At last week’s White House Cabinet meeting, Donald Trump called on an expected array of his most influential agency chiefs: Treasury, Health and Human Services, Housing. The President even dug down a layer and gave mic time to second-tier bosses from Agriculture (“That sounds amazing,” opined Secretary Brooke Rollins about steel tariffs); Small Business (“You’ve ended at least eight wars, okay?” gushed Administrator Kelly Loeffler); and Commerce (two days after the meeting, newly-disclosed emails revealed that Secretary Howard Lutnick, who previously claimed he cut ties with Jeffrey Epstein in 2005, sought to visit Epstein’s island in 2012).
Yet, through it all, Trump paid no mind to the person who sat directly across the table from him: the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. Even with weighty Justice-relevant issues exploding across the country, Bondi sat silently through the entire eighty-minute meeting. The next day, DOJ called a press conference to address the Epstein files, Minnesota, and other pressing matters; out to the podium walked Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, without Bondi. Two days later, Blanche hit the Sunday morning talk show scene – while the AG was, again, nowhere to be seen.
But Bondi can’t hide (and be hidden) forever. Next week, the Attorney General will testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Here are six questions she needs to answer.
1. Is the Justice Department investigating anyone in relation to the Epstein sex trafficking ring, or not?
It seemed, until just recently, that we had a clear “yes” on this one. In mid-November, Trump posted a demand on social media, addressed directly to Bondi, to investigate “Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions” for their connections to Epstein. Less than four hours later, the Attorney General publicly responded that she had opened the requested inquiry and assigned it to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. “As with all matters, the Department will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people,” Bondi reassured the public. Urgency and integrity and deliver answers – sounded great.
But last weekend, when CNN’s Dana Bash asked whether DOJ was investigating anybody for crimes related to Epstein, Blanche replied: “I can’t talk about any investigations, but I will say the following, which is that in July, the Department of Justice said that we had reviewed the files, the Epstein files, and there was nothing in there that allowed us to prosecute anybody. The entire world can look at and see if we got it wrong.” In other words: No.
When asked again on Fox News this week whether DOJ is investigating anyone for potential crimes relating to Epstein, Blanche was noncommittal (“Well, look, I’ll never say no”) but then explained that “the American people need to understand that it isn’t a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.” Ok, American people, you heard the man: they were just “partying” with a notorious international child sex trafficker, chill out and stop demanding justice already.
So which is it? Is the Justice Department investigating or not? Did it open Trump’s requested investigations in mid-November (as Bondi announced) and close them without charges by the end of January? Or do Bondi and Blanche have their signals crossed? (And, relatedly: Who’s running the show anyway, the AG or her Deputy?)
2. Has DOJ released files relating to its behind-the-scenes strategy around the prosecution and investigation of Epstein and others?
The answer here is “no,” and that’s a problem.
In its cover memo accompanying the release of the Epstein files, DOJ noted that it has “withheld” a certain unstated number of documents under the “deliberative process privilege.” Blanche said the same in his public announcement about the release of the Epstein files.
Justice Department leadership didn’t invent this privilege; it exists, and ordinarily shields prosecutors from publicly disclosing internal strategic communications. The problem is that the Epstein Files Transparency Act anticipates this privilege and specifically precludes its application. That law requires DOJ to release “[i]nternal DOJ communications, including emails, memos, meeting notes, concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates.” It seems, then, that Bondi and her advisors have simply chosen to ignore a key provision of the Act – and to withhold documents that might explain how Epstein and his enablers have largely avoided meaningful accountability.
3. Is the Justice Department conducting a criminal investigation of the Border Patrol officers who fatally shot Alex Pretti in Minnesota?
Once again, Bondi will have to answer for Blanche’s practiced ambiguity.
At his press conference last week, Blanche appeared to confirm that DOJ is investigating Border Patrol officers for deprivation of Pretti’s civil rights (the federal law commonly used to criminally charge police officers who use excessive force): “Investigations like this are led by law enforcement, so that’s the FBI. There’s coordination with the Civil Rights [Division of DOJ]… I expect the Civil Rights Division here at Main Justice will be part of that effort.” This is, indeed, what a criminal investigation would look like.
But in the next breath, the Deputy AG backtracked, “I don’t want the takeaway to be that there’s some massive civil rights investigation that’s happening.” So what exactly did Blanche mean? DOJ is investigating, sorta, but no big deal? Bondi should be pressed to clarify. (While she’s at it, the AG also might explain why the Justice Department immediately foreclosed the possibility of a civil rights probe of the fatal shooting of Renee Good, even before doing any actual investigation.)
4. Why have the federal authorities shut out local Minnesota law enforcement officials from investigations of the deaths of Pretti and Good?
While the Justice Department naturally can and should run point on any fatal shooting by a federal law enforcement agent, it makes no tactical sense for the feds to freeze out state and local investigators. Why exclude the police officers who know the terrain, who have access to local resources, who have earned some degree of trust from the community? Instead, DOJ leadership immediately excluded Minnesota investigators, creating a suboptimal scenario of two separate, potentially competing investigations.
Trump attributed the decision to shut out the locals (in no particular logical order) to Governor Tim Walz being “a stupid person;” a purported “$19 billion stolen from a lot of people but mostly by people from Somalia;” and “a corrupt voting system” in a state he won “all three times” (he actually lost all three times). Let Bondi try to explain this one.
5. After the arrest of Don Lemon, the official White House social media account posted, “When life gives you lemons…” followed by two emojis showing chains and a photo of Lemon over the words “Don Lemon arrested.” Do you approve of this celebratory post, and if the case ultimately fails, will you take it back and apologize?
This is, admittedly, more of an accusation than a genuine question. But the White House post is as reprehensible as it is revealing. Of course the White House is dictating DOJ’s priorities. Of course both entities are celebrating prematurely, popping champagne when the game has just begun. Of course this post will backfire, when Lemon eventually gets the case dismissed based on the First Amendment and (now) vindictive prosecution. Bondi surely will profess ignorance of the post, but she’s done nothing to push back against this type of juvenile, self-defeating nonsense from her White House overlords.
6. Does the Justice Department have a credibility problem? Is that your fault, and how will you fix it?
If Bondi refuses to acknowledge that DOJ has destroyed its own credibility in the courts, then she’s either ignorant or lying. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
NYU Law Professor Ryan Goodman and his team at Just Security have assembled a damning compendium of over 50 cases in which judges have found that Bondi’s prosecutors have failed to comply with court orders or have made false or dubious representations. Federal judges across the country (appointed by presidents of both parties) have found DOJ’s in-court statements “untethered to the facts,” “highly misleading if not intentionally false,” “inexplicably misleading,” “patently incredible,” and “simply not credible,” to name just a handful. At a certain point – 50 cases seems well beyond it – the problem is with DOJ itself, not the dozens of judges who have called out the Department’s serial dissembling.
Bondi has had a historically awful first year as Attorney General. Her leadership has been scattershot, and she has presided over and facilitated the destruction of the Justice Department’s independence. Increasingly over the past few months, the administration’s strategy has been simply to shield Bondi from public scrutiny. But when she testifies next week, the AG will finally be forced to account for the decimation of the Justice Department she purports to lead.
