Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Attorney General Nominee Pam Bondi Faces Confirmation Hearings. Aired 11-11:30a ET
Aired January 15, 2025 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): It does that specifically because under the Fourth Amendment, you're required to go to a judge and you're required to show a judge evidence, evidence providing probable cause and based on that probable cause, you can describe with particularity the things or persons to be searched or seized. And on that basis, the judge may issue or not issue the warrant, but without it, you can't get it.
Now this is time consuming, no doubt, right?
PAMELA JO BONDI, NOMINATED TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: Oh, I've done many of them, yes. It's very time consuming, Senator.
LEE: And there's probably not a law enforcement officer anywhere in the world who wouldn't acknowledge that they could save time if they didn't have to go about it, and yet we require it.
Why is that so important that we do it?
BONDI: Well, it's so important for the reasons you just laid out when I said I've done many of them. I've approved them and not approved them as a state prosecutor because law enforcement, there are checks and balances and law enforcement must bring these warrants to prosecutors to see if there is sufficient evidence, then after that's done, they have to take them to a judge to have a judge sign them.
So there have to be sufficient checks and balances throughout our system.
LEE: So even after you as Attorney General, as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and Prosecutorial Authority in the state of Florida, approved it within your office, you still had to go to the judge. And if it was late at night, early in the morning, didn't matter when you had to find a judge.
BONDI: All hours of the night. That was more when I was a state prosecutor. As Attorney General, the office of the statewide prosecutor, Nick Cox, would've done that many, many times at all hours throughout the night and woken up many, many judges throughout the state of Florida.
LEE: Is there an exception to the warrant requirement that exists anytime it would be inconvenient for prosecutors or anytime national security might be involved?
BONDI: I'm not certain about national security, but -- but absolutely no for a state prosecutor.
LEE: Right. Yeah. There's...
BONDI: No, no exceptions.
LEE: ... there's no catch all exceptions that just says this is important or it would be inconvenient for the prosecutor and with good reason.
BONDI: Right.
LEE: We've learned through sad experience over many hundreds of years, not only in our own country, but also in that of our mother country, what happens when you don't have this in the loop?
So, you've been asked today a little bit about Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as FISA. There are those who have repeatedly assured members of this committee, including myself, that don't worry content phone calls or electronic communications involving American citizens, sometimes resulting in the quote unquote incidental collection of American citizens, private conversations. Don't worry, their Fourth Amendment rights are just fine. And yet, when they incidentally collect the communications of American citizens, either because they're perhaps unwittingly talking to somebody who might be an agent of a foreign power, and -- and themselves under 702 surveillance, they get onto this big database.
And at times there are those in the government, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who have gotten into that database and done so, of course, without a warrant because there currently is no warrant requirement. This has the effect of what we call a de facto backdoor warrantless search.
Would you agree with me that that is potentially concerning anytime an American citizen's private conversations are intercepted, stored, whether as an incidental collection or otherwise, they ought not be searched without some kind of probable cause showing. I assume you'd agree with me on that.
BONDI: Yes.
LEE: Yeah, and it's important. Sometimes people will defend that by saying national security is involved. As if that's the beginning and the end of the inquiry. That has never been the case. And I hope and pray it never will be the case. Because that's not what the Fourth Amendment says, not what it does, not what it ever can be.
So, it's my sincere hope that the next time FISA 702 comes up for reauthorization, Congress finally do what it has been avoiding for a long time, which is to ensure that this doesn't happen.
We've heard again and again from people who, if you're confirmed to this position, will soon be your predecessors, prior occupants of the position to which you've been nominated and to which Mr. Patel has been nominated. Don't worry, we have good people. Don't worry, we have good systems in place. Don't worry, it's as good as a warrant requirement, the internal approval procedure that we have within our system. And yet we found out time and time again that this has happened, by some accounts, hundreds of thousands of times these things have been accessed where searches for an American citizen's private communications that have been intercepted and stored through incidental collection have been searched without those safeguards being met, including instances where people just wanted to check on, to cite one example, whether his father was cheating on his mother, or in other instances doing background checks on someone looking to lease an apartment that he owned and was looking to rent out.
[11:05:00]
This is unacceptable and we've got to fix it.
Speaking of unacceptable, we've seen over the last few years the weaponization of government, specifically within the Department of Justice, against law-abiding Americans. Law-abiding Americans whose offense was something along the lines of, you know, them exercising their constitutional rights, ranging from Catholics attempting to practice their faith, to parents showing up to school board meetings, to people showing up to engage in peaceful protesting outside of abortion clinics.
As Attorney General, how will you prevent the weaponization of the Department of Justice against Americans?
BONDI: And Senator, you just gave the classic example of what's been happening regarding the weaponization. Going after parents at a school board meeting has got to stop. For practicing your religion, sending informants in to Catholic churches must stop.
LEE: What about branding parents as domestic terrorists or trying to incarcerate one's political opponent as a sitting President of the United States?
BONDI: Will stop. Must stop. Yes Senator.
LEE: That is exactly the sort of answer I was hoping and expecting to receive from you, and I look forward to doing everything I can to help get you confirmed. I've been pleased with your answers thus far, I've enjoyed knowing you, considering you a friend for many years, and look forward to the great things you will do as Attorney General of the United States. You have my emphatic support and my vote.
BONDI: Thank you, Senator.
SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY (R-IA): Senator Coons.
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Attorney General Bondi, and to your family and supporters. Thank you for your service, and I look forward to our conversation today.
I have a simple three-factor test when considering the executive branch nominees before us. Do you have the qualifications and experience to do the job, policy views to do the job in the best interest of the American people, and the character and integrity to conduct your job, and yours in particular, with the independence that the role requires?
You demonstrably have the relevant experience. I understand we will not see eye-to-eye on some or even many policies, but we had a constructive conversation last week about our shared interest in fighting the opioid epidemic, countering human trafficking, criminal justice reform, and supporting law enforcement.
But I need to know that you share a core value, ensuring the Department of Justice remains free from partisan or political influence, in particular by the White House. So I look forward to our discussion about that today.
As Attorney General, if confirmed, who would be your client?
BONDI: My oath would be to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The people of America would be my client. And it is also my job to advise the President, my client are the people of America.
COONS: A simple question of constitutional interpretation. Is President-elect Trump eligible to run for another term as president in 2028?
BONDI: No Senator, not unless they change their constitution.
COONS: Thank you. One of the concerns I've raised with you is safeguarding the Department of Justice's independence in the face of some promises on the campaign trail by then candidate Trump, that he would use the department to target his political adversaries, or that he might interfere with prosecution. 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?
BONDI: Senator, if I thought that would happen, I would not be sitting here today. That will not happen. Will not happen. Every case will be prosecuted based on the facts and the law that is applied in good faith. Period. Politics have got to be taken out of the system.
COONS: I agree with you.
BONDI: This department has been weaponized for years and years and years, and it has to stop.
COONS: Thank you. Let me, if I might, Madam Attorney General, refer you back to Senator Durbin's opening comments about previous attorneys general, our former colleague, Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr. I don't think it's credible to say that it may never happen that the president-elect would direct an unethical or illegal act. I think both of those attorneys general found themselves crosswise with the then President, by doing things he didn't welcome or approve of.
Just answer the question for me, if you would. I know you may not expect it. I know you wouldn't have accepted this nomination if you thought it possible. But let's imagine that, once again, President- elect Trump issues a directive of order to you or to the FBI Director that is outside the boundaries of ethics or law. What will you do?
[11:10:01]
BONDI: Senator, I will never speak on a hypothetical, especially one saying that the President would do something illegal. What I can tell you is my duty, if confirmed as the Attorney General, will be to the Constitution and the United States of America. And the most important oath, part of that oath that I will take, are the last four words, 'so help me God.'
COONS: Given the importance of that oath, I hope you can understand the importance of repeated questions from some of us about the importance of having independence in the Department of Justice. It has a long tradition of independent special prosecutors, especially to handle high-profile or often political cases. If you got credible evidence of a criminal violation by a White House official, including even the President, would you bring in a special prosecutor?
BONDI: Senator, that's a hypothetical. I can tell you what I do know, is special prosecutors have been abused in the past on both sides. We have seen that for many, many years. They have cost the taxpayers countless dollars, countless. And I will look at each situation on a case-by-case basis and consult the appropriate career ethics officials within the department to make that decision.
COONS: Attorney General, do you think special counsels need to be confirmed by the Senate?
BONDI: I will follow the law, and I will consult with the appropriate ethics officials regarding the law right now. They do not need to be Senate-confirmed, of course.
COONS: But you did sign an 11th Circuit brief arguing that they should be.
BONDI: I will follow the law, Senator. That's why I said it.
COONS: Understood. But I was just getting to the clarity about the difference between a position you've advocated and what the current law is. Thank you for that.
Look, bluntly to me, refusing to answer a hypothetical when there is clear and concrete previous history raises some concerns for me. I think Chris Wray has done an outstanding job as FBI Director at avoiding political pressure. And although he was chosen by President Trump, he's being driven out, so that he can be replaced. My perception, I've not yet met with Mr. Patel, by a loyalist who has publicly said he will do what the President asks him.
Given that Attorney General Barr was asked to go find evidence of election interference and improprieties, went and looked for the evidence and said, I can't find any, and was then dismissed. I'm just going to ask you one last time. Can you clarify for me that in following ethics in the law, you'd be willing to resign if ordered to do something improper?
BONDI: Senator, I wouldn't work at a law firm. I wouldn't be a prosecutor. I wouldn't be Attorney General. If anyone asked me to do something improper and I felt I had to carry that out, of course I would not do that. That's one of the main things you learn when you are a young prosecutor is to do the right thing, and I believe that has continued with me throughout my very long career.
COONS: As we discussed, protecting American invention and innovation, American intellectual property is a real concern of mine and of several others on this committee. I look forward to talking with you about that pressing concern. But the most important question I had for you today is whether you will be willing and able to stand up to politicization and interference in the Department of Justice, and I look forward to further clarification from you about the specifics of that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BONDI: Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
GRASSLEY: Thank you. Senator Cruz would be next, but he's not here, so I call on Senator Kennedy.
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi, welcome. Congratulations. Can we agree that legitimacy is important to America's criminal justice system?
BONDI: Yes, Senator.
KENNEDY: Can we agree that legitimacy is important to the Department of Justice, which in part administers our criminal justice system?
BONDI: Yes, Senator.
KENNEDY: And if Americans come to believe that our criminal justice system or our Department of Justice is acting illegitimately, that makes Americans less likely to accept the results of that system, does it not?
BONDI: Yes, Senator.
KENNEDY: And that makes Americans less likely to follow the substantive laws that we pass, that are administered by the Department of Justice.
[11:15:09]
Isn't that true?
BONDI: Yes, Senator.
KENNEDY: And if that happens, we have chaos, don't we?
BONDI: Chaos.
KENNEDY: And the social contract is breached, isn't it?
BONDI: Yes.
KENNEDY: Do you remember a person by the name of Michael Avenatti?
BONDI: Yes.
KENNEDY: Several years ago, he was a media star here in Washington.
BONDI: An attorney, correct?
KENNEDY: Yes. He was a media star. And many members of our media loved him, because he persistently bashed Donald Trump, and he was on TV every day. He was on CNN more than Wolf Blitzer. Do you know where Mr. Avenatti is today?
BONDI: I believe he's sitting in prison, Senator.
KENNEDY: He's in jail. Because he was a crook and the Department Of Justice helped put him there. Didn't it?
BONDI: Yes, Senator.
KENNEDY: Do you remember a gentleman by the name of Sam Bankman Fried?
BONDI: Yes, Senator.
KENNEDY: Boy genius. So smart and so powerful that he thought he could, uh, command the tides. So smart and so powerful and so rich that he would go to meetings with serious people like Bill Clinton, like Tony Blair, looking like a slob, looking like a fourth runner up to a John Belushi lookalike contest, and he thought it was cute. Where is Mr. Bankman Fried today?
BONDI: I believe he is in prison and I believe that's from the Netflix series I saw as well.
KENNEDY: Because he's a crook. And who helped put him there?
BONDI: The Department Of Justice, Senator.
KENNEDY: Can we agree that there's some really, really good men and women at the Department Of Justice?
BONDI: Many, many great men and women in the justice department, as well Senator, as all the law enforcement agencies that fall within the Department Of Justice. They are out there risking their lives, especially the law enforcement officers every single day.
KENNEDY: Can we agree though, that there have been, and may be today, some bad people at the Department Of Justice?
BONDI: Yes, Senator.
KENNEDY: We don't know for sure, because for the last four years, the curtains there have been tightly drawn. But I think some, a minority of people there have de-legitimized America's criminal justice system.
The most destabilizing act that I saw in the past four years, maybe in the history of the department, is when Attorney General Garland decided on the basis of dubious facts and untested legal theories to criminally prosecute former President of the United States. And not only that, this is the special part. He decided to do it after the former President of the United States had announced that he was going to run against Attorney General Garland's boss, didn't he?
BONDI: Senator, are you referring to going after a political opponent?
KENNEDY: I think so. Now, this is one person's opinion. That kind of stupid takes a plan. And I say that because, number one, this is America. That had never happened before in America.
[11:20:00]
That's the sort of thing that happens in a country whose -- whose Powerball Jackpot is 287 chickens and a goat. It doesn't happen here. And I call it stupid because it broke the seal.
BONDI: It did.
KENNEDY: It broke the seal. It normalized it. There are a lot of ambitious prosecutors in America, Democrat and Republican. And I'll bet you right now, there's some prosecutor in a particular state thinking about, well, maybe I ought to file criminal charges against President Biden's inner circle for conspiring to cite -- to conceal his mental decline.
And that's the road we're headed down. And you've got to fix it, Counsel. You've got to fix it. And here's, in my judgment, what I would ask you to do. Find out who the bad guys are and the bad women and get rid of them. Find out who the good people are and lift them up. But do it on the basis of facts and evidence and fairness. Because the temptation of some people is going to be.
They're going to tell you, look, two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make it even. Don't resist -- or resist that temptation. Help us restore legitimacy to the Department of Justice.
BONDI: Thank you, Senator.
GRASSLEY: Senator Blumenthal.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Welcome Ms. Bondi and to your family.
BONDI: Thank you.
BLUMENTHAL: Thank you for visiting with me in my office. And I have to say, I'm sympathetic always to a former attorney general, particularly having been one myself. But I am -- I have to say also, really troubled, deeply disturbed by some of your responses and non-responses to the question that you've been asked today.
You say the right things that you're going to be the people's lawyer. That's what you have to say to be here.
But I believe being the people's lawyer means you have to be able to say no to the president of the United States. You have to speak truth to power. You have to be able to say that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. You dodged that question when you were asked directly by Senator Durbin.
You have to be able to say that January 6th insurrectionists, who committed violence, shouldn't be pardoned. You have to be able to say that a nominee for the FBI director, who says he has an enemy list, and that's just the beginning of what he has said in terms of politicizing, deeply weaponizing the FBI against political opponents, that he shouldn't be the FBI director.
You know, we have some history here with your predecessors. Barr, Sessions, and others who perhaps sincerely when they sat where you are now, said that they would say no, but they were working with a president that expected them to be his Roy Cohn, his personal attorney.
Do you really think that you can avoid the disgrace that they encountered or the repercussions from the White House if you say no to the president?
And so my question to you is, can you say no to the president of the United States when he asks you to do something unethical or illegal?
BONDI: Senator, first I need to clarify something that you said that I have to sit up here and say these things. No, I don't. I sit up here and speak the truth. I'm not going to sit up here and say anything that I need to say.
Senator, first I need to clarify something that you said, that I have to sit up here and say these things. No, I don't. I sit up here and speak the truth. I'm not going to sit up here and say anything that I need to say to get confirmed by this body. I don't have to say anything.
I will answer the questions to the best of my ability and honestly.
BLUMENTHAL: But let me ask you. An individual who says that he is going to, quote, come after and, quote, people he alleges, quote, help Joe Biden rig the presidential elections. That he has a list of people who are part of this deep state who should be prosecuted. That he's going to close down the FBI building on his first day in office.
[11:25:09]
Is that a person who appropriately should be the FBI director? Aren't those comments inappropriate? Shouldn't you disavow them and ask him to recant them?
BONDI: Senator, I am not familiar with all those comments. I have not discussed those comments with Mr. Patel.
What I do know is Mr. Patel -- BLUMENTHAL: Well, I'm asking you for your view.
BONDI: Excuse me. What I do know is Mr. Patel was a career prosecutor. He was a career public defender, defending people. And he also has great experience within the intelligence community.
What I can sit here and tell you is Mr. Patel, if he works with running the FBI, if he is confirmed, and if I am confirmed, he will follow the law. If I am the Attorney General of the United States of America, and I don't believe he would do anything otherwise.
BLUMENTHAL: Well, let me just submit that the response that I would have hoped to hear from you is that those comments are inappropriate and that you will ask him to disavow or recant them when he comes before this committee, because they are indeed chilling to fair enforcement and the rule of law.
Let me ask you on another topic. When we met, I welcomed your support to the goals of the Kids Online Safety Act.
And Senator Blackburn and I have spent a lot of time, devoted a lot of effort to the passage of the Kids Online Safety Act, which happened by an overwhelming vote of 91 to 3, 72 co-sponsors, including Vice President-elect Vance. I appreciated our discussion and your support for protecting kids online when we met last week. I'm hopeful that this area is one where we can work together.
Can we count on your support in working together to protect kids online?
BONDI: Senator, absolutely. And thank you for that legislation, and Senator Blackburn. I believe in this world right now, we have to find the things we have in common. And that is certainly one of them, Senator, protecting our children from online predators.
You've done so much on that front. And I thank you. I attempted to do that as well when I was attorney general, but I am committed to working with you on anything we can do to protect our children throughout this country.
When I was attorney general, we started something called from instant message to instant nightmare and educating parents about online predators. And that also, Senator, is one of the core functions of the FBI, the cyber unit.
They sit there. These agents sit there all day long and investigate child predators. We tell parents constantly, you think you're talking to another child and you're not.
BLUMENTHAL: Ms. Bondi, I apologize. I'm going to interrupt you. I welcome your positive response. I have --
BONDI: OK.
BLUMENTHAL: -- one more question that I'm going to try to fit into --
BONDI: Sure.
BLUMENTHAL: -- this round. TikTok will be banned, unless it is sold, because it has become a tool for the Chinese to collect information and do surveillance and endanger our national security.
Can you commit that you will enforce that law promptly and effectively? And I ask this question because President Trump's pick for your solicitor general, in the Department of Justice, went to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the ban should be delayed.
Will you commit to enforce that law on your first day when you are -- if you are confirmed?
BONDI: Senator, as I discussed with you during our meeting that is pending litigation within the Department of Justice.
BLUMENTHAL: Well, it's pending litigation, but will you enforce that law?
BONDI: I can't discuss pending litigation. But I will talk to all the career --
BLUMENTHAL: Again, I'm --
BONDI: -- prosecutors who are handling the case. Absolutely, Senator. I'll discuss with them.
BLUMENTHAL: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GRASSLEY: Senator Tillis.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Ms. Bondi, thank you for being here. I think I told you when we met, thank you for the time we met.
I was born in Florida. Have a lot of friends and family and follow Florida politics pretty closely. And you've had a very impressive career there. Though I do also have to admit, I'm a gator hater, so for the Florida alum, I'm University of Tennessee.
But anyway, I actually, in some of these hearings, I created a bingo card to see what some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were going to hit. I want to go back to a few of them really quickly.
One was about you being a lobbyist paid for and on the payroll of Qatar. Would you mind going back and repeating what you said in case people did not hear the involvement of your law firm and precisely what you were doing for the government of Qatar?
