It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to question a witness, but members of Congress have shown that they are particularly inept at the art. Let’s hope they don’t waste the opportunity to get answers for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse when Pam Bondi appears for her upcoming deposition.   

Last week, the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena compelling the attorney general to testify at a date to be determined about her handling of the Epstein files. DOJ’s failure to fully comply by the December 19, 2025, deadline imposed by the Epstein Files Transparency Act and its botched redactions raise important questions. The frustration with DOJ’s compliance issues crosses party lines, with Republicans and Democrats voting to issue the subpoena.

But not since then-Senator Kamala Harris cross-examined Attorney General William Barr have we seen a member of Congress elicit meaningful testimony from a hostile witness. In a memorable 2019 hearing, Harris, a former prosecutor, refused to let Barr dissemble, asking the question four different ways until she got a straight answer. There are some rare exceptions, like Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who demonstrates skillful questioning, but most members of Congress use their hearing time to score political points and fail to extract useful information. Of course, members of Congress are not elected on the basis of their cross-examination skills, but conducting effective oversight requires just that. And so, here are some practical tips that trial lawyers would employ to question a witness like Bondi. 

First, make sure the witness answers the questions. The last time Bondi appeared before Congress to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in February, she deflected questions by tossing out non sequiturs like the value of the stock market and hurling insults from a list assembled in a binder. Calling Rep. Jamie Raskin a “washed up, loser lawyer” may have delighted Trump and the MAGAverse, but it did nothing to inform the public or the survivors of Epstein’s atrocities. Obtaining an answer can be challenging. Sometimes a question must be rephrased or even repeated until the witness answers. Members of Congress may need patience to endure Bondi’s political grandstanding, but they must insist on answers to their questions. 

Second, members should tag team to achieve tip number one. In February, Bondi used insults for Democrats and praise for Donald Trump to stall until the questioner’s time expired. Most often, the next member of Congress would then start a new line of questioning. Instead, if Bondi runs out the clock before providing an adequate response, the next member should pick up where the last one left off, and demand that Bondi answer the question. Last week, when then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem testified before the House Judiciary Committee, she was asked whether during her tenure as Secretary she had engaged in “sexual relations” with Corey Lewandowski, an unpaid political adviser at the department,. Noem dismissed the question as “tabloid garbage,” but she did not answer the question. Another member tried to press for an answer, but Noem continued to deflect by accusing the member of being a shill for the “liberal media.” If Bondi similarly attempts to sidestep a question until time runs out, other members of Congress should come back to demand an answer, again and again, until the question is answered. 

Third, members of Congress should craft questions with verifiable answers so that lies can be prosecuted for perjury.  A successful prosecution requires proof of a material statement that the witness then and there knew was false. Opinions don’t count. Undefined terms give a witness wiggle room that they can later use to debate their understanding of the question. The ill-fated indictment of James Comey suffered from a number of flaws, including what appears to be Comey’s actual innocence, but the charges were doomed from the start by Sen Ted Cruz’s inartful question, which incorporated other testimony from years earlier, and made reference to authorizing “someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration.” Huh? Who was he referring to? Clinton administration? Did he mean Bill Clinton? He is the only Clinton who ever led an administration. Instead, questions should be specific and clear enough that, if an answer is false, the witness can be prosecuted later.   

With those tips in mind, here is a list of questions House members should ask Bondi regarding the Epstein investigation.

1. Who is the person at DOJ who is responsible for all final decisions regarding redactions?
2. In February 2025, you said in an interview with Fox News that an Epstein client list was “sitting on my desk right now to review.” Did such a list ever exist?  If so, what list were you referring to? Has it been produced? If so, please identify where it appears in the DOJ database. If such a list exists and has not been produced, why not? If such a list does not exist, why did you publicly claim it did?
3. As you know, the Epstein Files Transparency Act permits you to withhold from production records that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary,” but public statements by DOJ and FBI officials have created confusion about whether any such investigations are ongoing. In September, FBI Director Kash Patel testified before Congress that there was “no credible information” that Epstein trafficked underage girls to anyone besides himself.  On the other hand, in November 2025, you announced on X that Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, was “taking the lead” in investigating Epstein’s involvement and relationships with prominent Democrats. Yet on February 1, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said “there was nothing” in the Epstein files “that allowed us to prosecute anybody.” However, on February 11, when you testified before the House Judiciary Committee, you said you have “pending cases in our office” relating to people with ties to Epstein. Your report to Congress dated February 14, 2026, does not indicate that any documents were withheld on the grounds of any pending criminal investigations. Please tell us which of these conflicting statements is true: Are there any ongoing investigations relating to people who engaged in criminal conduct with Jeffrey Epstein?
4. Your February 14 report to Congress also states that documents were withheld on the basis of deliberative process, work product, and attorney-client privilege. As you cite in your letter, “the Supreme Court has recognized that such ‘privilege[s] should not be held to have been abrogated or limited unless Congress has at least used clear statutory language.’ FBI v. Fazaga, 595 U.S. 344, 355 (2022).” The clear statutory language of the Epstein Files Transparency Act requires you to produce “internal DOJ communications, including emails, memos, meeting notes, concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates.” Did you withhold any “internal DOJ communications, including emails, memos, meeting notes, concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates” on the grounds of privilege? If so, do you agree that such withholding violates the clear statutory language of the Epstein Files Transparency Act?
5. Your February 14, 2026, letter listed 300 names that appear in the Epstein files, including Elvis Presley, who died in 1977, and Janis Joplin, who died in 1970, but not Leslie Wexner, the CEO of Victoria’s Secret, who was one of Epstein’s most prominent financial clients, and whose name appears in the files more than one thousand times. Who prepared the list of names? How was the list generated? What criteria were used to select the names? Why were certain names omitted? How many other names were omitted?
6. In July 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator. Following the interview, she was moved to a prison camp with less restrictive conditions of confinement. As the attorney general, you oversee the Bureau of Prisons. What was the reason for Maxwell’s transfer to a camp setting with fewer restrictions?  Have you or anyone else at the Justice Department or the White House discussed with Maxwell or her attorneys a pardon or commutation?
7. Let’s now turn to some specific documents. A set of FBI reports of interviews of a victim who accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct was withheld until last week, and was released only after media reports described the documents. On what basis were these reports withheld? What investigative efforts have been taken to corroborate the victim’s allegations? Are there other records relating to Donald Trump that remain withheld?
8. Let’s now turn to the draft indictment of Jeffrey Epstein and four co-conspirators. The names of co-conspirators were redacted. Why were these names redacted? Who decided those names should be redacted? What was the permitted basis under the Epstein Files Transparency Act for redacting the names?
9. Names of individuals who corresponded with Epstein by email were also redacted. For example, in an email message dated March 11, 2014, a person whose name was redacted wrote to Epstein, “Thank you for a fun night. . . . Your littlest girl was a little naughty.” Why was the name of this sender redacted? Who decided this name should be redacted? What was the permitted basis under the Epstein Files Transparency Act for redacting this name?
10. In another email message dated May 23, 2017, a person whose name was redacted wrote to Epstein, “I met (REDACTED) today. She is like Lolita from Nabakov, femme miniature :)” Who decided that this name should be redacted? What was the permitted basis under the Epstein Files Transparency Act for redacting this name?