Bulwark Takes: “AG Pam Bondi Faces the Senate in Chaotic Hearing”

Podcast: Bulwark Takes
Date: October 7, 2025
Hosts: Sam Stein (A), Andrew Egger (B)
Main Theme: A detailed breakdown and reaction to Attorney General Pam Bondi’s tumultuous 4.5-hour Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, centering on her combative style, evasiveness, and the state of Congressional oversight in the Trump administration’s second term.

Episode Overview

Sam Stein and Andrew Egger dissect Attorney General Pam Bondi's Senate testimony, a hearing marked by fierce partisanship, personal attacks, headline-grabbing allegations, and Bondi's dogged refusal to engage substantively with serious oversight questions. They reflect on the chaotic tone of the hearing, its implications for Congressional oversight, and what it reveals about the current state of U.S. politics and governance.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The Nature and Tone of the Hearing

• Duration: Lasted four hours and forty minutes, dominated by acrimony and grandstanding.
• Bondi’s Style: Aggressive, hyper-partisan, always prepared with opposition research on Democratic senators, and overtly gracious only toward Republican questioners.
• Lack of Substance: Despite grave topics (corruption, DOJ weaponization, National Guard deployments), Bondi dodged nearly all substantive questions.
• Reflection from Sam Stein:
  • “...this is an almost perfect distillation of how much Congress has abdicated their responsibility...” (01:20)

Notable Quote

• Adam Schiff (Democrat):
  “This is supposed to be an oversight hearing...when dozens of prosecutors have been fired simply because they worked on cases investigating the former President...when will it be that the members of this committee on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those questions and refuse to accept...” (03:27–05:06)
• Bondi’s response (interrupting, contemptuous):
  “Clearly, you’re a failed lawyer...”
  “No one needs a can attack on you...”
  (Shows the personal attack style permeating the hearing.)

Partisan Bickering & Absence of Oversight

• Republicans: Instead of pursuing answers on corruption and impropriety (e.g., allegations around Tom Homan, DOJ interference), they used their questions to praise Bondi and attack Democrats.
• Democrats: Frustrated, often pleaded for real answers, but were usually met with evasion or ad hominem counterattacks.
• Andrew Egger:
  “It was really kind of astonishing to watch...anytime it was a question from a Democrat designed to extract information...immediately, pedal to the floor hostility.” (05:18)
• Both hosts stress that this lack of oversight represents a dangerous precedent for American governance.

Highlighted Moments and Memorable Exchanges

Bondi’s “Oppo Hit Parade” (The Mastercut)

• Bondi delivered custom-tailored oppo research-based attacks on almost every Democratic senator questioning her.
• Notables:
  • “I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump.”
  • “You refused repeated Republican requests to release the Epstein flight logs.”
  • “When you pushed for legislation that would subsidize your wife’s company.”
  • “You lied about your military service.” (To Sen. Blumenthal, recurring campaign attack.)
  • “You were out protesting with Antifa...”
• Peter Welch (Senator):
  “Before you hit me with whatever you have, let me ask my question.” (10:48)
• Host’s Analysis:
  The attacks often recycled the archetypal “campaign hit,” unrelated to the charges or topics at hand.
  Andrew:
  “At every turn, it was like...whatever the main campaign hit against a guy would have been when they were first elected to the Senate...it's just, I mean...” (13:29)

Key Issue: Tom Homan’s $50,000 Bribery Allegation

• Context: Allegation that border czar Tom Homan accepted a $50K bribe (in a “kava bag”) in an FBI sting, selling access to the administration.
• Pam Bondi's Response: Evasive, denied “knowing” anything, referred questioners to the FBI director, and turned defensive—sometimes “How dare you slander Tom Homan!”
• Sam:
  “Her response is, ‘I’m bad at my job. I didn’t even bother to find out if there’s a video.’ … It’s totally unbelievable.” (23:05)
• Bondi-Welch exchange (memorable):
  • Welch: “Do you think it is of public interest for people to know what happened to the 50 grand that the FBI turned over to Homan?”
  • Bondi: “That was resolved prior to my confirmation as Attorney General...You’re not going to sit here and slander Tom Homan.” (20:23–21:51)
• Hosts’ critique: Bondi’s evasions only make the corruption look worse.

Issue: National Guard Deployment to US Cities

• Durbin’s grilling: Sought legal rationale for sending Texas National Guard to Illinois.
• Bondi: Repeatedly refused to discuss “internal conversations with the White House.”
  • Pivoted immediately to political attacks:
    “I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump. If you’re not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will.” (26:20)
• Andrew’s insight:
  Tactics aim to normalize federal overreach for the base, sidestepping all legality:
  “They are kind of continuing to train their own base more and more...to just not have their own minds flick over to the question of, well, is this like a legal thing?” (30:43)
• Sam:
  “If they feel like this is a politically smart and legally sound deployment...they should outline the legal rationale for it. It does them no good to be secretive…” (29:29)

Issue: Comey Prosecution and White House Dinner

• Allegation: Trump directly told Bondi (via Truth Social post and at a cabinet dinner) to “do something” about former FBI Director James Comey, then prosecution swiftly followed.
• Bondi: Glib about the dinner photo, refused to discuss content, ultimately acknowledged “Pam” in Trump’s post was her, but insisted the President’s actions were always public.
• Notable exchange:
  Blumenthal: “Did you discuss James Comey with the President? He was sitting just to your left.”
  Bondi: “Well, two seats down. Yes, two seats down. And I am not going to discuss any…”
  Blumenthal: “The entire cabinet took instructions from President Trump after he told you very directly to indict James Comey.” (32:16–33:09)
• Hosts reflect:
  Sam:
  “It is not common for the Attorney General to do this with the President. It’s just not...This shit just doesn’t happen.” (33:49) Andrew:
  “She’s gloating. I mean, like, yeah, it’s totally...ah, it’s a great picture. We had a good time, I’d do it again.” (33:57)

Additional Highlights & Timely Segments

The Jack Smith Meta-Data “Scandal” (Republican distraction)

• Subjects: Republicans spent significant time on a memo revealing Special Counsel Jack Smith obtained the metadata (not content) of Republican senators' phone records during January 6 probes.
• Hosts: Point out that such investigative measures are logical if a criminal conspiracy is suspected; Republicans treat this as evidence of DOJ “weaponization.”
• Sam:
  “There’s good reason why Jack Smith would want this stuff...” (39:54)
• Andrew:
  “I would like to live in a world where prosecutors don’t have probable cause to do that.” (39:54)

The Epstein Files Fiasco

• Durbin’s questions: Pressed Bondi on the promise to release the Epstein client list, and on alleged special review of files for Trump mentions.
• Bondi: Sidestepped, claimed, “there was no client list,” dodged questions regarding special favorable treatment for Trump.
• Notable refusal:
  • Durbin: “Did the FBI find photographs of Donald Trump with ‘half naked women’ in the Epstein investigation?”
  • Bondi: Refused to answer, leaving implications dangling. (42:52)

Larger Takeaways and Hosts’ Closing Thoughts

• State of Oversight:
  The hearing exemplified the degradation of Congressional oversight—a committee unwilling to demand answers, a cabinet official openly contemptuous of challenges, real scandals buried beneath theater.

• Host’s Final Take:

  • Sam:
    “What do we get from this hearing? Not much, because they don’t give us much to get. But...it does say a lot...about just how bad things are...” (43:57)
  • Andrew:
    “I do think it matters. I think, like, having Republicans who say, you know what? I like Tom Homan...but, like, I do need to know: did he sell government contracts to the highest bidder? Like that matters. And I wish we lived in a world where at least one Republican said that, but we don’t.” (45:23)

Timeline of Notable Segments

| Segment/Topic | Timestamp | |-------------------------------------------------------|:--------------:| | Opening, framing of the hearing | 00:00–01:20 | | Discussion of Bondi’s combative style/oppo tactics | 01:20–14:45 | | Tom Homan bribery segment & Bondi’s evasions | 17:21–23:34 | | National Guard deployments/legal authority evasions | 25:36–30:54 | | Comey prosecution, Bondi’s dinner with Trump | 32:16–36:01 | | Jack Smith metadata “scandal” | 38:01–40:46 | | Epstein files, special treatment for Trump | 41:13–43:14 | | Final thoughts on oversight and institutional decay | 43:50–End |

Tone, Language, and Atmosphere

The hosts maintain a mix of disbelief, wry humor, and earnest concern. They're openly frustrated by the partisanship and crumbling legal norms, frequently noting the “dark place” of current political culture but also finding moments for darkly comedic relief (e.g., the “Mastercut” of Bondi’s oppo hits, repeated “kava bag” references).

Summary for New Listeners:

This episode is an incisive, unsparing look at the dysfunction of political oversight in the Trump-Bondi era—examining not only the chaos of the day but how the tone, style, and tactics on display reflect a much deeper institutional crisis. It's highly recommended if you want a thorough, critical account of what happened inside the hearing room, flavored with the Bulwark team’s signature candor, wit, and analytical rigor.