Pam Bondi PANICS When Patty Murray DESTROYS Her in Brutal Senate Hearing

[0:00] All these district courts throughout the country are tying our hands. [0:05] And here's how we will follow them when we get to the United Supreme Court. [0:08] I need to ask a number of questions. [0:10] And so, yes, we're following the orders of the court. [0:12] Let me ask my questions. [0:13] Can you confirm you will not allow any conduct like what is alleged to continue at the DOJ? [0:19] This wasn't a hearing. [0:21] It was a direct, ruthless indictment as Patty Murray tore into Pam Bondi without hesitation. [0:26] Murray went straight for the jugular, accusing Bondi of overseeing a justice department that is no longer enforcing the law but actively undermining it. [0:34] No soft language. [0:35] No diplomacy. [0:36] Just a blunt charge that law and order is being replaced by corruption, political favoritism, and outright abuse of power. [0:43] She hammered Bondi as someone who is not just failing in her role, but enabling a system that defies court orders, [0:49] punishes truth-tellers, and recklessly guts protections meant to keep the public safe. [0:53] And Bondi's response only deepened the damage. [0:56] Evasive, defensive, and completely unwilling to confront the substance of the accusations. [1:01] Instead of accountability, she hid behind loyalty and deflection. [1:05] This was not oversight. [1:06] This was a full-scale political exposure where the credibility of the entire justice department was dragged into question in real time. [1:14] We're joined by the vice chairman of the full committee, Senator Murray is recognized. [1:18] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [1:20] Attorney General Bondi, we are in a deeply alarming moment where law and order is being replaced. [1:26] We are in a moment of chaos and corruption and whatever Trump wants. [1:30] And your department's independence and its capacity to do its job have eroded before our eyes. [1:36] We have seen respected career officials who've been fired for doing their job. [1:40] Thousands more are being pushed out with your buyouts and the threat of mass firings. [1:45] And entire divisions are being eliminated and grants have been canceled illegally. [1:51] So I have questions about how and why those decisions are being made. [1:55] And importantly, whether you're doing a New York State, New York State program, or a college program, or whatever, [1:56] you're adequately resourcing DOJ to do its job. [2:00] But before I turn to my questions, [2:02] I do want to raise my alarm about the troubling pattern [2:05] of trampling basic rights. [2:07] Detainees, including US citizens, [2:10] being shipped overseas without any due process. [2:13] Elected officials are detained for conducting oversight. [2:17] And a US senator gets tackled to the ground [2:20] for asking questions at a press conference. [2:23] This is not the country I know or the values I believe in. [2:26] And I hope that colleagues on both sides of the aisle [2:29] will agree with that. [2:30] Now, to the questions. [2:32] Yesterday, and I know that Senator Van Hollen raised [2:36] this issue, a former DOJ attorney [2:38] filed a protected whistleblower complaint [2:41] accusing Deputy AG Amal Bove and senior DOJ leadership [2:46] of defying court orders, including through, quote, [2:49] lack of candor, deliberate delay, and disinformation, [2:52] unquote. [2:53] The complaint also accuses this administration [2:56] of firing the whistleblower for, quote, [2:58] telling the truth to the court. [3:00] These allegations are deeply concerning. [3:03] Now, I know you said that you can't discuss the case. [3:06] But can you confirm that you agree [3:08] that this administration should follow court orders? [3:14] We will follow court orders, Senator. [3:17] The entire administration will follow court orders. [3:21] The problem arises in the district courts. [3:23] All these district courts throughout the country [3:26] are high up. [3:26] I'm not asking about the district courts. [3:27] I'm asking about the district courts. [3:28] I'm asking about the district courts. [3:29] We're not trying to undermine our hands. [3:30] And here's how we will follow them when we get to the United [3:31] Supreme Court. [3:32] Attorney General, I need to ask a number of questions. [3:33] We're winning. [3:34] And so, yes, we're following the orders of the court. [3:35] I know you want to fill those out. [3:36] But let me ask my questions. [3:37] Can you confirm you will not allow any conduct like what is [3:40] alleged to continue at the DOJ? [3:44] I'm not going to talk about anything that's alleged. [3:46] What I will talk about with you, hold on. [3:48] You ask me a question and I get to answer it. [3:50] What you asked me, alleged conduct that's part of a pending [3:53] whistleblower lawsuit that was filed on the eve prior to Amal Bove's [3:57] death. [3:58] I'm not asking about that case specifically. [3:59] I'm not asking about that case specifically. [4:01] Hold on. [4:02] Let me keep going. [4:03] I would run through a wall for Amal Bove and Todd Blanch. [4:05] I would like to continue with my questions. [4:07] I have very limited time. [4:08] Senator Murray. [4:09] Thank you. [4:10] I just want you to confirm for this you will not allow conduct [4:14] like that at the DOJ. [4:16] Yes or no? [4:17] I will always support and defend Amal Bove and I will defend [4:20] Todd Blanch. [4:21] They are two of the finest people I know and two of the [4:23] ethical people I know. [4:24] I was asking about the conduct. [4:25] Let me keep going here. [4:27] Now, in April. [4:28] April DOJ abruptly terminated over 300 public safety grants [4:32] that had already gone through a very rigorous and fair and [4:35] apolitical application process with no explanation. [4:39] This is funding to investigate and prosecute drug trafficking, [4:43] to support foster care kids who experienced abuse or neglect, [4:47] to expand access to forensic exams to prosecute violent [4:51] crimes like sexual assault. [4:53] These really senseless cancellations have already [4:56] forced public safety organizations, [4:57] public safety organizations to cut employees and services. [5:00] So what I want to ask you, when you cut off the community-based [5:05] violence intervention and prevention initiative funding, [5:08] were you aware it is used to prevent and reduce violent crime? [5:13] Yeah, Senator, you weren't here for that so I'm going to have [5:17] to repeat myself. [5:18] We have cut grants. [5:20] I think we've cut 6%. [5:22] But if we have cut a grant that you feel should not be cut, [5:27] please reach out to me. [5:29] I would personally look at it. [5:31] We've turned multiple grants back on. [5:33] We have an appeal process. [5:35] But if you want to come to me directly, [5:37] I would be happy to sit down with you and look at that and help you. [5:41] I'm happy to do that. [5:42] I appreciate that. [5:43] Again, we're doing everything we can. [5:44] Okay, but let me just ask you, when you cut off the expanding [5:47] access to sexual assault forensic examination grant, [5:50] were you aware that that grant helps our authorities prosecute [5:54] rape and sexual assault? [5:56] I have no idea about that specific grant you're talking about. [5:59] That's why I said if you want to come sit down with me, [6:02] I would never cut a grant intentionally that has anything to do [6:05] I appreciate that. [6:06] It's very hard for those recipients on the other end across the country. [6:09] Can you give me the details of that grant? [6:11] I can absolutely do that and my staff will get that to you. [6:14] But those are two critical ones that I just wanted to ask you about today. [6:17] Again, we've turned many grants back on and will continue to if you want [6:24] to call me and we can discuss them with you. [6:26] Okay. [6:27] In your budget request, you proposed consolidating the Office on Violence [6:31] Against Women into the Office of Justice Programs. [6:34] In 2002, Congress actually codified the office as a permanent, separate, [6:40] and independent office to implement the Violence Against Women Act. [6:44] We did that to make sure that violent crimes against women received the [6:48] necessary attention, expertise, and resources and to give the office a [6:53] strong, independent voice within the Justice Department and for the [6:57] federal government. [6:58] Now your department wants to fade that into the OJP, which violates the intent [7:04] of the law that we passed. [7:06] It makes grant programs less effective and it places a lot more barriers for [7:12] victims and services they need. [7:14] And I see that you're cutting the office's resources by about a third. [7:18] So will you commit to us, the Appropriations Committee, to follow the [7:23] law and maintain OVW as a separate grant program? [7:26] I will follow the law, but I will not keep that as a separate grant entity. [7:33] You and I can disagree all day long on what the law is. [7:35] That's being consolidated into the Office of Justice Programs. [7:39] I'm not going to cut, let me answer, I'm not going to cut anything that's [7:43] going to hurt violence against women. [7:45] Not my question. [7:46] It will eliminate. [7:47] I'm asking, just for your information, Attorney General, in 2002, we [7:52] codified the office as a permanent separate grant entity. [7:55] A permanent, separate, and independent office. [7:58] So that, you need to go back and take a look at that. [8:01] I know my time is out, but I thank you very much for the time. [8:05] What this exchange exposes is not just weakness, it is a full-blown collapse [8:09] of accountability at the top of the Justice Department under Pam Bondi. [8:13] Under intense questioning from Patty Murray, Bondi did not simply struggle. [8:17] She completely unraveled into a pattern of evasion that looks calculated, [8:21] deliberate, and deeply concerning. [8:24] This was not a misunderstanding. [8:25] Not a lack of time. [8:26] Not a technicality. [8:27] This was a refusal to answer, because the answers would be politically damaging. [8:32] And that is exactly what makes this moment so serious. [8:35] Time and time again, when confronted with allegations that strike at the core [8:40] of the rule of law, defying court orders, retaliating against a whistleblower, [8:44] dismantling safeguards meant to protect victims, Bondi chose silence over substance. [8:49] But not just silence, she replaced it with something worse. [8:52] Blind loyalty. [8:53] Instead of committing felonies. [8:54] Instead of committing to investigate or correct potential misconduct, she openly shielded [8:58] her inner circle, signaling that protecting allies matters more than protecting the integrity [9:03] of the institution she leads. [9:05] That is not just inappropriate, it is dangerous. [9:08] It sends a message that justice is conditional, that accountability depends on who you are, [9:13] not what you have done. [9:14] And then, there is the sheer lack of command over her own department. [9:18] When pressed on funding cuts that directly impact victims of violence, sexual assault investigations, [9:22] and community safety programs, Bondi admitted she did not even know the details. [9:29] That is not a minor oversight, that is a staggering level of detachment from decisions that carry [9:34] life-altering consequences. [9:36] You cannot claim to uphold public safety while simultaneously admitting ignorance about programs [9:41] designed to protect the most vulnerable. [9:43] That contradiction alone shatters any claim of responsible leadership. [9:47] But perhaps the most damning part of this entire exchange is the pattern it reveals. [9:50] This was not one bad answer or one difficult moment, it was a consistent refusal to engage [9:55] with reality. [9:56] Every direct question was met with deflection, every serious concern was brushed aside, every [10:01] opportunity to demonstrate transparency was ignored. [10:04] And when leadership consistently avoids the truth, it stops being a communication problem, [10:09] it becomes a credibility crisis. [10:11] What Patty Murray exposed here is not just a political disagreement, it is a fundamental [10:16] breach of the rule of law. [10:17] It is a fundamental breach of the rule of law. [10:19] It is a fundamental breakdown in how power is being exercised. [10:23] A Justice Department that cannot clearly commit to following court orders, cannot explain [10:28] its own decisions, and will not hold itself accountable, is not just ineffective, it is [10:32] untrustworthy. [10:33] And once that trust is gone, the damage does not stay confined to a hearing room, it spreads [10:38] across the entire system, eroding confidence in the very idea of equal justice under the [10:44] law.