Jessica Collins, a spokeswoman for the House Oversight Committee, said Wednesday the department signaled that Bondi, who was ousted by President Donald Trump last week, will not appear for the deposition April 14 “since she is no longer attorney general and was subpoenaed in her capacity as attorney general.” The committee will contact Bondi’s personal counsel to discuss the next steps about scheduling the interview, she said.
Bondi has faced scrutiny for how the Justice Department handled what are known as the Epstein files, and the Republican-led committee subpoenaed her in a bipartisan vote last month. The department’s release of millions of case files on Epstein, the late financier who sexually abused underage girls, contained multiple errors and ran behind a deadline set by Congress.
Congress BETTER make a fucking example out of her.
She might not be the AG but she was, and she is still Pam Bondi.
If her name is on the subpoena, she goes on the stand.
Now if she pulled the lizard mask all the way off and showed us the real Glorpambondini underneath she might just get away with it.
But then they could just subpoena Glorpambondini…
Current resident, etc etc
Ignoring a Congressional subpoena didn’t work out to well for Steve Bannon or Ron Varo, and it won’t work out for Bondi either.
I posted this in the other sub and forgot to do it here, my apologies. Anyway, the actual letter sent yesterday by Ro Khanna and Nancy Mace to Chairman Comer explains the actual legal position and precedent, and the DoJ refusal to have Bondi appear has no legal substance at all. It’s an easy read, so I included the text along with the source. See it for yourself.
Note especially the assertion made in paragraph 5, “As you know, Congress’s oversight authority does not end when an official leaves office. In fact, just last year the Committee issued subpoenas to six former Attorneys General, spanning multiple administrations of both political parties.”
Even a President and an ex-Secretary of State/Senator had to appear in response to the same kind of subpoena from the same committee: there is no legal room for Pam Bondi to refuse. Whether there is poitical will to hold her feet to the fire is another matter, and with Republicans crossing the aisle for this, there just might be. Time will tell.
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515April 7, 2026
The Honorable James Comer
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515Dear Chairman Comer,
We urge you to make clear former Attorney General Pam Bondi remains obligated to comply with the Oversight Committee’s subpoena and appear for her scheduled deposition on April 14, 2026.
We moved to subpoena Pam Bondi, and the Committee voted to approve this motion on a bipartisan basis, because the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) still has not complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act (Public Law No: 119-38), and because serious questions remain regarding the DOJ’s non-compliance and their handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates while she was Attorney General.
The removal of Pam Bondi as Attorney General does not diminish the Committee’s legitimate oversight interests in seeking her sworn testimony or the need for accountability and information about files withheld from the public by the DOJ. On the contrary, it makes her sworn testimony even more important, especially with respect to actions she took as Attorney General, matters already under investigation, and decisions made under her leadership.
When Pam Bondi appeared last month for a briefing, you reiterated you would continue to pursue her sworn testimony and would discuss holding her in contempt of Congress if she failed to comply. She also stated that she would follow the law with respect to her subpoena, which clearly requires her to appear before the Oversight Committee.
As you know, Congress’s oversight authority does not end when an official leaves office. In fact, just last year the Committee issued subpoenas to six former Attorneys General, spanning multiple administrations of both political parties. The American people deserve answers about whether Congress was misled and whether information is being withheld by the DOJ.
We ask you to publicly reaffirm that Pam Bondi must appear on April 14 for a sworn deposition as ordered or face appropriate enforcement if she refuses to comply.
Sincerely,
Ro Khanna
Member of Congress
U.S. House of RepresentativesNancy Mace
Member of Congress
U.S. House of RepresentativesJust ignoring a congressional is an option… Who knew
There’s been precedent set for this since trumps first term
see <Gym Jordan>
Someone please tell Hillary Clinton that she can just ignore Congress in the future, since the GOP have just confirmed that.
Yeah…not how that works box of wine.
Hey. You leave that camping bladder of fun alone! That’s been tradition longer than lizard people’ve been a thing. 🤌🏼
Come on people we all hate Bondi and the whole Trump Admin, but there’s plenty to criticise them without editorialising article titles.
The actual title is:
Bondi won’t appear for House deposition next week in the Epstein investigation
Meaning… there’s an issue with the paperwork for the subpoena she received, but presumably they will resolve it. So she’s not going to appear on the 14th but will appear at some point.
It’s in the quoted text:
will not appear for the deposition April 14 “since she is no longer attorney general and was subpoenaed in her capacity as attorney general.” The committee will contact Bondi’s personal counsel to discuss the next steps about scheduling the interview, she said
We live in a world where corrupt news orgs intentionally soften the wording of a lot of this regime’s crimes, I’m simplifying the title to stipulate exactly what is happening: she’s ignoring the subpoena and not testifying. Congress will attempt to reach out to her, but that in no way means she eventually will testify as you’re alluding.
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas
There is no issue with the paper work, she’s simply stalling again, as she has done for the last 14 months.
TLDR; Subpoenas are addressed to the person, not the office, there is no issue, she’s stalling.
The article’s original title is more accurate.
She hasn’t “ignored” the subpoena, she’s said that she’s not complying with it.
Regardless, I’m not going to defend her, but nor am I going to waste my time explaining to an echo chamber why editorialising titles weakens discourse.
If it were an echo chamber you’d be banned, or your comment removed or something.
I’m not jordanlund, and this comm doesn’t have those rules.
You’ve made your explanation, but stating that she’ll come back later, while that is nowhere in the article, is really bestowing a whole lot of good faith while the dow is still below 50,000.
