'I Can't Believe You're Asking Such A Question!': Pam Bondi And Adam Schiff Have Shock Clash

Summary

In this intense exchange, a nominee for a key position in the Justice Department faces probing questions about their independence and ability to withstand political pressure. The dialogue centers on the nominee's potential response to hypothetical and non-hypothetical situations, such as investigating high-profile individuals and advising the president. Key issues discussed include the president's influence, election integrity, pardoning controversial figures, and preserving evidence in sensitive investigations like January 6. The nominee's reluctance to provide clear commitments regarding these matters raises concerns about their ability to act independently and uphold the law.

Takeaways

• 😀 The nominee emphasizes the importance of the Attorney General's independence and the need to make decisions based on facts and evidence.
• 😀 The nominee is cautious about committing to investigating individuals like Jack Smith or Liz Cheney without reviewing specific evidence and facts.
• 😀 The President's calls for investigations or pardons should not override legal procedures; a factual basis is required to open any investigations.
• 😀 The nominee stresses that they will not make blanket statements regarding election fraud and will instead address specific cases they have knowledge of.
• 😀 The nominee expresses the need to provide independent legal advice to the president, particularly when it comes to controversial issues like pardoning individuals involved in violent acts.
• 😀 The nominee is pressed to assure that evidence related to the January 6th investigation will be preserved, but they are reluctant to give a direct answer, emphasizing following the law.
• 😀 The nominee refuses to make sweeping claims about the 2020 election, choosing to focus on specific instances rather than making broad statements about election fraud.
• 😀 The nominee is asked whether they would advise the president to issue blanket pardons, and their response suggests that each case would be reviewed individually.
• 😀 The nominee refuses to confirm whether they would have the independence to tell the president uncomfortable truths, like acknowledging Trump's loss in the 2020 election.
• 😀 The nominee’s reluctance to answer some direct questions raises concerns about their ability to assert independence and take strong stances when necessary.

Q & A

What concern is raised regarding the president's ability to commit crimes using the Department of Justice?

The concern raised is that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States granted the president absolute immunity to commit crimes in certain core areas, such as the Department of Justice. This immunity is seen as dangerous, as it may enable the incoming president to misuse the Department of Justice to commit crimes with impunity.

Why is it important for the Attorney General to have independence in their decision-making?

It is important for the Attorney General to have independence in their decision-making to ensure that they can resist political pressure from the president and act in accordance with the law, without fear of reprisal or manipulation. The ability to say 'no' to the president when necessary is critical in preserving the integrity of the Department of Justice.

What was the nominee's response when asked if they would investigate Jack Smith, as per the president's wishes?

The nominee stated that they had not seen the file or the investigation details, and therefore it would be irresponsible to commit to any action without reviewing the facts. They emphasized the importance of having a factual predicate before opening an investigation.

How did the nominee respond when asked about investigating Liz Cheney?

The nominee reiterated that no one had asked them to investigate Liz Cheney and noted that the question was hypothetical. They refused to engage in speculation without factual basis.

What question regarding election fraud did the senator raise, and how did the nominee respond?

The senator asked whether there was massive fraud affecting the 2020 election. The nominee declined to provide a direct answer, stating they could only comment on what they personally observed in Pennsylvania and insisted on not engaging in hypothetical scenarios about widespread fraud.

What concerns were raised about the potential for blanket pardons, and how did the nominee respond?

The senator raised concerns that the president might issue blanket pardons, particularly for those involved in violent acts. The nominee stated that pardons are at the discretion of the president and that each case would be reviewed individually. They also mentioned that they would advise the president accordingly after reviewing the files.

How did the nominee address the question of preserving evidence related to the January 6 investigation?

The nominee stated that they would follow the law and consult with ethical officials in the department regarding the preservation of evidence. However, they hesitated to make a blanket commitment to preserving evidence in the investigation, explaining that they needed to follow legal procedures.

What was the senator’s criticism of the nominee’s reluctance to commit to preserving evidence?

The senator criticized the nominee for not giving a direct assurance to preserve evidence in the January 6 investigation, suggesting that it should not be a difficult question. The nominee defended their position by stating that they would follow the law and consult with relevant ethical authorities.

What does the senator mean when they refer to the nominee’s responses as avoiding 'hard truths'?

The senator accuses the nominee of being reluctant to answer straightforward questions that might require difficult or unpopular answers, such as acknowledging the loss of the 2020 election or the existence of widespread election fraud. The senator sees this as a failure to demonstrate the necessary independence and fortitude.

What is the central theme of the questioning regarding the nominee’s ability to serve as Attorney General?

The central theme of the questioning revolves around whether the nominee can maintain the independence of the Department of Justice and resist political pressure, especially from the president. The senator is particularly concerned about the nominee’s ability to make tough decisions, such as investigating certain individuals, providing impartial legal advice, and ensuring the preservation of critical evidence.