handled a vary tee of criminal matters and talk about the fourth amendment and why it's so require. >> the warrant requirement. i dealt with that since i was in my 20s as a state prosecutor. a warrant protects citizens rights and why it is so important. >> it does that under the forth amendment you are required to go a judge and show a judge evidence providing probable cause and based on that probable cause you can describe in particular the things or persons to be searched or seized. on that basis the judge may issue or not issue the warrant. without it you can't get it. it is time consuming no doubt, right? >> i've done many of them. yes, very time consuming, senator. >> there is probably not a law enforcement officer anywhere in the world who wouldn't acknowledge they could save time if they didn't have to go about it and we require it.

why is it so important we do it? >> for the reasons you laid out. when i said i've done many of them. i've approved and not approved them. law enforcement, there are checks and balances, law enforcement must bring the warrants to prosecutors to see if there is sufficient evidence. after that is done, they have to take it to a judge to have a judge sign them. so there have to be sufficient checks and balances throughout our system. >> even after you as attorney general as the chief law enforcement officer and prosecutorial authority in the state of florida within your office you still had to go to the judge. if it was late at night, early in the morning. didn't matter when you had to find a judge. >> all hours of the night. that was more when i was a state prosecutor. as attorney general the office of the statewide prosecutor would have done that many, many times at all hours throughout the night and woken up many, many judges throughout the state of florida. >> is there an exception to the

warrant requirement that exists any time it would be inconvenient for prosecutors or national security might be involved? >> i'm not certain about national security but absolutely no for a state prosecutor. no exceptions. >> no catch all exception that says this is important or it would be inconvenient for the prosecutor. with good reason. we've learned through sad experience over hundreds of years not only in our own country but that of our mother country what happens when you don't have this in the loop. you've been asked a little bit about section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, fisa, there are those who have repeatedly assured members of this committee including myself, don't worry, content, phone calls or electronic communications involving american citizens sometimes resulting in the incidental collection of american citizens' private conversations.

don't worry, their fourth amendment rights are just fine. when they incidentally collect the information unwittingly talking to somebody who might be an agent of a foreign power and themselves under 702 surveillance they get onto this big database and at times there are those in the government, including the federal bureau of investigation, who have gotten into that database and done so, of course, without a warrant because there isn't a warrant requirement. this has the effect of what we call a defacto back door warrantless search. that is potentially concerning any time an american citizen's private conversations are intercepted, stored as an incidental collection or otherwise they ought not be searched without some kind of probable cause? >> yes. >> sometimes people will defend that by saying national security is involved as if it's the

beginning and end of the inquiry. that has never been the case and i hope and pray it never will be the case. that's not what the fourth amendment says and not what it does or ever can be. the next time fisa 702 comes up for reauthorization congress do what it has been avoiding for a long time. to insure this doesn't happen. we've heard again and again from people who if you are confirmed to this position will be your predecessors prior occupants of the position to which you've been nominated and to which mr. patel has been nominated. don't worry, we have good people. don't worry, we have good systems in place. don't worry, it's as good as a warrant requirement. the internal approval procedure we have within our system. yet we found out time and time again that this has happened by some accounts hundreds of thousands of times. these things have been accessed where searches for an american citizen's private communications

have been intercepted and stored through collect without the safeguards being met where people just wanted to check on to cite one example, whether his father was cheating on his mother or in other instances doing background checks on someone looking to lease an apartment that he owned and was looking to rent out. this is unacceptable and we have to fix it. speaking of unacceptable. we've seen the weaponization of government over the last few years within the department of justice against law-abiding americans. law-abiding americans whose offense was along the lines of them exercising their constitutional rights ranging from catholics to attempting to practice their faith, to parents showing up to school board meetings, to people showing up to engage in peaceful protesting outside of abortion clinics. how will you prevent the

weaponization of the department of justice against americans as attorney general. >> you gave a classic example. going after parents at a school board meeting has got to stop. for practicing your religion, sending informants into catholic churches must stop. >> what about branding parents -- >> it will stop. must stop. >> exactly sort of answer i was hoping and expecting to receive from you and i look forward to doing everything i can to help get you confirmed. i've been pleased with your answers thus far. i have enjoyed knowing you and considering you a friend for many years and look forward to the great things you will do as attorney general of the united states. you have my emphatic support and my vote. >> thank you, senator. >> senator coons. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

welcome to your family and supporters, thank you for your service and i look forward to our conversation today. i have a simple three factor test when considering the executive branch nominees before us. do you have a qualifications and experience to do the job? policy views and best interest of the american people and the character and integrity to conduct your job and yours in particular with the independence that the role requires? >> you have the relevant experience. we won't see eye-to-eye on some or many policies but we had a constructive conversation last week about our shared interest in fighting the opioid epidemic, criminal justice reform and supporting law enforcement. but i need to know that you insure the department of justice remains from partisan or political influence. in particular by the white house. i look forward to our discussion about that today. as attorney general if confirmed who would be your client? >> my oath would be to support

and defend the constitution of the united states of america. the people of america would be my client. that is also my job to advise the president. my client is the -- are the people of america. >> simple question of constitutional interpretation. is president-elect trump eligible to run for another term as president in 2028? >> no, senator, not unless they change the constitution. >> thank you. one of the concerns i've raised with you is safeguarding the department of justice's independence in the face of some promises on the campaign trail by then candidate trump that he would use the department to target his political adversaries. or that he might interfere with prosecution. what would you do if your career d.o.j. prosecutors came to you with a case to prosecute grounded in facts and law but the white house directs you to drop the case? >> senator, if i thought that

would happen, i would not be sitting here today. that will not happen. will not happen. every case will be prosecuted based on the facts and the law that is applied in good faith. period. politics have to be taken out of this system the. this department has been weaponizeed for years and years and years. and it has to stop. >> thank you. let me if i might, madam attorney general, refer you back to senator durbin's opening comments about previous attorneys general. our former colleague, jeff session, bill barr. i don't think it's credible to say it may never happen that the president-elect would direct and unethical for illegal act. i think both of those attorneys general found themselves crosswise with the then president by doing things he didn't welcome or approve of.

just answer the question for me if you would. i know you may not expect it. i know you wouldn't have accepted this nomination if you thought it possible. but let's imagine that once again president-elect trump issues a direct order to you or to the f.b.i. director that is outside the boundaries of ethics or law. what will you do? >> senator, i will never speak on a hypothetical especially one saying that the president would do something illegal. what i can tell you is my duty, if confirmed as the attorney general, will be to the constitution and the united states of america. and the most important oath part of that oath that i will take are the last four words, so help me god. >> given the importance of that oath i hope you can understand the importance of repeated questions there some of us about the importance of having independence in the department

of justice. it has a long tradition of independent special prosecutors to handle high profile or political cases. if you got credible evidence by a white house official including even the president would you bring in a special prosecutor? >> senator, that's a hypothetical. i can tell you what i do know is special prosecutors have been abused in the past on both sides. we've seen that for many years. they have cost the taxpayers countless dollars, countless and i will look at each situation on a case-by-case basis and consult the appropriate career ethics official within the department to make that decision. >> attorney general, do you think special counsels need to be confirmed by the senate? >> i will follow the law and i will consult with the appropriate ethics officials regarding the law. right now they don't need to be

senate confirmed, of course. >> but you did sign an 11th circuit brief arguing they should be. >> i will follow the law, senator. that's why i said that. >> understood. just getting to the clarity about the position you have advocated and what the current law is. thank you for that. look, bluntly to me refusing to answer a hypothetical when there is clear and concrete previous history raises some concerns for me. i think chris wray has done an outstanding job as f.b.i. director at avoiding political pressure and although he was chosen by president trump he is being driven out. so that he can be replaced, my perception, i have not yet met with mr. patel, by a loyalist who has publicly said he will do what the president asks him. given that attorney general barr was asked to go find evidence of election interference and im pro pry tease, looked for the evidence and said i can't find any and was then dismissed, i'm going to ask you one last time.

can you clarify for me that in following ethics and the law you would be willing to resign if ordered to do something improper? >> senator, i wouldn't work at a law firm, i wouldn't be a prosecutor, i wouldn't be attorney general if anyone asked me to do something improper and i felt i had to carry that out. of course i would not do that. that's one of the main things you learn when you are a young prosecutor is to do the right thing. i believe that's continued with me throughout my very long career. >> as we discussed protecting american invention and innovation, american intellectual property is a real concern of mine and several others on this committee. look forward to talking with you about that pressing concern but the most important question i had for you today is whether you will be willing and able to stand up to politization and interference in the department of justice and i look forward to further clarification from you about the specifics of that. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you. senator coons would be next but he is not here. i call on senator kennedy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, congratulations. can we agree that legitimacy is importance to america's criminal justice system? >> yes, senator. >> can we agree that legitimacy is important to the department of justice which in part administers our criminal justice system? >> yes, senator. >> and if americans come to believe that our criminal justice system or our department

of justice is acting illegitimately, that makes americans less likely to accept the results of that system, does it not? >> yes, senator. >> and that makes americans less likely to follow the substantive laws that we pass that are administered by the department of justice, isn't that true? >> yes, senator. >> if that happens we have chaos, don't we? >> chaos. >> and the social contract is breached, isn't it? >> yes. >> do you remember a person by the name of michael avenatti? >> yes. >> several years ago, he was a

media star here in washington. >> an attorney, correct? >> yes. >> he was a media star. and many members of our media loved him because he persistently bashed donald trump. and he was on tv every day. he was on cnn more than wolf blitzer. do you know where mr. avenatti is today? >> i believe he is sitting in prison, senator. >> he is in jail. because he was a crook. and the department of justice helped put him there, didn't it? >> yes, senator. >> do you have a gentleman by the name of sam bankman-fried?

>> yes, senator. >> boy genius. so smart and so powerful that he thought he could command the tides. so smart and so powerful and so rich that he would go to meetings with serious people like bill clinton, like tony blair, looking like a slob, looking like a fourth runner up to a john bellucci look alike contest and he thought it was cute. where is mr. bankman-fried today? >> i believe he is in prison from the netflix series i saw as well. >> because he is a crook.

and who helped put him there? >> the department of justice, senator. >> can we agree that there are some really, really good men and women at the department of justice? >> many, many great men and women in the justice department, as well, senator, as all the law enforcement agencies that fall within the department of justice. they are out there risking their lives every single day especially the law enforcement officers. >> can we agree, though, that there have been and may be today some bad people at the department of justice? >> yes, senator. >> we don't know for sure because for the last four years, the curtains there have been tightly drawn. but i think some, a minority of people there, have delegitimized

america's criminal justice system. the most destabilizing act that i saw in the past four years, maybe in the history of the department, is when attorney general garland decided on the basis of dubious facts and untested legal theories to criminally prosecute a former president of the united states. and not only that, this is the special part, he decided to do it after the former president of the united states had announced that he was going to run against attorney general garland's boss, didn't he? >> senator, you are referring to going after a political

opponent? >> i think so. now, this is one person's opinion. that kind of stupid takes a plan. and i say that because number one, this is america. that had never happened before in america. that's the sort of thing that happens in a country whose powerball jackpot is 287 chickens and a goat. it doesn't happen here. and i call it stupid because it broke the seal. it broke the seal. it normalized it. there are a lot of ambitious prosecutors in america, democrat and republican. and i bet you right now there is some prosecutor in a particular state thinking about well, maybe

i ought to file criminal charges against president biden's inner circle for conspiring to conceal his mental decline. and that's the road we're headed down. and you have to fix it, counselor. you have to fix it. and here in my judgment would i would ask you to do. find out who the bad guys are and the bad women and get rid of them. find out who the good people are and lift them up. but do it on the basis of facts and evidence and fairness. because the temptation of some people is going to be they will tell you look two wrongs don't make a right. but they do make it even. don't resist -- resist that temptation, help us restore

legitimacy to the department of justice. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, ms. bondi and to your family. thank you for visiting with me in my office and i have to say i'm sympathetic always to a former attorney general, particularly having been one myself, but i am -- i have to say also really troubled, deeply disturbed by some of your responses and non-responses to the questions that you have been asked today. you say the right things that you are going to be a people's lawyer. that's what you have to say to be here. but i believe being the people's lawyer means you have to be able to say no to the president of the united states. you have to speak truth to

power. you have to be able to say that donald trump lost the 2020 election. you dodged that question when you were asked directly by senator durbin. you have to be able to say that january 6th insurrectionists who committed violence shouldn't be pardoned. you have to be able to say a nominee for the f.b.i. director who says he has an enemy list, and that's just the beginning of what he has said in terms of politicizing deeply weaponizing the f.b.i. against political opponents. that he shouldn't be the f.b.i. director. you know, we have some history here with your predecessors, barr, sessions and others, who perhaps sincerely when they sat where you are now said that they

would say no but they were working with a president that expected them to be his personal attorney. do you really think that you can avoid the disgrace that they encountered or the repercussions from the white house if you say no to the president? and so my question to you is, can you say no to the president of the united states when he asks you to do something unethical or illegal? >> senator, first i need to clarify something that you said that i have to sit up here and say these things. no i don't. i sit up here and speak the truth. i'm not going to sit up here and say anything that i need to say to get confirmed by this body. i don't have to say anything. i will answer the questions to

the best of my ability and honestly -- >> let me ask you an individual who says that he is going to quote come after, end quote, people he alleges, quote helped joe biden rig the presidential elections. that he has a list of people that are part of the deep state who should be prosecuted, that he is going to close down the f.b.i. building on his first day in office, is that a person who appropriately should be the f.b.i. director? aren't those comments inappropriate? shouldn't you disavow them and ask him to recant them? >> senator, i am not familiar with all his comments. i have not discussed those comments with mr. patel. what i do know is mr. patel -- excuse me, what i do know is mr. patel was a career prosecutor. he was a career public defender

defending people and he also has great experience within the intelligence community. what i can sit here and tell you is mr. patel, if he works running the f.b.i., if he is confirmed and if i am confirmed, he will follow the law if i am the attorney general of the united states of america and i don't believe he would do anything otherwise. >> let me just submit that the response that i would have hoped to hear from you is that those comments are inappropriate and that you will ask him to disavow or recant them when he comes before this committee because they are indeed chilling to fair enforcement and the rule of law. let me ask you on another topic. when we met, i welcomed your support for the goals of the

kids online safety act. and senator blackburn and i have spent a lot of time, devoted a lot of effort to the passage of the kids online safety act which happened by an overwhelming vote of 91-three, 72 co-sponsors including vice president elect vance. i appreciated our discussion and your support for protecting kids online when we met last week. i'm hopeful that this area is one where we can work together. can we count on your support in working together to protect kids online? >> senator, absolutely. thank you for that legislation and senator blackburn. i believe in this world right now we have to find the things we have in common and that is certainly one of them, protecting our children from online predators. you've done so much on that front and i thank you. i attempted to do that as well

when i was attorney general. i'm committed to working with you on anything we can do to protect our children throughout this country. when i was attorney general we started something called from instant message to instant nightmare and educating parents about online predators. that also, senator, is one of the core functions of the f.b.i., the cyber unit. these agents sit there all day long and investigate child predators. we tell parents constantly you think they are talking to another child and they're not. >> i welcome your positive response. i have one more question that i will try to fit into this round. >> sure. >> tiktok will be banned unless it is sold because it has become a tool for the chinese to collect information and do surveillance and endanger our

national security. can you commit that you will enforce that law promptly and effectively? i ask this question because president trump's pick for your solicitor general in the department of justice went to the united states supreme court arguing that the ban should be delayed. will you commit to enforce that law on your first day when if you are confirmed? >> as i discussed with you during our meeting it's pending litigation within the department of justice. >> it is pending litigation but will you enforce that law? >> i can't discuss pending litigation but i will talk to all the career prosecutors who are handling the case absolutely, senator. discuss with them. >> thank you. >> senator tillis. >> thank you for being here. i think i told you when we met thank you for the time we met. i was born in florida, have a lot of friends and family and

follow florida politics pretty closely and you have had a very impressive career there. i also have to admit i'm a gator hater. for the florida alum i'm university of tennessee. anyway, i actually in some of these hearings have created a bingo card to see what some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were going to hit. i want to go back to a few quickly. one was about you being a lobbyist paid for and on the payroll of qatar. repeat what you said in case people did not hear the involvement of your law firm and precisely what you were doing for the government of qatar? >> yes, senator. i was very proud of that work. anti-human trafficking in advance of the world cup and human trafficking has been something that has been very important to me my entire career especially when i was attorney general. >> you made it clear that you had a number of practitioners within the firm working on it so the narrative you were getting

$115,000 a month from qatar is correct or not? >> not correct. >> okay. thank you. i want to talk a little bit about -- first off i want to go back, you should be happy that so many comments have been directed towards kash patel whose confirmation i am supporting and meeting with him today. because that means they are out of stuff for you. if it comes up again you will once again know that you've got a great reputation and a great resume and they are just trying to find things to put your integrity into question. you have answered the question repeatedly that you will be loyal to the constitution and you will live up to the oath to the constitution and to protecting the american people. i think mr. patel when he comes here will be able to get rid of the myth in the same way that you did as a lobbyist for qatar

he will be able to get rid of the enemies list and marketing department. your opposition will have to come up with new material. that stuff is getting old. section 702 you heard senator lee talk about some concerns that he has with 702. i believe it's one of the most important things you can do early into your confirmation. you will be confirmed and hopefully with some democrat support. there have been dramatic reforms to 702. i have sat through an extensive presentation to try and make sure that the abuses never occur again and that you have a throat to choke if somebody abuses the protocol that's in place. i believe that we need to codify a lot of that. as a matter of fact when i went through it i felt there were so many blinding flashes of the obvious, how could this not already have been a part of the approval? after you are confirmed commit that you or a designate will come back and provide for this

committee an update on all of the protocols that have changed and recommended legislation for codifying so that when we do go to reauthorization we'll have what we need to make sure that program stays in place? >> senator, i or a designee will review all of 702 before it terms in 2026 and come back and report to you. on both sides of the aisle. >> thank you. you have a great perspective with your time in the state and working with the department of justice. give me an idea of things that we need to do better in terms of -- i'm talking primarily in the law enforcement role. i think many people don't understand the joint task forces, the law enforcement efforts that are going every single day in every one of our states. what an incredible job they do. so can you give me some sense of things that you would look at to say maybe we could do it better from your perspective of having

been a prosecutor in florida? >> yes, thank you, senator. having been a career prosecutor i think i have a unique perspective because i was a state prosecutor, of course, prior to becoming attorney general. i worked on a daily basis with local law enforcement and state and daily with federal but i worked consistently with state, local and federal. when i was attorney general i worked with all three as well. i feel like we have to have better coordination among all our agencies especially given all the terrorism issues that we've discussed earlier in this hearing. we have to wrap in and communicate better with our local and state law enforcement officers throughout this country. there are so many great men and women in law enforcement and we have to -- i don't know exactly how yet but we have to figure out a better way to work together with the federal authorities. >> thank you.

i will do a second round as well but i think i also checked with bingo card for election denier. some people suggested you denied the election. you said president biden is our president. >> president biden is the president of the united states of america and president trump will be the 47th president. >> but i think you made a point that at least i inferred from a comment that you made, a very important point. folks, there are election improprieties in every election. we've seen it in north carolina and other places, one of the reasons why i support voter i.d. we want to make elections easy to vote and hard to cheat. the fact of the matter is people are cheating. if anybody on this dais suggests there aren't irregularities in every election they need to spend more time at home studying the facts. i don't think that you've said

that biden is an illegitimate president. i think you said just the opposite. he is the president of the united states and president trump will be the next president, right? >> yes. >> okay. last thing before the second round. january 6th. lot of people are going to say you'll have a rubber stamp for letting people have pardons or recommending a pardon for people who did violence to law enforcement. i'm not going to ask you a hypothetical. i want you to be consistent in not answering them. i have to believe as a member -- i was the last member out of the senate on january 6th. i walked past a lot of law enforcement officers exelby -- who were injured. i would think the president of the united states and you used to facts to convict violence people on january 6th and said it was an intemper ant moment.

i think it is an absurd and unfair hypothetical and you probably haven't heard the last of it. thank you, mr. chair. [inaudible] >> before i call on senator ronald, after her and cruz's testimony we'll take a lunch break and that break will be for 30 minutes and i can't control when my senators come back but i expect you to be back after 30 minutes and i will be here. >> yes, chairman. >> i may leave the meeting to open the senate so whoever is on our side is acting chairman during that period of time. senator hirono. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as part of our responsibility to insure the fitness of all nominees i ask the following two initial questions. first since you became a legal adult have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal

or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature. >> no. >> entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct? >> no, senator. >> i am focused on two things in my evaluation of president trump's -- present you as trump's nominees. the first is whether the nominee is qualified and experienced enough to do the job. the second is a fitness to serve which includes putting loyalty to the constitution over loyalty to the president. unfortunately my view many of president trump's nominees are lacking in at least one of thithese two requirements. is the find of thing we would expect to see in a nominee for attorney general. i have questions and concerns about potential conflicts of interest, about whether you will keep d.o.j. law enforcement responsibilities independent of a president's political wills if

you will let facts and evidence guide your decision. the importance of facts which you say are important. 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 the president of the united states. >> you know there is a difference between acknowledging it and -- 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. it's disturbing that you can't -- give voice to that fact. moving on to d.o.j.'s independence from politics. if you are confirmed as attorney

general you will take an oath to the constitution and not to any individual including the president. to start i would like to know whether you agree with some of the statements president-elect trump made during the election. during the campaign. first, are the felons convicted of breaking into the capitol hostages for patriots. do you agree with his characterization of the felons that i referred to? >> i am not familiar with that statement, senator. >> i just familiarizeed you with that statement. do you agree with that statement? >> i am not familiar with it, senator. >> no answer. he has also said illegal immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation. he said that in december 2023. do you agree with that statement? >> senator, i am not familiar with that statement. but what i can tell you is i

went to the border a few months ago. i went to yuma, arizona and what i saw at that border was horrific, senator. it was horrific. i went to a rape crisis center. i went to a rape crisis center. i am not familiar with the statement. i met about border patrol agents. i'm sure you've been to the border as well. >> onto my next question. so i believe that you responded to a question from senator whitehouse. let me get your response again. you said that the white house if i'm putting words in your mouth, correct me. you said that the white house will play no role in investigative or charging decisions in the d.o.j. 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 d.o.j. >> it is the department of justice's decision, >> you are saying the white house will have any kind of role. meanwhile you have an incoming president who said i have the absolute right to do what i want, to deal with the justice department. in fact, president-elect trump considers the d.o.j. 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 that. >> listening to you now, could you respond to the question? >> 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. >> listen to your responses under oath. i think it's really important to us that the attorney general be independent of the white house and you have a president-elect who considers the a.g.'s office his law firm. i would like to know whether if the president suggests, hints, asks that you as attorney general should investigate one of his perceived enemies -- >> senator, i have not heard the president say that. but what i will tell you is 2/3 of americans have lost faith in the department of justice. and it is statements like that, i believe, that make people continue to lose faith. if i am confirmed as attorney general, it will be my job not only keep america safe but restore integrity to that

department. that's what i plan to do every single day as attorney general. >> on august 25, 2025, on fox news you said when republicans take back the white house, the department of justice, the prosecutors bad ones will be prosecuted and bad ones investigated. is jack smith one of those bad prosecutors that you'll prosecute as a.g.? >> senator, you hesitated a bit when i said the bad ones. every decision -- >> bad is in the eyes of the beholder. how about liz cheney? >> senator. >> how about mer irc garland? >> i won't answer hypotheticals. no one has been prejudged nor will anyone prejudged if i'm confirmed. >> these are the people that you would prosecute. >> your time is up.

would you like to respond? >> she is clearly not going to answer that question so let me get on to -- >> would you like to respond? >> you will have a second round. would you like to speak before i call on senator cruz? >> no, sir, thank you. >> senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. pam bondi, welcome. thank you for your willingness to take on this incredibly important office. you know, i have to say i don't know that there is a more important position in this new administration than the position to which you have been nominated, attorney general of the united states. 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 is 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 politization and weaponization of the united states department of justice. and we don't need to ask hypothetically. joe biden used and allowed "the new york times" to report it. calling on merrick garland why will he not prosecute trump for quickly? and merrick garland sadly sat in that chair and promised to be apolitical and broke that promise almost the instant he walked into the department of justice. if you look on the west pedestrianment of the supreme court of the entrance a 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. it is tragic to see the loss of confidence in the american people in the department of justice and in the f.b.i. i would note i don't think there is an institution in america who has lost more respect from the american people than the f.b.i. has in the last four years. that is a grotesque violation of the obligation of the department of justice and the f.b.i. so i want to start with 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. 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. and i think the american people do, too. that shouldn't be too much to expect. now, i'm grateful to president trump for nominating you. i think on any objective level you are clearly qualified for this position. you have been a prosecutor for decades, you have been the elected attorney general of the state of florida, the third largest state in america, for eight years. let me ask you, in terms of your practice, how many criminal cases over the course of your

career have you personally handled? >> handled thousands. >> how many of those were before a jury? >> hundreds. i don't want to overstate but hundreds. i was in a courtroom for many years. i tried four when i was an intern jury trial. i think you had to try at least 20 in misdemeanor before you went to felony. then you were in court every day and i was also lead trial attorney for many years trying many cases. >> how many of those cases would have been before a judge? >> hundreds of well. hundreds before a jury, i would assume. >> and as attorney general of florida how many lawyers did you supervise roughly? >> approximately 400. senator. >> i want to clarify something during the course of this hearing several democrat senators have referred to you

the as president trump's quote personal lawyer. now, i don't believe that is an accurate characterization. as i understand it, you represented president trump as a white house special advisor during his first impeachment trial, is that correct? >> within the office of white house counsel, yes, senator. >> and is working within the white house counsel's office different than representing donald trump individually as his personal lawyer? >> absolutely. >> how is it different? >> you are working for the government. you are working for the office of white house counsel. you are not representing him in his personal capacity. >> so you have not represented him in his business affairs, personal life, or in any of the criminal trials he has faced. >> no, senator. >> and you know when it comes to weaponization it is worth noting in more than two centuries of our nation's history, no president had previously been indicted, no president had

previously been prosecuted until the biden-harris white house came along and in the last four years we've seen donald trump indicted and prosecuted not once, not twice, not three times but four separate times. >> and to assassination attempts, senator. >> i have to say, the character from les mis at the efforts to do anything possible to take him down. the real target in this was not president trump but the american people. that these prosecutions were brought because partisan prosecutors were terrified that the american people would do exactly what they did in november of 2024 and vote to reelect donald trump. >> by 77.3%. millions of americans, 77.3 million americans. >> will you commit every day as

attorney general to follow the law, to follow the constitution, to up hold the rule of law without favor and without regard to the partisan position of any criminal defendant? >> yes, senator. >> that's what we should all expect from an attorney general. thank you. >> we'll now recess for 30 minute lunch break. that means we'll be back at 12:25 and when we resume, senator booker will be recognized to ask his questions. >> harris: that was pretty prompt right about the time that chairman grassley said they would break. i want to bring on kerri urbahn fox news legal editor and jonathan turley, fox news contributor and george washington university law professor. we have been watching a couple of hours of this confirmation hearing for the united states

position of attorney general with pam bondi. there were times when it got pretty chippy. i'm harris faulkner and introduced my guests. let's jump right in. jonathan, what stood out to you in terms of what she would face critically? >> well, she has done extraordinarily well. i don't think they've landed a glove on her so far. she has been very tight in her answers. and she has kept her demeanor in control even in the face of some pretty insulting questions. there is an other worldly aspect to this. you have democrats that supported the weaponization of the legal system against trump. suddenly saying, you know, in the name of god tell us you won't be targeting political opponents. i think that senator cruz brought that up as did some of his colleagues and said you seem to be ignoring what we just went through. in this case bondi has made

clear she has no intention of doing that. they pressed her on this enemy's list no one has seen. they are turning this into a hearing for patel. they keep on trying to get her to speak against and do some work against patel. >> harris: i want to get so something and perhaps this is touching on what you mean. the back and forth between senator dick blumenthal and pam bondi, watch this. >> i have to say also really troubled deeply disturbed by some of your responses and non-responses to the questions that you've been asked today. you have to be able to say that donald trump lost the 2020 election. you dodged that question when you were asked directly by senator durbin. you have to be able to say that

january 6th insurrectionists who committed violence shouldn't be pardoned. >> you said i have to sit up here and say these things. no i don't. i sit up here an speak the truth. i'm not going to sit up here and say anything that i need to say to get confirmed by this body. i don't have to say anything. i will answer the questions to the best of my ability. >> harris: no flinching there, kerri. >> i think pam bondi is knocking it out of the park and a large reason for that is not just because she has handled thousands of cases, handled hundreds of jury trials. it is because she was state attorney general in florida for eight years. the reason that's important is because being an attorney general is a unique mixture of law and politics. people don't like that. they think politics shouldn't be involved. well, that's not reality. when you are an attorney general you even handedly and neutrally apply the law but responsible

for implementing the president's or governor's political agenda and when -- where i saw that come out when one of the senators asked her what if career prosecutors came to you with a case and the white house directed you otherwise. and she gave a standard answer that a.g.s and deputy a.g.s give but added a carve yet saying i will follow the facts and law and this is the key, with good faith. the reason she added good faith is because we have seen how the justice system has been manipulated against donald trump since he became the nominee in 2016. unfortunately we often saw that driven by career officials. there is this silly belief out there that is not founded again in reality that career officials are immune from political persuasion. that's not the case. they are human beings like everyone else and sometimes those politics drive what they do, which is why pam bondi said when she is a.g. she will look

at everything but she is going to apply the law in good faith. >> harris: i thought it stood out when, you know, there was a point of question how many people did you lead and she said 400. i mean, because we saw democrats yesterday with pete hegseth head counting to see if you can handle the kind of broadening from a local level to a national level of people that you would oversee. nothing can compete with the national federal government in terms of how many people you would oversee. 400 are a lot. we have six of these today. five simultaneously going on now, marco rubio, john ratcliffe, sean duffy. i think we'll look at the big wall now. secretary of transportation, chris write secretary of energy and russell vought director of office of management and budget. so this management and budget, yes. this is all going on right now. we're all over them as they

happen and here is what has gone on for rubio, one of the six trump nominees facing a senate confirmation hearing today. let's take a look. >> we're waiting patiently for that. okay. he spoke about ukraine and i can tell you what he said. what vladimir putin has done is not acceptable. this war has to end. i think it should be the official policy of the united states that we want to see it end. now i want to bring in brent sadler to the conversation along with jonathan and kerri. what he is saying is it will take bold diplomacy and that his hope is that it could begin with some kind of a cease-fire. what is your take? >> happy new year, and good to be back on your show. i think also in his comments the

senator's comments said you have to deal in reality. only so much you can change on the battlefield given the relative power disposition and sizes of these two countries, ukraine versus russia. at the end of the day it's about american scents. those are served and protected going forward. you have to deal in the real world and you have to deal in reality. i think making a very clear statement as president reelect trump has said the goal is to end the fighting and the killing. what happens next we have to see what putin does, if he takes initiative to try to put an end to it or else we'll have to start seeing more pressure applied and costs imposed but do it differently and have to be educated with the reality and what our strategic ends are. something that alluded the biden administration for the last three years on this topic. >> harris: i appreciate you sliding in on that one point. marco rubio and sean duffy in particular, john ratcliffe are not expected to see a lot of pushback. some tough questions no doubt.

but it is an easier ride than projected for some on trump's list as nominees. we're still watching all of it and we'll bring you what pops out of all of that today. thank all three. it has been a compressed moment for all of us. on capitol hill they'll resume momentarily. we've been watching closely the future attorney general for the united states. she is pam bondi and trump's pick for that and we have breaking news. let's get to that. "outnumbered" starts now. let's get to that. "outnumbered" starts now. >> this is fox news alert as we begin here on the wake of several hearings that have been going on today. several of president-elect trump key cabinet picks are on the hill, several ongoing, the confirmation hearings. we'll bring you the latest on all of this. including secretary of state nominee, marco mendicino, cia nominee john ratcliff, and transportation secretary pick sean duffy