Defense Secretary.

If you missed my commentary on that event, make sure you navigate over to episode 27 of Daniel's Brew to listen to that one.

Well, in the last two days, we also had the confirmation hearing for Pam Bondi, Trump's pick for U.S. Attorney General.

And remember how contentious Hegseth's hearing was?

And how the Democratic congressmen and women just completely embarrassed themselves by showing how petty and prejudiced they were against Trump's nominations?

Well, the Pam Bondi hearing didn't disappoint.

It continued to show how those on the opposite side of the aisle showcases their disdain for anyone appointed by the incoming president.

Let's dive into this together.

If confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United States, my overriding objective will be to return the Department of Justice to its core mission of keeping Americans safe and vigorously prosecuting criminals.

And that includes getting back to basics, gangs, drugs, terrorists, cartels, our border, and our foreign adversaries.

Lastly, and most importantly, if confirmed, I will fight every day to restore confidence and integrity to the Department of Justice and each of its components.

The partisanship, the weaponization will be gone.

America will have one tear of justice for all.

Good.

That last line about restoring confidence in the DOJ is perhaps the most important thing that Pam Bondi can do in this role.

The utilization of the DOJ to personally go after Trump and other prominent conservative voices in this country has been one of the most frightening abuses of power that I've seen the government engage in in a long time.

This has to stop on both sides of the aisle.

And like she said, trust has to be restored, especially within this department of government.

Ms. Bondi, we want an attorney general who bases decisions on facts.

So I want to ask you a factual question.

Who won the 2020 presidential election?

Joe Biden is the president of the United States.

Ms. Bondi, you know that there is a difference between acknowledging it and, you know, I can say that Donald Trump won the 2024 election.

I may not like it, but I can say it.

You cannot say who won the 2020 presidential election.

Okay.

It's disturbing that you can't give voice to that fact.

Oh, you said that the White House will play no role in investigative or charging decisions in the DOJ.

Is that correct?

Senator, what I said is that it is the Department of Justice's decision to determine what cases will be prosecuted.

What role will the White House have in investigative or prosecutorial decisions of the DOJ?

It is the Department of Justice's decision, Senator.

So that sounds to me that you're saying that the White House will not have any kind of role.

So you have an incoming president who said, I have the absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department.

And in fact, President-elect Trump considers the DOJ to be his law firm.

Ask you this.

If President-elect Trump asks, suggests, or hints that you as Attorney General should investigate one of his perceived political enemies, would you do so?

Senator Hirono, I wish you had met with me.

Had you met with me, we could have discussed many things and gotten to know-

I am listening to you now.

You could have gotten to know me.

Could you respond to the question?

Yeah, you were the only one who refused to meet with me, Senator.

But what we would have discussed is that it is the job of the Attorney General to follow the law.

I'm very happy to listen to your responses under oath, Ms. Bondi.

So I think it's really important to us that the Attorney General be independent.

So first, you'll hear this question a lot from all the Democratic congressional men and women in this hearing, all of them terrified that Trump will go after his political opponents through the DOJ.

It's such a hypocritical question, given that this is what the Biden administration has been doing all throughout these four years.

But Pam does do a good job of answering the question in a neutral manner, stating that the DOJ is independent, making decisions of whether or not to investigate any party within themselves.

But a better answer would have been that the DOJ would investigate anyone in which there is sufficient cause or sufficient reason to pursue, even if that happens to be a political opponent of Trump's.

Being a political opponent of Trump does not absolve you of any wrongdoing in government.

And if there is sufficiently reasonable justification for going after a person that was an enemy of Trump, then the DOJ would independently make that judgment call and take the right course of action.

You see, the Democratic line of questioning on this topic continues to harp on the fear that Trump's opponents might be targeted by the DOJ.

But if there are certain people that happen to be Trump's opponents that have acted in an illegal and severely detrimental fashion, then they would deserve to be investigated.

Whether if the president suggests, hints, asks, that you as attorney general should investigate one of his perceived enemies?

Senator, I certainly have not heard the president say that, but what I will tell you is two thirds of Americans have lost faith in the Department of Justice.

And it's statements like that, I believe, that make people continue to lose faith.

If I am confirmed as attorney general, it will be my job to not only keep America safe, but restore integrity to that department.

And that's what I plan on doing every single day as attorney general.

On August 25th, 2025, on Fox News, you said, when Republicans take back the White House, the Department of Justice, the prosecutors who will be prosecuted, the bad ones, the investigators who will be investigated, Ms. Bondi, is Jack Smith one of those bad prosecutors that you will prosecute as AG?

Senator, you hesitated a bit when I said the bad ones.

Every decision will be made in the eyes of the beholder.

I'm just asking whether you would consider Jack Smith to be one of the people.

How about Liz Cheney?

Senator, how about Merrick Garland?

I am not going to answer hypotheticals.

No one has been prejudged, nor will anyone be prejudged if I am confirmed.

These are, in fact, the people that you would prosecute.

Your time is up.

Honestly, this is why the American public thinks our government is such a joke.

That lady is Maisie Hirono, the junior U.S. senator from Hawaii.

Not only was she so unprepared that she was literally reading off her notes when she was asking Pam Bondi her questions, but she spent all of her time talking over Pam immediately after finishing her question.

And notice that Pam gave her the perfect answer by saying that two-thirds of the American people have lost trust in the DOJ because of the perception of bias and partisanship that exudes from the likes of questions that Hirono asked.

It boggles my mind how many C-students we have in government.

And when you see such empty, fatuous moments of what is simply an exercise of these risible people hearing themselves talk, the denseness of our current government is on full display.

How about asking her a question on her experience?

How about asking her a perspective on how she plans to restore trust in the DOJ?

How about asking her her opinion on what type of tactical overhaul she would work on first when she takes into office?

How about asking her anything except partisan questions that are politically charged and aimed at extracting a questionable soundbite that can be used and misconstrued to attack the other side of the aisle?

How about that?

I thought the exchange just a moment ago with Senator Hirono was illustrative.

She asked you how you would respond if the president asked you to target his political enemies.

It's rather striking because it's not a hypothetical.

It has happened over the last four years.

And I think perhaps the most tragic legacy of the Biden-Harris administration has been the politicization and the weaponization of the United States Department of Justice.

And we don't need to ask hypothetically because Joe Biden publicly mused and allowed the New

York Times to report it, calling on Merrick Garland, why will he not prosecute Trump more quickly?

And Merrick Garland, sadly, he sat in that chair and promised to be apolitical, and he broke that promise almost the instant he walked into the Department of Justice.

If you look on the West pediment of the Supreme Court of the United States, just above the entrance, there's a simple yet profound four-word phrase, equal justice under law.

We have seen over the last four years a Department of Justice that systematically targeted the political opponents of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and that systematically protected his friends and allies.

And it is tragic to see the loss of confidence in the American people in the Department of

Justice and in the FBI.

I would note, I don't think there's an institution in America who has lost more respect from the American people than the FBI has in the last four years.

That is a grotesque violation of the obligation of the Department of Justice and the FBI.

So I want to start with just a very simple question.

If you are confirmed as attorney general, will you pledge to fairly and faithfully uphold the law regardless of party?

So help me God.

Amen.

Look, and I want to be clear for folks at home.

I don't want a Republican Department of Justice.

I don't want a Democrat Department of Justice.

I want a Department of Justice that follows the damn law.

Good.

I'm not the only one that was irritated by the hypocrisy of these questions.

Good job to Senator Ted Cruz for responding to the blatant bias exhibited by Hirono.

And he's absolutely right.

We don't want another partisan DOJ.

We want one that's fair and upholds the integrity of the law.

And like Mr. Giuliani, as you've noted today, you've taken an oath to uphold the Constitution just as an attorney.

And now you're asking us to consider you to serve as the chief law enforcement officer in our country.

So it's imperative, Mr. Fondi, that you subscribe to facts and evidence and not politically convenient conspiracy theories.

Your job will be, I'm speaking, your job will be to protect voters and election workers, not to undermine and dox them.

Now I know that earlier you agreed that Joe Biden is in fact president, but many of the president-elect's inner circle continue to spread the big lie about the 2020 election.

Then we'll move on to a different topic.

Senator, you were speaking, may I speak?

You cut me off when I was speaking.

You cut me off when I was speaking.

I hope you answer, Ms. Fondi.

Well, I'd like to answer the previous one, Senator.

When we met yesterday, you did not seem to be familiar with the citizenship clause of the United States of America, which was deeply disappointing.

I guess you didn't want to hear my answer about Pennsylvania.

After I gave an opportunity to study overnight.

So can you tell me in this committee what the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment says?

Senator, I'm here to answer your questions.

I'm not here to do your homework and study for you.

If I am confirmed as Attorney General.

You're the one asking for a confirmation vote, ma'am.

Hey, you cut me off.

Can I please finish?

What does the 14th Amendment say?

Senator, Senator, the 14th Amendment we all know addresses birthright citizenship.

I've been a state prosecutor.

I've been a state AG.

I look forward to even given your remarks today, working with you and the people of

California if I am confirmed as the 87th Attorney General of the United States of

America.

I didn't take your homework assignment.

I'm sorry.

I was preparing for today.

So on the 14th Amendment, now you've testified repeatedly to this committee that you will uphold the laws of this country and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Do you believe birthright citizenship is the law of the land and will you defend it regardless of a child born in the United States, regardless of their parents' immigration status?

Senator, I will study birthright citizenship.

I would love to meet with you regarding birthright citizenship.

Can I answer the question?

Ma'am, you're asking us to consider you to serve as the Attorney General of the United

States and you still need to study the 14th Amendment of the Constitution?

That is not helping me have more confidence in your ability to do this job.

Let me take a step back and outline the fact that these confirmation hearings are supposed to be interviews, interviews to see whether or not the candidate in question is fully qualified to do the job they're seeking.

When you have lines of questioning like you just had from Senator Padilla from California, all you see is political theater designed to attack the other political party.

I mean, literally, what substance did we glean from those few minutes of questioning?

Did we learn anything new about Pam's credentials or her background?

Did we learn anything that might help us understand how Pam might operate or think in her new role?

Of course we didn't.

Imagine if you're on an interview panel to hire a person at your work.

And one of your colleagues on that panel comes in with a preconceived notion of mistrust and bias against the candidate and then asks a bunch of questions aimed at attacking our new boss.

The behavior of these senior 50 to 60-year-old Democrat politicians is just so embarrassing.

I too have taken note of the number of times you have been asked about weaponization of the Department of Justice as if it was a theoretical possibility that might happen in the future.

One of my colleagues on the other side said, weaponization may well occur under your tenure.

We all know that weaponization has occurred like we've never seen before in American history under this administration.

And I want to get even more specific.

In the last four years, this administration has carried out an unprecedented attack and campaign against people of faith.

If you look at the numbers, we've never seen anything like it before in American history.

It has been one of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of the Justice Department and in the history of the FBI.

And I hope that you will reverse this and do right by every American citizen, including especially people of faith.

Let me give you some specifics.

After the Dobbs case was decided by the Supreme Court, over 100 pregnancy care centers and over 300 churches in this country were attacked, vandalized, firebombed.