The Attorney General Who Mocked Congress and the Rule of Law
Photograph Source: Nvss132 – CC BY 0
Pam Bondi’s combative exchanges and derisive comments before the House Judiciary Committee revealed a contempt for democratic procedure. This was not mere incivility; it was a warning that the separation of powers is being undermined from the top of the Justice Department. One critic called her testimony “wild entertainment.” Another journalist said she looked like “a raving lunatic.” Rep. Ted Lieu accused her of giving misleading testimony: “If you had any decency, you would resign right after this hearing,” he said. What should have been a solemn oversight hearing devolved into theater, with insults, theatrics, and partisan grandstanding. Bondi’s performance exemplified how political allegiance has overshadowed the impartial enforcement of law.
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and its head are supposed to be concerned with justice. Yet during the February 11 hearing, Attorney General Pam Bondi startled Democratic members of the Committee by asking, “Have you apologized to President Trump?” Her unsolicited question to Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jerry Nadler illustrated her contempt – and by extension, the executive branch – holds for Democratic members of Congress. “All of you who participated in those impeachment hearings against Donald Trump, you all should be apologizing. You sit here and you attack the president, and I am not going to have it. I’m not going to put up with it,” she declared, further proof, if any were needed, that any meaningful separation of powers between the president, the DOJ, and the legislature has disappeared.
(Her demeaning remarks to Republican Thomas Massie during her House appearance – “This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. … you’re a failed politician,” – highlighted her dismissive attitude to certain Republicans as well as Democrats.)
When Pam Bondi called Jamie Raskin a “has-been, washed-up lawyer who isn’t even qualified to practice,” it was more than a lack of civility; it was a direct dismissal of democratic protocol and procedure. The Attorney General of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. As such, she is responsible for “overseeing the administration of justice in the United States,” not for insulting the elected representatives of the American people. Her conduct reflects her perception of her role not as an impartial guardian of the rule of law, but as an enforcer of Donald Trump’s expansive—and increasingly unchecked—vision of executive power.
Pam Bondi did more than “lost her shit” (to quote Jeffrey St. Clair) at the hearings. While much of the hearing focused on the Epstein files, Bondi’s behavior illustrated how the administration views the Department of Justice through the lens of Unitary Executive Theory (UET).
Trump’s UET builds on Article II of the Constitution: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President…” Bondi’s testimony reflected Trump’s belief that the Justice Department should operate under direct presidential authority. Just as Trump has sought control over previously independent agencies such as the FBI, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, or the Environmental Protection Agency, Bondi’s testimony suggests that she and Trump view the DOJ as similarly subordinated. For Bondi and Trump, the DOJ exists to serve the president, not the rule of law.
Proponents of UET believe that the DOJ’s independence is a norm, not a constitutional requirement. They argue that the Justice Department, although an independent agency, is under presidential control. The Constitution’s Article II’s Take Care Clause says the president must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…,” which, they maintain, necessitates presidential control over law enforcement. The DOJ cannot be independent from him, they claim; otherwise he cannot fulfil his constitutional duty.
On the other hand, even though it is formally part of the executive branch, DOJ independence means that the Department of Justice is expected to enforce the law based on legal judgment, not presidentialpolitics. While the president appoints DOJ leadership, the DOJ should not serve as the president’s personal vehicle for political aims.
The modern push for DOJ independence comes from the Watergate era, when President Richard Nixon sought to use the DOJ and the FBI for personal protection and to punish enemies. That ensuing scandal led to reforms emphasizing special prosecutors, professional independence, and congressional oversight.
Bondi’s demeaning attitude to Congress and her immediate references to the president reflect how far the current administration has stretched UET. Trump has been explicit about this approach, stating at a Turning Point USA Teen Action Summit on July 23, 2019: “Then, I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”
Unitary executive authority has limits. Although the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch, Senate confirmation of the Attorney General, as required by the Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, is a critical check. That’s why Pam Bondi was confirmed by the Senate; that’s how the system of checks and balances is supposed to work.
And, as a reminder: during her confirmation hearing, Bondi told Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: “We all take an oath, Senator, to uphold the law. None of us are above the law.” Those words now ring hollow in light of her House testimony.
Bondi’s contempt for Congress is not just a personal failing, although it demonstrated her lack of gravitas. It is a symptom of a deeper institutional corrosion: the transformation of the Justice Department from an independent guardian of the law into an instrument of presidential whim. When the nation’s chief law enforcement officer mocks congressional oversight and flagrantly treats elected representatives as enemies, the rule of law itself is at risk. What happened in that hearing was not simply disgraceful; it was dangerous. We’ve been through this before with Nixon and Watergate. A red line was crossed by Bondi, if any red lines still exist.
The post The Attorney General Who Mocked Congress and the Rule of Law appeared first on CounterPunch.org.