All posts tagged "pam bondi"

Trump's henchmen revealed: mapping the powerful network that really rules America

A formal organization chart of the Trump regime would show Trump on top, his Cabinet officers arrayed underneath him, the White House staff below them, and an assortment of lower-level appointees at the bottom.

The reality is far different.

Today I want to give you what might be described as a power map of the regime — where power really lies and who really reports to whom.

At the top center of the map is the troika of Stephen Miller, Russell Vought, and JD Vance. Their joint goal appears to be to destroy American democracy.

Their power comes from their knowledge, tenacity, connections, and fanaticism — and from Trump’s apparent willingness to sign off on whatever they want to do.

Stephen Miller wants to return America to the 1950s, when it was dominated by white, straight, Christian men whose ancestors were born here. Miller is pushing for high tariffs, managing the ICE raids on Democrat-run cities, summoning National Guard and federal troops, and seeking to provoke enough violence to justify invocation of the Insurrection Act.
Russell Vought wants to create an all-powerful executive branch dictatorship, usurping the roles of the other branches. Vought has illegally impounded over $410 billion so far. During the shutdown, he has frozen nearly $28 billion for more than 200 projects mostly in Democrat-led cities and congressional districts, has fired thousands of federal employees, and is threatening not to provide back pay to furloughed federal employees.
JD Vance wants to prevent the Democrats from taking control of one or both chambers of Congress in the 2026 midterms and become president after Trump. He’s urging Republican states to engage in more gerrymandering to eke out more Republican House seats, managing the legal assault on the Voting Rights Act and mail-in voting, and pushing universities and the media to the right.

A fourth person also near the center of the regime’s power structure is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose tenacity and fanaticism are doing incomparable damage to America’s system of health care, health research, and public health. He’s got a lot of power but organizationally is out of the loop.

Second tier

Under Miller are Kristi Noem, secretary of homeland security; Howard Lutnick, secretary of commerce; and Pete Hegseth, secretary of defense (or war).

Under Vought are Scott Bessent, secretary of the treasury, and what remains of Musk’s DOGE.

Under Vance are Pam Bondi, attorney general; Kash Patel, director of the FBI; Linda McMahon, secretary of education; and Marco Rubio, secretary of state.

Under RFK Jr. is a vast (and increasingly dysfunctional) public health system including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.

Third tier

Beneath the second tier is a ragtag collection of ambitious bottom-feeders and misfits who are trying to rise through the muck.

For example: William Pulte, who, in his capacity as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has come up with flimsy evidence of mortgage fraud allegedly committed by people Trump wants to harm, such as New York State Attorney General Letitia James, California Senator Adam Schiff, and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Pulte reports to Bondi and Miller.

There’s also Peter Navarro, the fanatical trade isolationist and anti-China hand who in the first Trump regime publicly advocated hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 and condemned public health measures that aimed to stop the virus’s spread. After refusing to tell Congress what he knew about Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Navarro was convicted of contempt of Congress and spent four months in prison. Navarro reports to Lutnick and Miller.

Tom Homan, the so-called “border czar,” who accepted a bag of $50,000 in an FBI sting operation (the investigation has been dropped by Trump’s Justice Department and the FBI).

Heather Honey, a well-known election denier, now heading the Office of Election Integrity.

Where’s Trump?

Depending on the day and the issue, Trump wafts around the power map.

Because he is not a decision-maker and is pursuing little other than power, money, and praise, no one actually reports to him. They listen to him rave, laud him, tell him how wonderful he is and that he’s right about everything, and then report to the people with real power.

Trump will be out in front on an issue that’s likely to get a lot of positive attention, generate him a lot of money, or enlarge his power. Otherwise, he’s off the map, watching television and playing golf.

The fringe

Around the fringe of the power map is a Star Wars cantina of weirdos. Although not officially inside the regime, they exercise power by gaining fleeting access to Trump or to one of the troika.

They include Laura Loomer, Curtis Yarvin, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and various other Fox News personalities whose phone calls Trump will take and who may influence his thinking for a moment but have only indirect influence on what the regime actually does.

The oligarchy

At the top of the power map you’ll see billionaire oligarchs who have extraordinary clout in the Trump regime. In effect, the regime reports to them.

They include:

Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur who got JD Vance his job. He has a direct pipeline to Vance.
Stephen Schwarzman, the private equity CEO. Schwarzman takes a variety of roles. For example, he’s behind the scenes in the regime’s fight with Harvard and other major institutions.
Bill Ackman, the investor. He, too, influences the troika. He’s the main intermediary between Trump and Elon Musk.
Musk himself still wields significant influence over Miller, Vought, and Vance.
Marc Andreessen, the unofficial godfather of Silicon Valley and co-founder of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. He’s heavily invested in artificial intelligence startups and financial technology firms and informally advises the regime.

Also: tech oligarchs Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, and Tim Cook.

And Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Jared Kushner. As members of the Trump family, they depend on, and are depended on by, the powers within the regime.

What’s in it for the oligarchs?

Money and power. Most basically, the oligarchs don’t trust democracy. Their definition of freedom is the ability to accumulate and retain as much wealth as they wish.

Their deepest fear is that the majority of Americans, if fully informed, would expropriate their fortunes. As Thiel wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

Marc Andreessen’s red line was a proposal that wafted around the Biden administration to tax unrealized capital gains. Others are freaked out by the possibility of a wealth tax on billionaires and multimillionaires.

The oligarchs are not entirely anti-government because they also want government funding for their giant projects, such as AI and the exploration (and exploitation) of space, which require vast amounts of capital and resources.

Hence, their enthusiasm for the defense industry, Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds, and Chinese technology and the Chinese market.

***

No one in the Trump regime reports directly to these oligarchs. Instead, those with power inside the regime keep a keen eye on the oligarchs — courting them, seeking their approval, wanting their connections, using their power, pocketing their money, and channeling their influence.

The oligarchs know their decisions can make or break Trump. They likewise depend on the regime. Power in the Trump regime is a function of such mutual dependence.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org.

'Dragnet': Ex-DOJ lawyer sounds FBI alarm as Bondi and Patel hail new 'antifa' indictment

A former senior Department of Justice anti-terrorism lawyer who served in three presidential administrations said he was troubled by federal prosecutors calling “antifa” a “militant enterprise,” in a recent indictment against two individuals accused of attacking a Texas ICE facility.

The indictment unveiled on Thursday charges Zachary Evetts and Cameron Arnold with providing material support to terrorists and three counts each of attempted murder of federal officers and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, in connection with a July 4 attack on the ICE Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas.

The government alleges the two were part of an “antifa cell,” while defining “antifa” — commonly understood as a decentralized movement of people opposed to fascism — as an “enterprise made up of networks and small groups ascribing to a revolutionary anarchism or autonomous Marxist ideology.”

The indictment goes on to say that since Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January, “antifa adherents have increasingly targeted agents and facilities related to DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in opposition to ICE’s deportation actions and the U.S. government’s policy on the removal of illegal aliens.”

“The choice of the term ‘enterprise’ is illuminating in that they suggest they are investigating antifa as an enterprise,” Thomas E. Brzozowski, who formerly served as counsel for domestic terrorism at the Department of Justice, told Raw Story.

“It gives them the authority to look at a lot of stuff — membership, recruiting, funding….”

“It gives the FBI the wherewithal to examine the funding of anybody that would in their view fall under this bucket, which is pretty broad, even if you are not involved in perpetrating violence in the furtherance of this ideology.”

Brzozowski, who served under Joe Biden and Barack Obama as well under Trump’s first administration, added: “When you’ve got this amorphous definition that encompasses such a wide array of ideologies, that is a broad spectrum of people that are otherwise unconnected. That’s a problem, in my view.”

The indictment echoed language in Trump’s Sept. 22 executive order naming “antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization,” while describing it as “a militaristic, anarchist enterprise.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi cited Trump in an X post on the indictment Thursday, declaring, “Antifa is a left-wing terrorist organization. They will be prosecuted as such.”

FBI Director Kash Patel wrote: “Under President Trump’s new authorities we’ve made 20+ arrests. No one gets to harm law enforcement. Not on my watch.”

‘Protest and shoot fireworks’

The indictment only says one member of the so-called “antifa cell” — described only as “Coconspirator-1” — fired at law enforcement at the ICE’s Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas on July 4.

The indictment describes “Coconspirator-1” as opening fire on Alvarado police officers responding to a 911 call from ICE, striking one of the officers in the neck area.

The U.S. Department of Justice has identified the shooter as Benjamin Hanil Song.

Song is separately charged with three counts of attempted murder of federal agents, but is not named as a defendant in the indictment defining “antifa” as a “militant enterprise.”

That indictment alleges that “Coconspirator-1” (Song) trained members of the “antifa cell” in firearms and close-quarters combat, and that when police responded to the ICE facility on July 4, Song yelled, “Get to the rifles.”

Patrick McLain, Evetts’ lawyer, previously told Raw Story his client believed he would be participating in a protest, and did not fire a gun.

“They were going to the ICE detention facility,” McLain said. “Mr. Evetts was going to protest and shoot fireworks on the night of the 4th of July. Clearly, someone fired.”

The recent indictment states that the police officer, who was reportedly discharged from an area hospital following the attack, returned fire.

“I know my guy was not a shooter,” McLain said. “I know my guy was not carrying a firearm.”

‘Who's antifascists? Everybody’

The material support charge against Evetts and Arnold utilizes a statute known as § 2339A, which was expanded to cover federal crimes of terrorism under President George W. Bush.

The statute, which carries a prison sentence of up to 15 years, was used by the government to prosecute three members of the Front, a neo-Nazi accelerationist group that plotted an attack on the power grid in 2020.

Brzozowski said he didn’t question the application of the charge to Evetts and Arnold, based on their alleged conduct.

But he did question how the administration was attempting to connect individuals in an alleged “antifa” enterprise, beyond ideology.

“I don’t see anything in the indictment that they self-identified as antifa,” Brzozowski said.

“Who’s antifascists? Everybody. Unless you’re a member of Atomwaffen or you’re a neo-Nazi. The vast majority of us are antifascist, I would hope.”

The reference to “anarchist or Marxist ideology” as a “connective tissue” for the alleged “enterprise” raises the prospect that people could be criminalized for political beliefs, regardless of whether they perpetrate violence, Brzozowski said.

“If you envision a situation like 200 people showing up outside an ICE facility and two or three are dressed in black, and they start tussling with the police and engaging in violence, what about the other 197 people?” Brzozowski asked.

“Are they now in an FBI database? That’s the most pernicious thing about this. You never know if you’re going to be swept up in a dragnet.

“The vagueness is the kicker,” he added. “It’s backwards. Typically, the FBI’s targets are going to be driven by a whole apparatus. They build up an intelligence picture of the most potent threats. That’s going to dictate how they allocate their scarce resources.

“Here, it appears the sequencing is jacked up. The administration is directing them to pursue a chimera, instead of an actual target based on intelligence.”

Pam Bondi was reportedly blindsided by behind-her-back indictment of Letitia James

U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan failed to give a heads-up to Attorney General Pam Bondi that she was appearing before a grand jury to seek a high-profile indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James, according to a new report.

According to a report from CNN, Bondi was caught unaware that the newly appointed Halligan not only made the surprise appearance by herself before a grand jury, but she also took the case to a different jurisdiction than the one where she was barely able to get former FBI Director James Comey indicted on two counts: making a false statement and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

Halligan, appointed as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, got a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, to indict James for bank fraud under the belief that “the grand jury there would be more supportive.”

CNN is reporting that James’ trial, if it does happen, will still be held in Norfolk.

According to the report, “Halligan, who has been running the Eastern District of Virginia for just over two weeks, did not coordinate with Bondi or other leaders at the Justice Department headquarters in Washington, DC, or inform them about timing before presenting the case to a grand jury.”

“Halligan had told some people, including at least one Justice Department official, in recent days that she was planning to move forward with the charges against James," CNN is reporting.

'I'm not worried about that!' Pam Bondi snaps at reporter who asked about Trump's rhetoric

Attorney General Pam Bondi snapped at a reporter Friday after being asked if she would encourage President Donald Trump to tone down his inflammatory rhetoric amid recent incidents of political violence.

Speaking at a press conference in Florida, Bondi announced that the Justice Department had foiled an alleged “Antifa” plot inspired by the killing of right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk. Officials went on to share that the DOJ had arrested a man accused of sending a letter to conservative media personality Benny Johnson, threatening to assassinate him in a similar manner.

Bondi went on to condemn acts of political violence, and Johnson, speaking shortly thereafter, blamed the recent spike in political violence squarely on the Democratic Party. A reporter went on to challenge Johnson’s assertion, asking Bondi about Trump’s own inflammatory remarks.

“During Charlie Kirk's funeral, the president said 'I disagree with Charlie, I hate my opponent, I don't want the best for him,’” the reporter said.

“Just given what we're talking about here and the seriousness in how people take every word and use it to reinforce their preconceived notions about people – someone crazy could act on words like that – would you encourage the president to not say things like that?”

Bondi immediately fired back at the reporter’s suggestion that Trump’s comments were inflammatory, raising her voice as she declared that “the president said nothing about violence, absolutely nothing!”

“That was in response, I believe, to amazing Erika Kirk talking about her forgiveness, and he was saying how brave and bold she was, and how difficult it is to forgive the person who assassinated…” Bondi said, before the reporter asked a follow up question about whether she was worried that Trump’s comments could stoke political violence.

“No, I'm not worried about that! Because that was not said, that was not said, no act of violence was said. If anyone is sending a threatening communication through the mail like they did to Benny Johnson, we're going to find them and we're going to prosecute them; it doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on.”

The lies have it: how Trump's most loyal trooper reached a new low

It’s a shame they don’t play entrance music for witnesses at U.S. Senate hearings.

Attorney General Pam Bondi came to the Senate Judiciary Committee to praise Donald Trump — and make sure no one tried to bury him — and she spent four defiant hours doing just that. Bondi, famous for choreographing her endless Fox News cameos, surely wishes she could have rolled out more production values on Tuesday.

Just imagine the potential.

“Pam Bondi strolled to the witness chair wearing a MAGA hat to the beautiful sounds of Tammy Wynette’s “Stand By Your Man,” Sean Hannity could have reported. “If that didn’t bring tears to your eyes, you’re some radical leftist or squish. Definitely not human.”

Unfortunately, Bondi had to settle for lip syncing the words. But in a MAGA movement so sexist as to publicly embrace submissiveness as a special virtue for its women — even though the men are just as pathetic — Bondi outdid herself.

Bondi “dodged questions on 14 topics” — which you have to admit is pretty impressive — according to the Washington Post’s scorecard. Here’s just a smattering of Bondi’s groveling devotion to her man:

Bondi stated, “My attorneys have done incredible work advancing President Trump’s agenda and protecting the Executive Branch from judicial overreach” — arguably the most blatant rejection of any pretense of DOJ independence from the presidency ever recorded in the Senate.
When asked by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) if the Epstein investigation files included incriminating photos of Trump with half-naked young women, Bondi didn’t say no — she chose to attack the senator instead.
She told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): “I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump. And, currently, the National Guard are on the way to Chicago. If you’re not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will.”
When questioned about reports that former FBI Director James Comey’s indictment came shortly after President Trump publicly called for his prosecution, Bondi refused to discuss any conversations she had with the White House, repeatedly stating, “I am not going to discuss any internal conversations with the White House.”
Bondi declined to discuss internal conversations with the White House about National Guard deployments or DOJ decisions — then turned and attacked Democrats for politicizing law enforcement.
Declined to answer Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) about whether she was firing career prosecutors solely because they worked on January 6 cases Trump doesn’t like.
When pressed by Sen. Whitehouse on $50,000 in cash delivered to Trump border czar Tom Homan, she wouldn’t confirm or deny — instead telling him, “Senator, you’re welcome to talk to the FBI.”

Confrontational hearings between officials of any administration and senators are hardly new. But the degree to which Bondi disrespected the process — apparently in keeping with Trump’s new playbook in which witnesses attack the character of adversarial senators rather than respond to their questions — is in a league of its own.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) afterwards called it “possibly a new low for attorneys general testifying before the United States Congress,” saying, “Her apparent strategy is to attack and conceal. I have never seen anything close to it in terms of the combativeness, the evasiveness and sometimes deceptiveness.”

It really shouldn’t be that much of a surprise. October marks the 12th anniversary of Bondi’s first act of public fealty to Trump. Back then, she was Florida’s attorney general and he was just a famous guy whose Trump University happened to be getting sued by the state of New York as a fraudulent “sham.”

Here’s how a Palm Beach Post editorial described what took place in October 2013:

Just days after Ms. Bondi’s office announced that it might join a lawsuit against Mr. Trump and his school, Mr. Trump’s foundation cut a $25,000 check to a Bondi re-election committee. Despite the timing, the political committee found nothing amiss. It kept the money and Ms. Bondi decided not to participate in the lawsuit.

Twelve years later, it was hardly Bondi’s first Trump rodeo when she bent the knee at the Senate hearing. It won’t be the last.

But she’ll be hard pressed to surpass the unintended irony she displayed in personally attacking Trump nemesis Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) rather than answering any of his questions.

“If you worked for me, you would have been fired because you were censured by Congress for lying,” Bondi told Schiff, without a hint of self-awareness.

Talk about a government shutdown. If Trump’s inner circle was subjected to that standard, he would be obligated under the Bondi standard to utter his famous “You’re fired!” to every single one of them.

Including, most definitely, Pam Bondi.

'She is choosing not to': Fuming reporter hammers Pam Bondi over Tom Homan bribery evasion

An obviously angry Ken Dilanian of MSNBC lashed out at Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday morning over her refusal to answer questions about border czar Tom Homan being filmed taking a $50,000 bribe that was part of an FBI influence peddling investigation.

Dilanian, along with colleague Carol Leonnig, broke the story about Homan in late September, where they reported, an associate of Homan’s “suggested to undercover FBI agents that Homan could facilitate future government contracts in exchange for big money,” which reportedly led to a meeting where he was videoed being handed the cash in a Cava bag.

On Tuesday, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bondi was pressed by multiple Democrats about the video, whether Homan returned the cash and if he should report it as taxable income.

For her part, Bondi either refused to answer the questions, stated they should ask FBI director Kash Patel, or launched a sneering personal attack on whichever Democrat was grilling her.

Wednesday morning, a fuming Dilanian hammered the Donald Trump appointee who has also been accused of being swayed by cash.

Pointing out the attorney general was gifted with an “utter lack of Republican skeptical questions as she thumbs her nose at senators and reads from oppo research and doesn't answer a single question,” he added, “And just because we broke the Homan story here at MSNBC, I'll just say that of all the questions that she didn't answer, that for me was the most frustrating because, you know, she can't credibly say ‘I'm not going to discuss my conversations with the president,’ or ‘I'm not going to discuss a pending criminal investigation' — this is closed.”

“There's nothing, there's no reason she can't talk about the Homan matter,” he accused. “There's no reason she can't say whether he took the $50,000. What happened to it? Did he keep it? Did he pay taxes on it? Why was the investigation closed?”

“She could answer those questions, but she is choosing not to,” he insisted. “And I think the reasons are obvious to all of us.”

“And in fact, when she was asked by Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii in detail about that $50,000 bag allegedly given to Tom Homan, she said, ‘Are you a member of antifa?’ was her comeback,” co-host Willie Geist contributed. “She cited some rally where Senator Hirono had been, so she's not only not answering the question, but just turning to whatever her prepared attack was.”

- YouTube youtu.be

'Juries see that pause': Ex-senator warns Pam Bondi stumbled on key Epstein file questions

A former senator reacted Tuesday to Attorney General Pam Bondi's combative and stumbling responses to questions about the Jeffrey Epstein files before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, warning that "juries see that pause."

Attorney and former Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) told MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace that eventually, more information would come out.

"When I was a courtroom prosecutor and I had a witness on the stand, and they looked the way she looked when he asked that question, what was flashing through her brain was her telling the FBI agents and Kash Patel to go through those records and flag Donald Trump's name," McCaskill said.

"That was what that was. And that was that pause you saw. And you know what? Juries see that pause. And the American people see that pause. And she can come back with yelling and snark and ugly all she wants. It doesn't change the fact that she lied about there not being a list of clients she's lying about," she added.

Bondi refused to answer questions about the Epstein case.

"There nothing being in that file that is important to the victims of these crimes," McCaskill said. "And I do think they're going to be found out. And by the way, you know, all the stuff they're doing right now, I mean, they're prosecuting Comey for lying in front of the Senate. I hope she tries that shirt on and likes how it fits."

'Never seen anything like it': Expert stunned by Pam Bondi's bizarre responses

A legal expert called Attorney General Pam Bondi's reaction to questions from members of Congress on Tuesday during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing "remarkably, completely antagonistic."

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman told CNN that Bondi "refused to give answers at every turn."

"She gave no answers, really," Litman said. "Anything she could deflect, she did, but was really remarkable. You've seen fiery moments with AGs at other hearings. She came in guns a blazing with pre-drafted soundbites, and just whenever there was something she needed to answer, she substituted instead the sort of 'when did you stop beating your wife' kind of slurs."

He pointed to Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and his fiery interaction with Bondi after he asked her about a reported 2024 bribery scheme involving White House Border Czar Tom Homan receiving a bag of cash with $50,000. It led to an FBI probe, though Homan has not been charged, and senators pressed Bondi about what happened to the money.

She deflected "from some really basic questions" during the hearing, Litman said. "Ask the FBI, she said."

Litman called Bondi's reactions "a concerted strategy, both not to give any responses, but also to have a sort of, you know, outrage, bombastic kind of presentation that she was even there and that I, I assume she hopes, observers who aren't paying a lot of attention just take away from it."

He said it was unusual.

"But it was remarkably unresponsive," Litman added. "And remarkably like I've never seen anything like it. Completely antagonistic and contemptuous to the senators"

At some points, Bondi said she would not say anything, then "proceeded to give details, self-serving details, and then and only then shut things down."

"In any event, the notion I think it's just puzzling," he said. "But what really was salient to me is she'll talk a little bit — she'll talk a little bit about Epstein and then shut things down again with personal insults. You know, Schiff was making a real point. It's an oversight hearing. This is where you give us answers. And with this sort of calculated bombast, she refused to give answers at every turn."

Stetson grad Pam Bondi scoffs at legal knowledge of senator — who went to Harvard Law

Attorney General Pam Bondi tried to put down a U.S. senator Tuesday as she refused to answer multiple questions — begging to know of Adam Schiff (D-CA), "Do you have a law degree?"

Unfortunately for Bondi, her intended sleight failed as he does — from Harvard Law School.

The law school is ranked sixth in the country, according to U.S. News and World Report.

Stetson University, from which Bondi graduated, is ranked 99th.

Bondi testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday and was asked by Schiff and several other senators about a reported 2024 bribery scheme involving White House Border Czar Tom Homan receiving a bag of cash with $50,000. It launched an FBI probe — though Homan has not been charged — and senators were asking Bondi about what happened to the money.

"So I'm asking you the question, did he take the money?" Schiff asked.

Bondi said she had already answered the question. Schiff pushed back and said he didn't think she had responded to it. Then, she said the investigation was prior to her confirmation as attorney general.

"All I know is that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director [Kash] Patel said there was no case. And Caroline Leavitt is one of the most trustworthy human beings I know," Bondi said.

Then she attacked Schiff, saying she would have fired him if he worked for her.

Schiff didn't hold back, saying "You can stipulate to all your personal attacks on the Democratic members of the committee."

Bondi was visibly upset and responded, "Personal attacks? You've been attacking my FBI director. You've been attacking my office."

Schiff continued talking about the Homan investigation, asking Bondi to respond.

"You're the attorney general. This will be your decision. Will you support..." he asked, then Bondi cut him off.

"Don't tell me what is my decision," she snapped.

"Let me let me do this because I think it's it's valuable that the American people get a sense of what you have refused to answer today," Schiff responded. "So these are just some of the questions you refuse to answer, or have answered with personal attacks on members of this committee. You are asked whether you consulted with career ethics lawyers, as you promised you would do during your nomination hearing, when you approved the president receiving a $400 million gift from the Qataris. You refuse to answer that question. You are asked who or what role you may have played, or who played the role, in asking the Trump's name be flagged in any of the Epstein documents gathered by the FBI? You refuse to answer that question. You were asked whether Homan kept the $50,000 bribe money? You refuse to answer that question. You were asked whether Homan paid taxes on the $50,000 bribe money? You refuse to answer that question. You were asked, did career prosecutors find insufficient evidence to charge James Comey? You refused to answer that question. You were asked, how are military strikes on these boats in the Caribbean legal? And you refuse to even answer that question?"

That's when Bondi asked him if he had a law degree. Schiff ignored her question.

"You were asked by my colleague whether you believe government officials, like immigration officials, have to abide by court orders? You wouldn't even answer that question. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing," Schiff said.

Bondi attempted to interject again.

"Attack me later," Schiff said. "And I know you've got plenty of canned attacks. We've heard them all day today."

'President was unswayed': NYT's Haberman reveals moment Pam Bondi 'pushed back' on Trump

Attorney General Pam Bondi stood up to Donald Trump in the course of a recent DOJ shake up, according to new reporting.

Bondi has publicly supported the president's moves, but a Saturday article from Maggie Haberman and others at the New York Times shows the behind-the-scenes push back.

It started with James Comey, whom Trump had sought to prosecute. According to the report, things turned heated with "the resignation of Erik S. Siebert, the U.S. attorney who believed the evidence against Mr. Comey was insufficient."

"By mid-September, Mr. Trump was determined to rid himself of Mr. Siebert, a 15-year veteran of the office. Ms. Bondi and Mr. Blanche, who had worked closely with Mr. Siebert on immigration, drug and gang cases, pushed back," according to the Times. "The president was unswayed. On Friday, Sept. 19, he told reporters he wanted Mr. Siebert to leave. The prosecutor, who had hoped to find another job in the department, knew that time was up and resigned, according to officials in his office who requested anonymity to avoid retribution."

The report continues:

"The next morning, shellshocked staff members in the U.S. attorney’s office awakened to find an email in their inboxes from Maggie Cleary, a veteran state prosecutor, saying she was their new boss."

Bondi and Blanche kept pushing back with Trump's new appointment, as well, the report states.

"Mr. Trump announced that Ms. Halligan, a former member of his criminal defense team who had previously specialized in insurance law, would run the office. That her first order of business was indicting Mr. Comey was obvious," the article notes. "Ms. Bondi and Mr. Blanche had not been given much of a head’s up, or veto power, over the pick. Both quietly questioned Ms. Halligan’s credentials to run such an important U.S. attorney’s office, according to a person with knowledge of her thinking."

Read the report here.