‘That question deserved a yes or no’: Pam Bondi refuses to admit Trump lost the 2020 election at her Senate confirmation hearing
During her Senate confirmation hearing for her nomination as Donald Trump’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi still refused to say that Trump lost the 2020 election.
After Matt Gaetz dropped out of the race for Attorney General due to his numerous controversies, Bondi was chosen as his replacement. A recent article from Politico described Bondi as one of Trump’s “safest Cabinet picks.” Indeed, she’s not expected to have nearly as difficult a time passing the Senate as picks like Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard. Unlike most of Trump’s picks, she actually has relevant experience for the role she was nominated for and does not have disturbing allegations of misconduct against her. The biggest concern about her is that she’s a notable Trump loyalist. In 2020, she proved her loyalty by staunchly promoting false claims of election fraud. She falsely claimed the day after Election Day that Trump won the state of Pennsylvania and continued peddling election conspiracies. Her actions endangered election officials, fostered distrust of the electoral system, and helped incite the January 6 rioters.
Given Trump’s interest in retribution and desire to go after those who investigated or challenged him in the past, many fear Bondi’s loyalty to him could motivate her to weaponize the Department of Justice to aid Trump. During her hearing, she promised such a weaponization wouldn’t happen. However, her bias for Trump resurfaced when the topic of the 2020 election came up.
The Senate grills Pam Bondi on her election denial
During Bondi’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, described how many Americans believe acceptance of election results is “central to the peaceful transition of power in a democracy.” However, Durbin noted that Trump has never acknowledged the results of the 2020 election. Hence, he asked Bondi a yes or no question, “Are you prepared to say today under oath without reservation that Donald Trump lost the presidential contest to Joe Biden in 2020?”
Instead of answering “yes,” Bondi stated, “President Biden is the President of the United States.” She went on to describe the transition of power, Biden’s swearing-in, and her acceptance of him as her president. Saying she “accepts” Biden as the president is quite a vague answer, as she doesn’t clarify if she accepts him because she had to or because she believes the election was fair. Bondi concluded her non-answer by unnecessarily mentioning how Trump was “overwhelmingly elected” in 2024. Durbin then rephrased the question, asking if she had any “doubts” that Biden won the election. Once again, she danced around the question by vaguely saying she “accepted” the election results. Bondi also cryptically claimed that she “saw things” at the time, insinuating these things raised concerns about election integrity.
Durbin did not let her get away with the non-answer and pointed out that the question was plainly a “yes or no” type. He stated, “That question deserved a yes or no. The length of your answer indicates that you weren’t prepared to answer yes.”
Durbin then questioned if Bondi had listened to the tape in which Trump was recorded asking the Secretary of State of Georgia to find more votes for him to win the election. She denied hearing it, so Durbin gave her an exact quote from the recording in which Trump demanded the official “find 11,780” votes and questioned whether she was concerned by it. However, she continued insisting that, despite Durbin’s confirmation of an exact quote, Trump didn’t actually say that or that his statement was taken out of context. Unable to get a straight answer from her since she kept returning to the excuse that she hadn’t heard it, Durbin ended the questioning by telling her to listen to the tape.
The incident doesn’t look good for Bondi, considering her loyalty to Trump is her biggest concern. She was under oath, yet still refused to admit that Trump won the election or that demanding an election official find him over 11,000 votes was at least concerning. These are very basic “yes or no” questions that someone with a legal background like hers should have no difficulty answering. The only reason she wouldn’t be able to answer is because she’s putting Trump’s words and will over facts and evidence. Having an Attorney General who supports Trump is one thing, but having one so loyal to him that she’d deny facts under oath is an entirely different thing.
Have a tip we should know? tips@themarysue.com
