Attorney General Bondi Testifies Before Senate in First Hearing Since Comey Indictment

0:00Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening, a special crossover episode with the hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast. I think the Supreme Court massively misplayed this end of term. My solution would be more trying to address the underlying structural issues that allow us to get to a point where a minority faction that is not committed to and antagonistic to the rule of law can get power. The bigger fundamental problem is that we have never done the work in this country of actually wrestling with our deep-seated antipathy for a multiracial, multi-faith, pluralistic democracy.

0:40That's this week on Why Is This Happening. Search for Why Is This Happening wherever you're listening right now and follow. Welcome to The Beat. I'm Ari Melber. We begin tonight with the fireworks on Capitol Hill. Pam Bondi testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time as Attorney General. It was contentious, Democrats killing Bondi over the ongoing accusations of overreach, abuse of power, DOJ issues. She often just refused to answer questions entirely.

1:08Jelani Cobb:Were you consulted by the White House before they deployed National Guard troops to cities in the United States? I am not going to discuss any internal conversations with the White House. Do you believe that government officials like Gregory Bovino are obligated to follow applicable court orders, whether they agree with them or not? Yes or no. I wish that you loved your state of California as much as you hate President Trump. I'm going to ask a simple yes or no question. The president said, we can't delay any longer, Pam, using your name, and then goes on to tell you to prosecute a member of this committee, to prosecute the attorney general of New York, and to prosecute James Comey.

1:54Do you consider that a directive to the Justice Department? Senator Klobuchar, President Trump is the most transparent president in American history. Did you discuss James Comey with the president of the United States? He was sitting... Just to your left. Well, two seats down. Yes, two seats down. And I am not going to discuss any conversations I have had or not have with the president of the United States. Because the American public is entitled to know. How did you conclude that these strikes on ships or boats in the open ocean are legal? Senator Coons, I'm not going to discuss any legal advice that my department may or may not have given or issued.

2:37Having you respond with completely irrelevant far-right Internet talking points really is not very helpful here. It's very clear to me that when the president posts something like that, that he considers the DOJ to be his law firm and you his lawyer. And on it went like that. We're joined now by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat from Rhode Island, on that Judiciary Committee, who also questioned the attorney general today. Good evening. Good evening. What did you make of the attorney general's response? And while there's often back and forth in these hearings, many people have seen excerpts of her apparent decision to just flatly say she won't be answering a lot of questions.

3:21Yeah, it set a new low in outright witness evasion. In the first Trump administration, we did a lot of what I called kind of non-denial, denial, non-assertion assertions of various privileges. She didn't even bother to hand wave about privileges. She just said, I'm not going to answer that question. And there really is no conceivable privilege that protects what happened to the$50 ,000 that the FBI gave to Tom Homan. It protects whether or not the Department of Justice sealed the grand jury testimony of Kash Patel after he got immunity after pleading the fifth about whether or not OPR had concluded its investigation into prosecutorial misconduct by Emil Bovey, now a judge.

4:13There just isn't even a facial claim to be made. So she just looked at us, knowing that no Republican was ever going to force it, and just said, no, I'm not telling you. Hmm. There was, of course, important lines of questioning that DOJ's had a lot to defend itself on from Epstein to what we heard a little bit in the excerpt I showed, her response to questions about whether the president ordered in an indictment of what he perceives as an opponent. This is a little bit more on that James Comey indictment.

4:46Is it true that the career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia found that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against former Director Comey? I am not going to discuss pending cases because Comey was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia by, I may point out, one of the most liberal grand juries in the country. What are your concerns about that indictment? Go ahead. You look ready to go. Just how does a grand jury get to be liberal? A grand jury is a group of maybe 20 or 30 people. It's brought in from the public at large. How do you know? How do you have the faintest idea what their political predilections are?

5:3230 people in a ginormous state like Virginia. The fact that she could say something like that, which is a completely evidence-free characterization, just was, it's like a small telltale of what a wonky hearing this was. Just weird. And where do you go from here? I mean, you mentioned, obviously, if you have bipartisan collaboration, there's been hints of that on Epstein and a couple issues. Then you can force more subpoenas, etc. But if she's going to treat the committee this way, and thus by extension, I suppose the constituents who've elected the people to ask these questions, try to get answers.

6:09How do you deal with that? you follow on first with written questions for the record, which we'll of course be doing. Sometimes they won't answer a senator's written question for the record, but what they're withholding is something that's obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act by anyone. So we've gotten in the habit of putting parallel FOIA requests, they're called, Freedom of Information Act requests in, and then you can start holding up things until you get an answer, which is something that the Republicans and the committee have been very good at in the past. So they may be somewhat sympathetic if we start doing that.

6:44So there are a bunch of ways to put pressure on them. But at the end of the day, you know, persistence kind of pays off. It took me years to get to the bottom of the botched, fake Kavanaugh supplemental background investigation process. But I did. So you just have to keep digging. What are your concerns about the current independence or partisan vendettas being exercised by Donald Trump through the DOJ. And ultimately, if we keep what they call regular order and rule of law, do any of these prosecutors have anything to be concerned about, law licenses or otherwise, if evidence shows that rather than following evidence, they indicted people regardless of evidence?

7:30Yes. Lawyers put their tickets at risk when they engage in that kind of behavior. Bar associations have repeatedly gone after various lawyers who violated their oaths in return for loyalty to Trump. So there's a track record there. The other thing that happens is that these cases go forward. So watch particularly, for instance, the Comey case, where some of the best lawyers ever to come through the Department of Justice will be representing Comey. And they'll be up against kind of a gong show of also-ran lawyers representing the department, including one who's never tried a case, who's the U.S.

8:12attorney, never tried a criminal case. And as they dig through that and as they get discovery and as they ask questions about where department rules were violated and where laws were violated and blow up false evidence, that can become quite a calamity for the prosecuting office as they dig relentlessly through all the failings buried in that case. Yeah, that's a good point. You're reminding everyone, which is they still have to go to an arena where expertise, judges, evidence, rules all apply. It's not just what they post online. Senator Whitehouse, important leadoff guest on the big hearing today.

8:51Thank you for joining me. Thank you. When we come back, we have later in the hour, Pam Bondi's Epstein problems. Those were on display even as she dodged. And I have a special report on the actual facts about the political violence problem in this country. It may be different than what you've heard. We're going to just run through the evidence and where we go from there. It matters. That's coming up. Also, two special guests, including Jelani Cobb, when we're back in 90 seconds.

9:19Ever since I was young, I've watched people working hard, chasing opportunity, making sacrifices, doing everything they can to build a better life. And now we're shining a light on what matters most. Our economy, our national identity, our democracy, our future. The stakes have never been higher. It's all On The Line. On The Line with Alicia Menendez. Weekdays at 12 p.m. Eastern on MSNOW.

9:53We're turning to special guests right now. We have the top of the traditional journalism hierarchy, the dean of the Columbia Journalism School. I mean, there's no higher than that, except for possibly the New Yorker magazine, Jelani Cobb, affiliated with both prestigious institutions. And I say that because this is going to be a good panel. Yes. Adam Freeland is an emerging voice, a digital podcaster. GQ says you could be the next Jon Stewart of our digital era, and you host the Adam Friedland Show. Welcome. Thank you for having me. Thanks for being here. I'm also the dean of Columbia Journalism, just for the record.

10:27You're both the dean.

10:28Jelani Cobb:They have two. There's a shadow dean. There's a very little-known position. Yeah, we're modeling it after the triumvirate in Rome. Incredible. There's a third, actually. There's a third? Yeah. And are they in a bunker? Yeah, we know a spare. We don't want to say who it is. Respect. It's a terrible choice. Well, as we say around here, Adam, we're going to get to you. We'll get to you. Okay? I'll go. No, I mean, we're going to get to you and some questions about journalism and a lot. But I'm going to start with Jelani, who's been here a lot, and show you a little bit more of the targets. I was just discussing with the senator, the Comey indictment.

11:07Of course, you actually have to look at it in the larger context. Whatever you think of James Comey, they're indicted now. On our on our list, you can see right nearby two New Jersey Democrats, both indicted. One of those cases already fell apart. Other New Jersey Democratic officials under search, home search, John Bolden, who worked for Trump, a bunch of other people. I'm not going to name them all. How does this inform what's going on with the James Comey indictment with him being arraigned tomorrow?

11:39Jelani Cobb:I mean, it's absolutely contextual. So I think it's important if you go back to the first Trump administration and, you know, what you got, you know, when he talked about, you know, his frustrations with the Department of Justice, with his issues with Jeff Sessions, with his subsequent throughout the entire kind of duration of his presidency, he felt like the DOJ would not do his bidding. And he referred that saying that he wanted the AG to be the way Eric Holder was for Barack Obama, at least the way he imagined him to be. He thought of Holder as being like the person who was deflecting or protecting Obama in that way.

12:24Jelani Cobb:The fact is that, generally speaking, the DLJ is the federal agency that the president has the least control over. that there are real reasons for autonomy in the Department of Justice, that you have to have distance, at least for there to be a patina of integrity around any of these things. And so it's not significant, it's not just significant that Comey is indicted, that Comey is where he is, but that all of these other people that you've listed, the people are having their home search, that people have really, we're really seeing the weaponization of the Department of Justice and the pursuit.

13:03Jelani Cobb:I mean, think about Richard Nixon. I mean, that's probably the only example that we have outside of this with, you know, the attempts to kind of determine how the Watergate investigation is being carried out. Yeah, Nixon had an enemies list. Right. And Bondi, who was back before the Congress today, she previously disavowed that. So at her confirmation hearings, you know, some people think, well, nothing matters anymore. But she was questioned under oath about that. Here's what she said, actually, to the senator we just heard from. I'm questioning you right now about whether you will enforce an enemies list that he announced publicly on television.

13:37Oh, Senator, I'm sorry. There will never be an enemies list within the Department of Justice. 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? Senator, if I thought that would happen, I would not be sitting here today. Adam, since that time... So they don't have it. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, I mean, case closed, right? Well, she said... She agreed that would be a problem in the hypothetical. Now that problem is in reality. I can't believe that she would. I thought she was a woman of integrity.

14:18I can't believe it. No, I think it's rude to Comey. I think it's very rude because like, had he not opened the email investigation 10 days before the election, he probably gave Donald Trump the presidency. You think? Probably. In a razor thin election, it probably pushed him over the edge. And like, yeah, it's very rude to Comey. now do you speak just to help us understand you speak only sarcastically no then i can help me that is a fact what's a fact that comey was instrumental in his election right but that doesn't mean he should be indicted as a vendetta one way or the other you're saying should not be thanking him yeah he should be thanking him he wouldn't be in this position at all had it not been for comey as someone who laptop i'm not putting you a laptop i'm not putting you in a you know, in a box.

15:08Okay. Please don't. But as someone who's coming from a different side, what do you think the traditional press might be missing here? What do you, how do you look at these stories? What different side? I'm not, I, I, uh, I, the traditional press should be the press. Yeah. I don't think that I'm the press. I don't want to replace journalism. What qualifies me to do that? No. No, right. So you, you feel like on the internet, we just have different styles. A lot of people like getting their news with a little more information and infotainment. Go ahead. It's bad. No one should listen to a comedian's thoughts on anything.

15:43Well, we disagree. We have comedians here all the time. And what do they know? All right, let me show you. Do they know about the Insurrection Act? Some of them do. Most certainly not. John Oliver? He read it five minutes before you guys went on air. Well, let me show you something where pushback seems to make a difference. The Pentagon tried to go Nixon. They famously lost the Pentagon Papers case, which was about whether the New York Times could publish unauthorized material. Trump Pentagon was trying to get everyone to sign this sort of loyalty oath. Now the headline, Pentagon relaxes press access rules under guidelines.

16:19Journalists will not need approval from the DOD before publishing articles containing information not officially released. Jelani, how do you view this story? Because they started full or well, and they seem to have backed off a bit.

16:31Jelani Cobb:It's called journalism. The other thing is stenography. If you are only publishing the things that you have authorization to publish, that is called a press release. But that's not what we do. And the idea that people have to then, as you know, as you well know, as a matter of journalistic principle, we do not show a source or we do not show anyone the story before the story goes out. We may verify your quotes. We may fact check with you. But no one gets approval outside of the editorial. And specifically here, there's a lot going on. So I'll remind everyone they thought they could cajole, threaten, bully the Pentagon press corps into going along with this.

17:11And apparently they got a revolt, not just from, you know, this or that one outlet. Apparently many reporters said no.

17:17Jelani Cobb:So I think people have learned from the AP situation. You know, I was one of the people who said that when the AP was pushed out of the White House press briefing room over the Gulf of America debacle, that every other news organization should have walked out. They should have refused to cover the press briefings until AP was granted admission. And, you know, that's not what happened. But people really should have recognized that this was an assault on one of them, which would have facilitated an assault on the rest of them. I think that the DOD situation is informed by that. They've wised up.

17:55Jelani Cobb:People know that you have to draw a line somewhere. Well, and Adam Freeland. Yes. Childish Gambino said, this is America. He didn't say this is Gulf of America. But he wasn't talking about that. No, he wasn't. It was a song, right? It was a song. Yeah, yeah. I mean, any final thoughts from you? Well, my question is this. Like, is there no brotherhood in, like, the fraternity of journalism? Like, are effectively the other news organizations just competitors in business? No, I mean, I think that there is. I don't want to disparage that because I think a lot of times journalists do things. They go to great lengths to look out for each other and so on.

18:33Jelani Cobb:I don't want to dismiss that at all. I think in that particular instance, we failed and that we should have immediately kind of circled the wagons and said that we will do this in defense of each other. I think people probably recognize that more now that they have to do. Well, and I think, Adam, you're referring to a tension that exists, which is on the one hand, these reporters are quite literally competing with each other for interviews and scoops. But then when a government comes in and starts to say, actually, there's going to be no scoops. even if you're competitive you go oh wait they actually as you said earlier don't want anything authorized uh anything else you want to share with us here on your debut in the case of ellsberg right like the the new york times and the washington post like stood in solidarity yep with one another i know about that from the movie the post

19:21uh it's is it insulting to be next to one of the dumbest guys you've ever met i don't think so Nothing about you says that you're... I'm going to close with this. Certainly. One, love to have you two back together. Specifically the two of you, I like it. And second, I don't know if I've ever said this on air. What's up? I like the cut of your jib. What does that mean? Who the hell knows what that means? I think it means your vibe. I think it means your vibe. Thank you so much. What is a literal translation of that? I don't think anybody actually knows that. Nothing but respect for this organization and Columbia Journalism School.

19:53Thank you. Adam Friedland, Jelani Kopp. We're going to bring you guys back together. Thanks for a little sunshine in the middle of the hour. Appreciate it. When we return, a special report we have been working on. You've heard so much about political violence in America. I am going to document what it actually is, who is lying to you about it, and what we can do. The Facts, next.

20:21Turning to our special report. The facts on political violence. The U.S. faces a major problem with attacks on political leaders. We've recently lived through assassinations, assassination attempts, and other attacks on elected officials. We have seen over the last eight or ten years this proliferation of political violence against members of both parties. Politically motivated violence is wrong. We must condemn political violence in all its form, in all its twisted motivations and perverse ideologies. Elected officials facing attacks in the past few years from President Trump to Speaker Pelosi's family to Governor Shapiro.

21:00After the recent killing of Republican Charlie Kirk, there were swift, strong claims about this type of violence and what led to it and how to respond. Assessing this grave problem requires evidence, facts, and detail, while also patrolling against partisan bias, which can be very hard when some of the crimes here are political, designed to incite, plus the emotions running high, understandably. Our report now documents the actual motives in recent violence, as determined by law enforcement. Now, for anyone craving a simple, binary story about only one side's blame, you're not going to find it here in the facts or the sometimes vague motives, as reviewed by investigators.

21:46Across history, we know U.S. political violence has ebbed and flowed over time, spikes during periods of unrest. The trends have sometimes shown ideological bents. Political violence surged starting in the late 1960s, Reuters reports. By the early 70s, that violence was perpetuated more often by radicals on the left. The radical groups doing the largest number of political attacks were coming from the fringe left, driving mostly left-wing violence, focused on destroying property like government buildings. And that era was upended by the assassinations of leaders across the spectrum, attempted or executed assassinations.

22:26That type of violence actually waned in the 80s, then came back with some right-wing anti-government violence in the 90s, the Oklahoma City bombing, killing 168 people, the deadliest act of domestic terror perpetuated by two U.S.-born terrorists, the FBI finding they were motivated by anti-government militia-aligned views. Now, in the decades since, right-wing violence is increasing. And so here are the facts for the current and our recent era. Right-wing and anti-government violence is the most common political violence. It is also the most deadly. Over the past three decades, far-right extremists led 20, I should say 220 attacks, compared to far-left extremists, leading 42 attacks.

23:11That's roughly five times as by the far-right. And if you look at the body count, as investigators do, those attacks resulting in far-right extremist violence, leading to about or over 520 deaths. The left-wing attacks resulting in the death of about, the number you see there, 78. That's six times as many dead. A federal government accounting shows the number of far-right attacks outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. This was explained to Congress by the first person Trump appointed to permanently lead the FBI, Chris Wray, testifying under oath in 2019 about far-right and racist acts.

23:52He explained that most of the FBI's domestic terror cases involved white supremacist motives. A majority of the domestic terrorism cases that we've investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence. Those are the facts on the motives. If it sounds different than some of what you've heard lately or ever, if it sounds different than what the government is saying now, that's because, in part, the Trump administration has officials trying to disappear those facts. Literally. Under A.G. Bondi, the DOJ removed the factual study on far-right extremists committing, quote, far more violence than the left in this current era.