At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing captured by Forbes Breaking News, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) used his opening time to frame the day’s topic around the “weaponization of justice.” He argued that the integrity of the criminal justice system depends on insulating prosecutions from presidential vendettas or political payback. Blumenthal said he agreed no one should be targeted because of who they are – or whom they oppose – and quickly placed President Trump at the center of his critique, asserting that Trump has “embodied” the very weaponization critics decry.
Blumenthal Cites Trump’s “Instructions” and the Comey Timeline
Blumenthal then recited a list of public figures he says Trump pressed the Department of Justice to investigate – among them New York Attorney General Letitia James, Rep. Adam Schiff, former CISA Director Chris Krebs, and former DHS official Miles Taylor. He emphasized a public post from Trump that, in Blumenthal’s telling, called for James Comey to be indicted and, shortly after, a grand jury returned charges. The senator pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi directly: what conversations did she have with Trump about Comey’s case?
Bondi Declines to Disclose Conversations with the President
Pam Bondi – measured but unyielding – refused to discuss any conversations with the president. “You’re an attorney,” she told Blumenthal, “and you know that I’m not going to do that.” Then Bondi pivoted. She quoted Blumenthal’s own 2017 statement – “No one is above the law, not even the president” – suggesting the principle applies regardless of who occupies the White House. Her subtext was clear: transparency about deliberations with a president is not how independence is preserved; applying the law consistently is.
Dinner Photo, Tight Timing, and the Innuendo Game
Blumenthal escalated by holding up a dinner photo – an event he said occurred the night before the Comey indictment and included Bondi, Trump, and “the entire cabinet.” Was Comey discussed? Bondi again refused to answer, stating she wouldn’t disclose private conversations. This was a classic Washington clash: a senator implying undue influence by timeline and proximity; an attorney general declining to validate the premise. In my view, the photo proved optics, no pun intended, not substance. If the senator believed something improper occurred, that allegation demands more than calendar coincidence.
“No One Above the Law” vs. “No Political Interference”
Blumenthal returned to first principles: he didn’t just want Bondi to disclaim interference – he wanted guardrails. He proposed legislation creating a statutory right of action for those selectively or maliciously prosecuted for political reasons, codifying DOJ’s prohibitions on political considerations in charging decisions, walling off the White House from interference, reforming the grand jury process, and requiring more transparency at DOJ. On paper, that’s a serious package. The devil, as always, is in the drafting; rights of action are notoriously blunt instruments with collateral consequences.
Bondi’s Counterpunch: Biden, Hunter, and Double Standards
Bondi’s response was sharp. She said it was “interesting” Blumenthal never raised these concerns during President Biden’s administration “when he was doing everything to protect Hunter Biden.” She referenced newly released intel claims and alleged Biden-era pressure not to pursue certain lines of inquiry, including Ukraine. Whether one agrees or not, Bondi’s point wasn’t subtle: accusations of “weaponization” are often selective – morally absolute when aimed at opponents, elastic when aimed at allies. It’s a familiar Washington dance that leaves the public cynical.
From Weaponization to Antitrust – And Back Again
Then Blumenthal shifted arenas – to antitrust. He grilled Bondi about a settlement involving Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks, describing it as thin on concessions and controversial within DOJ. Did Bondi authorize it? Bondi said the Antitrust Division is run by Gail Slater, praised her work, and reminded the committee that merger matters are multi-step processes that require court approval. She also noted the case remained pending, limiting what she could say. That’s standard for an AG in open session, though unsatisfying to any senator aiming for easy headlines.
Personnel, Process, and the “Reportedly” Problem
Blumenthal pressed further, citing reports that Slater objected to the deal and that two senior officials – Roger Alford and Bill Baer – were fired after objecting. Did Bondi order those firings? Bondi declined to discuss personnel matters or pending litigation. It bears noting that “reportedly” is doing a lot of work here. Personnel decisions inside the Antitrust Division can be messy and political under any administration; turning unnamed reports into a through-line of corruption requires more than hearsay. If proof exists, the committee should put it on the record.
Paramount, Skydance, Airlines, and a Procedural Correction
The senator ticked through more examples – home-health mergers, airline compensation rules, and the Skydance–Paramount deal – to illustrate what he says is an administration that talks tough but waves through big deals that benefit corporate owners. After that barrage, the committee chair interjected with a procedural correction: the Paramount matter was under the FCC, not DOJ, and thus Attorney General Bondi “would have had nothing to do with it.” That clarification mattered. If the critique is that DOJ is too lenient, citing a non-DOJ merger muddies the case.
The Flashpoint: “You Lied About Serving in the Military”
The hearing’s temperature spiked when Blumenthal asked about alleged lobbying by Brian Ballard, a longtime Bondi ally, in a separate case involving American Express GBT. “What conversation did you have with Mr. Ballard?” he asked. Bondi’s answer detonated: “I cannot believe that you would accuse me of impropriety when you lied about your military service.” She called herself a career prosecutor who has “abided by every ethics standard” and told Blumenthal not to “ever challenge my integrity.”
Whatever one thinks of combativeness from witnesses, that line was devastating television – and a pointed reminder of Blumenthal’s past misstatements about serving in Vietnam, for which he has previously apologized. Bondi’s attack was not subtle, but it was on a matter of public record – and it framed her refusal to accept ethics insinuations from that particular critic.
What the Exchange Actually Revealed
Strip away the drama and here’s what we learned from Bondi’s and Blumenthal’s own words. Blumenthal wants codified, litigable limits to prevent presidential interference – up to and including a private right of action – while Bondi insists she won’t reveal communications with the president, maintains that prosecutions are proceeding lawfully, and argues Democrats showed little appetite for reforms when Biden was president.
On antitrust, Blumenthal accused DOJ of going soft on big deals; Bondi emphasized process, pending cases, and delegated authority to Antitrust. The skirmish over personnel and lobbying remained at the insinuation stage – heavy on “reportedly,” light on exhibits. And the viral moment, Bondi’s “you lied about serving”, was a brutal, personal counterpunch that framed the credibility dispute as much as any policy answer could.
Guardrails Are Good – Weaponizing “Weaponization” Isn’t
There’s real value in bright-line guardrails between the White House and charging decisions; a president shouldn’t steer prosecutions by tweet or by whisper. But turning “weaponization” into a catch-all to relitigate every prosecutorial choice risks becoming, itself, a form of political weaponry. If Congress wants reforms, write them, air them, and pass them. If senators allege improper influence, bring receipts – emails, memos, testimony. And if an attorney general wants to win the public argument, pairing stone-faced process talk with affirmative transparency (where lawful) beats a blanket refusal every time.
As for the personal attack: Bondi’s line landed because it drew on a documented controversy and underscored a tension that ran through the hearing – credibility. Ultimately, the best antidote to cynicism is evidence. This hearing offered lots of heat, a few useful clarifications, and one indelible soundbite. The country deserves more light.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.