Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Pam Bondi Made a Mockery of Congressional Oversight

Opinion

Pam Bondi Made a Mockery of Congressional Oversight
President Donald Trump holds a press conference with Attorney ...

Checks and balances can only work if government officials are willing to use their authority to check abuses of power by others. Without that, our Constitution is an empty promise.

And without the will to stand up to such abuses, freedom and democracy also become empty promises. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, the Constitution was designed to ensure that “the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”


In this design, he argued, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place….you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

That is why it matters whether Congress is willing to do its job of controlling the Executive. This has never been truer than it is today.

Let’s face it, the presidency is now much more powerful than Congress. Powerful and, as a result, a danger to liberty.

That was true before Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office. It has only become more apparent since then. In response, congressional Republicans have been unwilling to use their authority to rein him in.

No news there. Still, it was shocking to see Attorney General Pam Bondi’s open contempt for Congress displayed in her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, October 7.

It was also shocking to watch Republican Senators cheer her on as she denigrated their Democratic committee colleagues. Both were unprecedented.

Both suggest that our constitutional system is broken and that while Republicans may give lip service to that system, they are guilty of aiding and abetting in its overthrow. In criminal law, someone aids and abets the commission of a crime by another when they intend to assist or participate in that offense.

They can do so by encouraging or facilitating it.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are guilty of a crime in the ordinary sense.

They are, however, guilty of aiding and abetting Pam Bondi’s and Donald Trump’s crimes against the Constitution. Fidelity to that document requires that we call out their behavior in the strongest terms.

Let’s start with contempt of Congress. The law defines it as willfully refusing “ to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry".

During her appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Bondi refused to answer a long list of questions pertinent to its oversight inquiry. Among them, as California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff pointed out were questions about possible bribery involving Trump border czar Tom Homan, criminal investigations into the president’s political opponents initiated at the behest of the president himself, and the firing of career prosecutors in the Department of Justice.

Those are just a few of the questions the Attorney General batted aside. Committee Chair, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, sat quietly as she stonewalled his colleagues. And when he was not silent, he tried to derail the inquiry by shifting the focus to the behavior of the Biden Justice Department.

Grassley’s opening remarks foretold what was to come. He went on at length about "weaponization" of the Justice Department under the Biden Administration. He characterized investigations of then-former President Trump as “indefensible acts.”This was a political fishing expedition to get Trump at all costs."

Grassley was joined, as Politico reports, by Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who “falsely claimed…that newly disclosed records revealed that the FBI ‘tapped’ the phones of eight sitting U.S. senators during special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of President Donald Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election.”

Not surprisingly, “Attorney General Pam Bondi, during her Tuesday testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not correct Hawley’s characterization of the records.”

But Bondi’s performance was not limited to her refusal to answer questions or to correct erroneous information. She used her appearance to attack Democratic Senators directly, offering up accusations or allegations of misconduct that had nothing to do with the hearing.

She called out Illinois Senator Richard Durbin. “You are sitting here as law enforcement officers aren't being paid. They're out there working to protect you. I wish you love Chicago as much as you hate President Trump.”

In response to a question from California Senator Adan Schiff, Bondi replied, “If you worked for me, you would’ve been fired because you were censured by Congress for lying.”

She accused Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal of misrepresenting his military record. She claimed that Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had ties to “dark money” groups and backed legislation that would “subsidize [his] wife’s company.”

Such personal attacks would not have been allowed under Senate rules if they had been made on the Senate floor during a debate. But Chairman Grassley did nothing, and neither did any of his Republican colleagues.

James Madison would be rolling over in his grave to know that Senators of either party would condone such behavior by a member of the Executive Branch. He would have seen it as a crime against the constitutional order he worked so assiduously to construct.

But welcome to America’s new world. It is defined by a cabal that has set out to undermine checks and balances.

Pam Bondi and Republican Senators showed what that looks like. Americans should not shut their eyes and imagine that the constitutional system will survive their assault on it without a large and sustained public response.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.


Read More

Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move

An oil production operation is shown in North Dakota. With the U.S. Supreme Court granting more presidential powers to the executive branch, environmental groups warned key agencies will have a harder time going after polluters.

(Adobe Stock)

Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move

A U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued last month expands presidential power over independent federal agencies, prompting warnings from environmental advocates about potential implications for states such as North Dakota.

The court’s conservative majority said President Donald Trump had the authority to fire a former Federal Trade Commission member without cause. Legal observers countered the opinion nullifies longstanding precedent involving the role of Congress in insulating certain federal agency officials from direct presidential control.

Keep ReadingShow less
Federal Register Reports being printed out of a large machine.

Congress should strengthen the administrative state by writing clearer laws, limiting delegated authority, and requiring periodic reauthorization of agency powers.

Photo courtesy of Luka Jacobi-Krohn

Putting the Guardrails Back on Delegations of Power

Congress needs to write better laws instead of dismantling the administrative state.

Debates over the administrative state focus on whether these agencies have accrued too much power. Some argue that the solution is to severely weaken or, in extreme scenarios, dismantle these federal agencies. However, the issue is not the existence of these agencies but actually how Congress writes its laws. When statutes are drafted with vague language, agencies are left to interpret the scope, and courts are forced to set the boundaries. This results in constant litigation and generally regulatory instability. If Congress actually wants a more durable and accountable regulatory system, they need to start with themselves by writing clearer laws.

Keep ReadingShow less
Businesspeople walking in line across world map, painted on asphalt

America's immigration debate reflects a deeper question: Does America still believe in itself? A historical look at immigration, assimilation, and American identity.

Klaus Vedfelt / Getty Images

What Immigration Debates Reveal About National Confidence

America has spent 250 years arguing about immigrants.

But beneath the arguments about visas, walls, asylum claims, deportations, and border security lies a more uncomfortable question:

Keep ReadingShow less
The U.S. flag, waving, with the ends of it frayed.

The U.S. is falling short of what its national wealth makes possible for its people.

Americans Are Not As Well Off As People in Peer Nations – Us Safety Net’s Shortfalls Show Up in Global Data

As the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, the global data we collect and analyze shows that the country is failing to “promote the general Welfare,” as the Constitution’s framers promised a little more than a decade later.

We are scholars of human rights. Alongside the Human Rights Measurement Initiative, a nonprofit that tracks how well more than 200 countries and territories are meeting the human rights commitments their governments have made, we annually update scores measuring whether people can actually get the basics of a decent life, such as healthcare, adequate food and a quality education.

Keep ReadingShow less