💥 The Unanswered Indictment: Adam Schiff Reads Aloud Every Scandal Pam Bondi Refuses to Address in Scorching Oversight Hearing
Congressman Documents Pattern of DOJ Corruption, Obstruction of Justice, and Protection of Trump Allies in Devastating Floor Speech
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a rare and devastating display of legislative accountability, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) used his time during a critical oversight hearing to systematically read aloud a comprehensive list of every major ethical and legal question Attorney General Pam Bondi has refused to answer, transforming the hearing into a public indictment of the Justice Department’s integrity.
Schiff’s strategy was not about debate, but documentation. He exposed a consistent pattern of non-cooperation, institutional dismantling, and the prioritization of political loyalty over the rule of law within the DOJ under Bondi.
The $50,000 Bribery Trap
The confrontation reached its peak when Schiff zeroed in on a specific allegation concerning a top administration official, Tom Homan. Schiff pressed Bondi on whether she would support the committee’s request to provide video or audio tape of Mr. Homan allegedly taking $50,000 in bribe money from the FBI—a transaction reportedly part of a larger investigation that was abruptly made to “go away.”
Bondi immediately shut down the inquiry, diverting responsibility: “Senator Schiff, you can talk to Director Patel about that.”
Schiff refused the deflection, reminding her of her role: “I’m talking to you about it. You’re the attorney general. This will be your decision. Will you support [the request]?”
When Bondi continued to evade, pivoting to personal attacks and defending Homan’s character, Schiff highlighted the core issue: “The problem is… this department made that investigation go away.” Her refusal to provide simple transparency on a massive corruption allegation confirmed the very obstruction Schiff was trying to expose.
.
.
.
The Unanswered Roll Call: A Pattern of Abuse
Schiff then delivered the core of his presentation: an itemized list of fundamental questions regarding ethics, legality, and national security that Bondi had either refused to answer or met with personal slander. This list served as a detailed map of alleged abuses within the DOJ :
Political Favors & Ethics: Refusal to state whether she consulted career ethics lawyers (as she promised during her nomination hearing) before approving the President receiving a $400 million gift from the Qataris.
Epstein Cover-Up: Refusal to disclose who or what role was played in asking that Trump’s name be flagged or shielded in any of the Epstein documents gathered by the FBI.
Homan Bribery & Taxes: Refusal to confirm whether Homan kept the $50,000 bribe money or if he paid taxes on it, directly addressing the alleged corruption cover-up.
Politicized Firings & Indictments: Refusal to answer whether career prosecutors found insufficient evidence to charge James Comey (implying the indictment was purely political) and refusal to state if she discussed indicting Comey with the President.
Abuse of Authority: Refusal to confirm if she approved the firing of antitrust lawyers who disagreed with the Hip Packard merger or if she was firing career professionals simply because they worked on January 6 investigations.
Legality of Strikes: Refusal to provide a legal justification for the military strikes on boats in the Caribbean (referring to Pete Hegseth’s controversial boat strikes), an issue with potential laws-of-war implications.
Judicial Authority: Refusal to even answer whether she believes government officials must abide by court orders.
Schiff framed the refusal to answer these serious questions not as a political strategy, but as a crisis of accountability: “This is supposed to be an oversight hearing,” he asserted, “and it comes in the wake of an indictment called for by the president of one of his enemies.”
The Collapse of Institutional Independence
The core of Schiff’s message was that the repeated silence and obstruction documented a methodical breakdown of the rule of law and the replacement of institutional independence with political obedience.
Schiff reinforced this point by seeking unanimous consent to introduce four crucial documents into the record :
A statement from a thousand former Justice Department officials warning that the Comey indictment is a “democracy-threatening abuse of power.”
Data on 282 former career officials involuntarily forced to leave the department due to improper actions, raising the alarm about the purging of expertise.
The DOJ manual on impermissible considerations in initiating and declining charges.
A letter from a career counterterrorism prosecutor urging officials to follow the law and warning that the removal of experienced officials undermines the country’s ability to counter terrorism and malign nation-state actors.
These documents provided factual, institutional context to the narrative of political decay. Schiff’s final point was that the consequences of this decay are severe: the DOJ’s focus shifts from protecting the country against genuine threats to “prosecuting the president or rather than protecting the country.”
Conclusion: Demanding Democracy’s Survival
Schiff’s performance was a rare moment when Congress functioned the way the Constitution intended—as a check on power and a voice for the public. He documented that the kinds of questions that would be answered immediately in any functioning justice department were met with silence and personal attacks.
By refusing to answer fundamental questions about ethics, legality, and the conduct of her own department, Pam Bondi confirmed the very problem Schiff sought to expose: the Justice Department, under its current leadership, has effectively detached itself from the rule of law.
The message to the American public was clear: accountability is not optional, transparency is not optional, and the law is not optional. If the Justice Department no longer treats these principles as its foundation, the survival of the democratic system depends on the public and Congress demanding better.
