closely,
in particular, in going after pill mills. Can you describe what
you and she were able to accomplish together on that?
Mr. Aronberg. We were able to shut down the pill mills.
Florida was the pill supplier for the rest of the country.
Ninety-eight of the top hundred doctors who dispense pills were
in Florida. It was a national embarrassment. The ``OxyContin
Express'' was from Appalachia down to Florida. People would
come down, buy their drugs, use, abuse, and then go home and
sell them for a profit. We ended that. She appointed me to be
the lead person, but we could not have done it without her. She
was the person who got the Legislature to change the laws. We
couldn't have done any of that without that. She was the one
who convinced them to pass the Prescription Drug Monitoring
Program. That was indispensable. So it was her leadership that
really led to a dramatic decrease in the number of deaths from
opioid overdoses.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Mr. Aronberg. Thank you.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
testifying today.
Professor McCord, I'd like to ask you about January 6
attack on the U.S. Capitol. Can you succinctly define
``domestic terrorism'' ?
Ms. McCord. Domestic terrorism under the United States Code
is a crime--it is an act of violence that is a crime under
Federal or State law that is done with the attempt to influence
the policy of government through intimidation or coercion.
Senator Hirono. Based on that definition, were some of the
acts committed on January 6 acts of domestic terrorism?
Ms. McCord. Certainly the acts of violence that violate the
Criminal Code do seem to have appeared for many of the people
based on their own statements. Many of the defendants in cases
that are being prosecuted, they seem to have been done to
influence the policy of the Government--and specifically to not
certify the Electoral College ballots on January 6.
Senator Hirono. Yesterday, Ms. Bondi refused to disavow
President Trump calling the insurrectionists hostages and
patriots. What effect would President Trump's pardoning of
these criminals have on our country?
Ms. McCord. It would have an----
Senator Hirono. What's the message if that were to happen?
Ms. McCord. Senator, I believe it would have an enormous
impact on the criminal legal system, and I would say also on
our judiciary. In fact, I published a piece about that this
morning in the Atlantic. We have our Federal judges here,
across--appointed by Republicans, Democrats, and President
Trump himself, who uniformly have condemned the crimes of those
who have been convicted due to their attack on the U.S.
Capitol, that anything close to a blanket pardon, which is what
has been suggested but not promised by Donald Trump, without
individual consideration of cases, would severely undermine
these Federal judges and undermine the criminal legal system.
Senator Hirono. We know--and this has come up with one of
my colleagues. We know from the disastrous Supreme Court
immunity decision that President Trump pretty much has a free
pass to do what he wants. An unfettered President is even more
dangerous if the Department of Justice is not independent. So
based on your extensive experience of the DOJ, are there
warning signs that we should watch for to signal that the DOJ
has lost its independence?
Ms. McCord. Senator, I think as we've seen sometimes in the
past, that when there are concerns among the career prosecutors
and law enforcement officials at the Department who have
responsibility over investigations and cases, when they have
felt pressured, many of them have actually resigned. We saw
that during the first Trump administration with respect to some
of the prosecutions involving Michael Flynn and Roger Stone.
Senator Hirono. So I take it that people resigning is one
indication that all is not well, that independence is maybe not
what's in practice. I'm just wondering, if we were to ask the
Attorney General, if the President ordered you or suggested or
hinted that you go after his perceived political enemies, would
the Attorney General be able to cite attorney-client privilege
and not respond to us?
Ms. McCord. I don't want to give a legal opinion on that,
Senator. I do think that that is the type of pressure that we
are looking to an Attorney General to stand up to, from the
White House, and I certainly want to take Ms. Bondi at her word
when she, under oath, yesterday said she would exercise
independence.
Senator Hirono. Well, the thing is, what's deeply
concerning about Ms. Bondi is that she's very loyal to
President-elect Trump, and he demands a hundred percent loyalty
of all of his people. So yesterday, Ms. Bondi could not say
that President Biden had won the election in 2020. That is a
basic fact. And I think that the--it was her loyalty to
President-elect Trump that basically made it hard for her--
impossible for her to say that President Biden had won the
election. So that is concerning.
Based on what we heard yesterday, I'm very concerned that,
if confirmed, Attorney General Bondi will say yes if and when
President Trump asked her to do something illegal. And the
thing is that not much of what President-elect Trump will do is
going to be deemed illegal because of the Supreme Court's
disastrous immunity decision. So I'm really struggling with how
are we to know that all is not well in terms of the
independence of the DOJ? One thing would be if they adopt a
policy--or the President adopts a policy that he will not order
the DOJ around, even if this incoming President has said the
Justice Department is basically his law firm. So if you all--if
you have any further suggestions, aside from people actually
resigning to indicate that the kind of independence we are
looking for is not being followed, I would welcome that. Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Britt [presiding]. And, Senator, Hirono, your time
is up. Thank you.
Senator Hirono. This is fine.
Senator Britt. Thank you. Let's see. Mr. Cox, I'd like to
start with you. I heard your comments with regards to both Pam
Bondi, who we are here for today, and you heaped praise on
Attorney General Moody, who you work for, as well. I'd like to
say a public congratulations to her being named Senate designee
and be the next Senator from Florida. Oh look, I get to deliver
the news to you. So DeSantis just came out----
Mr. Cox. Wow.
Senator Britt [continuing]. And said she will be joining
us. I am thrilled. I mean, as a mom of school-age kids, to have
another woman sitting right here next to me fighting for the
people that we serve with what I understand is her brilliant
intellect, her ability, and her passion for the people of
Florida, which I know she will bring to the United States
Senate. I cannot wait to call her a colleague. So on behalf of
me--and all of us, welcome to Attorney General Moody, new
Senate designee. We look forward to her taking the ranks.
Mr. Cox. Might I respond or comment just briefly?
Senator Britt. Sure. Absolutely.
Mr. Cox. Senators, you're going to love Ashley Moody. She
is a wonderful person to work with. She's brilliant, I--that is
wow----
Senator Britt. Wow. Right?
Mr. Cox. Thank you for telling me.
Senator Britt. Oh, I'm so excited, I got to tell you.
Mr. Cox. The best thing about it is, I can say I learned
that in the United States Senate.
Senator Britt. In the United States Senate, that's right,
and hopefully she will be up here just in the next few days
after we confirm Senator Rubio, who's going to do an
exceptional job as Secretary of State. So congratulations to
Ashley and cannot wait to serve with her.
Mr. Cox. Thank you.
Senator Britt. So now let's talk about another amazing
woman, Pam Bondi. I have heard you over and over again when you
respond to questions talking about her, I think you said she is
fair, kind, and firm. You have talked about the fact that she
is transparent and impartial. I would like for you one more
time to say to the American people, based on your previous work
with Pam Bondi, can you explain how she'll continue to operate,
you believe, in that manner, in a fair and transparent manner
as she takes the helm of the Justice Department?
Mr. Cox. Because she believes in everything you just
questioned me about, and she practiced it in Florida. You know,
whether you agreed with her or not, Pam Bondi, like I said, is
a person who really likes people. I think we should welcome
that into Government. I think that sometimes we lose sight of--
prosecutors--I'm going to speak to myself--we can lose sight of
the fact, as the Ranking Member mentioned, the immense power
that we have and we get caught up in it. Pam Bondi doesn't get
caught up in those kinds of trappings.
Senator Britt. I love it.
Mr. Cox. Yes. She loves people, and she at her heart,
again, is a prosecutor. As Mr. Aronberg had mentioned, nobody
has anything to fear from Pam Bondi. She is going to be a
breath of fresh air, if you all send her there.
Senator Britt. Absolutely, and I think we need to restore
those very things, fairness and transparency, to the
Department, and I look forward to her taking the helm. She's
going to do that for the American people, and it's an exciting
new day, so thank you so very much.
Mr. Cox. Thank you for the news.
Senator Britt. Absolutely. We are thrilled. So, Mr.
Aronberg, I learned obviously that we need to talk with you
offline about getting those stories on Cruz. Right? But--and
also that she has a St. Bernard. I have a Newfoundland, so who
knew that we both had love for the large dogs.
And, Sheriff Gainey, I know that you've had an opportunity
to work with Pam Bondi, as well. I want to talk to you
specifically, both of you, about the opioid epidemic--about
what we've seen with drug trafficking. I mentioned it
yesterday. We heard Pam lean into this, as well, but there is
nowhere in my State that I travel where someone does not tell
me a story about losing a loved one to opioid abuse, addiction,
overdose. And so tell me from your experience how she works
with State and local law enforcement officers, State and local
leaders. I'm a big believer that local leaders know best, and
you have people that come to DC that somehow get here and
believe that we become experts on every issue, and the truth is
you have to talk to the boots on the ground to learn what to
do, how to do it, and to affect real change. And so can you
both speak to her relationships with State and local law
enforcement and work force, and how you believe she'll carry
that to the Department of Justice, please?
Mr. Aronberg. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Britt,
and thank you for the news about Attorney General Moody. I hope
Nick Cox still has a job when he goes home.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Aronberg. When I was her Attorney General Bondi's drug
czar, we were visited by Gil Kerlikowske, who was President
Obama's drug czar nationally, and it was a very productive
meeting. I still have the pictures from that meeting. Not once
was there ever a discussion that, well, he's from the Feds, we
shouldn't trust him, he's a Democrat, we shouldn't trust him.
None of that. We were just trying to get the job done. And so
she's seen it from both perspectives, as a State official
working with the Feds and now to be a national--to be a Federal
official working with the locals.
One--the person who can best talk about how she has a great
relationship with local law enforcement is Emery Gainey because
he was the liaison. She had a special liaison within her office
to make sure that she had a seamless relationship working with
local officials. I saw it, but Mr. Gainey is the best to talk
about it.
Senator Britt. Yes, and, Sheriff Gainey, if you don't mind
leaning into that, I am out of time but would love to hear your
response.
Mr. Gainey. Thank you, Senator. Unequivocally, that's one
of the four leaning rules of Pam Bondi: work with our law
enforcement leaders, learn and understand the issues that each
of those face. I mentioned earlier, we are a large State, as
you well know, so there are diverse issues that the law
enforcement, when in our State, that others have to deal. Pam
listens to those. She encourages those. She asked for advice
and wanted know what's happening in the community. Just the
whole pill mill and the bath salt issue was brought to her by a
Panhandle sheriff, quite frankly. What we've learned in law
enforcement, we often see these things first. We start seeing
these trends, and then we try to get them to our legislative
leaders and our Cabinet leaders to say, this is happening in
our State. Sometimes they listen to us. Other times they don't.
Pam listened. She listened right away. She immediately
sought out to understand what was causing that issue and then
sought legislation to get it done against some of our
Republican legislators at the time who didn't want it, but
she--her tenacity prevailed. She got it done. Our State is a
safer State because of Pam Bondi.
Senator Britt. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Senator
Schiff.
Senator Schiff. Thank you. Thank you to all the witnesses
for being here today. Greatly appreciate your testimony.
Ms. McCord, you testified--thank you for all your good work
over the years. You testified before the Committee last
September on the repercussions of Trump v. United States, the
case on Presidential immunity. You wrote, I think in your
written testimony, ``There is nothing stopping a President from
directing the investigation of his political enemies,
journalists, or activists, even where there is no basis for
doing so.'' As you will recall from the hearing yesterday, I
asked Ms. Bondi a number of questions about what her intentions
were, how she would respond if the President asked her to
investigate someone, whether she thought there was a factual
predicate for a case, for example, an investigation against
Jack Smith or Liz Cheney. For the most part, she refused to
answer any specific question. It didn't give me a lot of
confidence in her willingness to push back against those kind
of improper orders from the President.
What should the Attorney General do if a President is now,
by virtue of this dangerous Supreme Court decision, immune from
prosecution from violating the law and using the Department of
Justice to do it? It doesn't mean the Attorney General should
go along with it. What should the Attorney General do if the
President says, I want you to investigate such and such
political opponent?
Ms. McCord. Well, first of all, I would say the immunity
decision, right now, as far as we know, applies only to the
President. And so there's no immunity for Attorney General
Bondi if she were to engage in illegal activity or
unconstitutional activity in carrying out a directive of Donald
Trump. But I think before we even get to that, it would be
important for her to make clear that she is not going to direct
her Department attorneys or the FBI to initiate unfounded
investigations. The Department of Justice, throughout all of my
tenure there, always, we followed the facts and the law, and
did not target any person for investigation based on political
reasons. So it's really--that's why the independence is so much
more important even now in the wake of that decision because
she is the first person to have a position of standing up to
the President.
Senator Schiff. I also asked Ms. Bondi whether she would
commit to preserving the evidence that was gathered as a part
of the January 6 investigation by the Department. She refused
to commit to even preserving the evidence. Are there laws in
place or is it merely Department policy not to destroy
evidence? Should we have any confidence that that evidence will
be preserved?
Ms. McCord. Well, there certainly are Federal Records Act
obligations that require that records be maintained, and so I
think that she would be well advised to consult with
attorneys--career attorneys who specialize in that in the
Department of Justice and be guided by their counsel. And it's
certainly important in this case--in these cases, as in every
case prosecuted by the Department of Justice or investigated,
to maintain records.
Senator Schiff. And if I could ask both you, and Ms.
Gilbert, a recusal question. So, Ms. McCord, maybe let me ask
you about where you think the circumstance would be appropriate
for her to recuse herself, vis-a-vis her prior representation
of the President, and, Ms. Gilbert, in terms of her corporate
clients as a lobbyist, when would it be appropriate for her to
recuse herself from working on or influencing Department
decisions, vis-a-vis her former lobbyist clients?
Ms. McCord. Senator Schiff, I think with respect to her
previous, you know, personal representation of Donald Trump,
she needs to be very concerned, as William French Smith was
when he took on this job for President Reagan, having been
Reagan's personal attorney, that anything that would appear to
be improper, that would show impartiality, she should recuse
from. So, for example, investigations into anyone who was
involved in the first impeachment proceedings or prosecution
because she defended Donald Trump in those proceedings. Even
any investigations or prosecutions into those involved with the
cases against Donald Trump because she has made public
statements about prosecutors and investigators needing to be
targeted potentially. She's used the term ``the bad ones.'' I'm
not sure what that means in legal parlance.
So I think these are the types of matters, including also
civil matters. There is--Donald Trump has, through his
attorneys, filed notice of a civil action against the
Department of Justice based on the search of Mar-a-Lago.
Clearly, it would be improper for her to take any part in
that--in responding to that case.
Senator Britt. Thank you, and I just would like to note
that, obviously, yesterday, she clarified that she'd never
represented President Trump in a personal matter but actually
worked there directly with the White House. Also, it's
interesting because we have seen this body confirm members who
have lobbied for, you know, the Chinese Communist Party and
confirmed them to positions at ODNI, and it didn't seem that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle had an issue with
that. And it's also interesting that we continue to hear
General Sessions being brought up at these hearings over and
over again. I do want to remind people, obviously he is from
the great State of Alabama, but not one Member of the
Democratic Party in this actual hearing voted for him through
his confirmation process. So I just want to make sure that we
set the record straight on that, as well. But thank you to all
of our witness.
Senator Schiff. Mrs. Britt, I know I'm out of time.
Senator Britt. Yes.
Senator Schiff. Would it be possible for the other witness
to answer? She didn't have an opportunity because the clock ran
out?
Senator Britt. You know, I think we are out of time, but I
appreciate that, thank you. And thank you to our witnesses for
testifying today. I know that some of you traveled long and
hard to be here, and we are grateful that you did that.
The record will stay open until 5 p.m. tonight, and so if
you would like to add something to that, you are more than
welcome to, and all written questions are due at that time, as
well.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record for Day 1 and
Day 2 follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A P P E N D I X
The following submissions are available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119shrg61320/pdf/CHRG-
119shrg
61320-add1.pdf
Submitted by Chairman Grassley:
Aguinaga, J. Benjamin, et al., former Department of Justice
officials, January 6, 2025, letter............................ 2
Anderson, John C., et al., former United States Attorneys,
January 13, 2025, letter...................................... 9
Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, January
13, 2025, letter.............................................. 16
Fraternal Order of Police, January 2, 2025, letter to U.S.
President-elect Donald J. Trump............................... 18
Independent Women, January 15, 2025, letter...................... 19
International Association of Chiefs of Police, January 14, 2025,
letter........................................................ 20
Major County Sheriffs of America, January 10, 2025, letter....... 21
McDaniel, Hon. Dustin, et al., former State attorneys general,
January 7, 2025, letter....................................... 22
National Association of Police Organizations, January 9, 2025,
letter........................................................ 29
National Fusion Center Association, January 13, 2025, letter..... 30
National Narcotic Officers' Associations Coalition, January 10,
2025, letter.................................................. 31
National Sheriffs' Association, January 13, 2025, letter......... 32
NSSF, trade association for firearm, ammunition, hunting, and
shooting sports, January 16, 2025, letter..................... 34
Wilson, Hon. Alan, et al., Republican State attorneys general,
December 3, 2024, letter...................................... 35
Submitted by Ranking Member Durbin:
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, statement.. 39
Equality California, January 13, 2025, letter.................... 44
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, statement.. 46
Legal Defense Fund, January 15, 2025, letter..................... 51
National Council of Jewish Women, January 13, 2025, letter....... 54
National Fair Housing Alliance, January 15, 2025, letter......... 56
National Women's Law Center, January 13, 2025, letter............ 58
People For the American Way, January 14, 2025, letter............ 62
Reproductive Freedom for All, January 9, 2025, letter............ 66
Society for the Rule of Law, January 13, 2025, letter............ 70
[all]