warrant requirement and why it's so important? >> well, the warrant requirement requirement is so important, which i've dealt with that since i was in my 20s. as a state prosecutor, a warrant is so important because it protects citizens rights, and that's why it's so important. >> and it does that specifically because under the fourth amendment, you're required to go to a judge and you're required to show a judge evidence, evidence providing probable cause. >> and based on that probable cause, you can describe with particularity the things or persons to be searched or seized. >> and on that basis, the judge may issue or not issue the warrant, but without it you can't get it. now this is time consuming, no doubt. right? >> oh, i've done many of them. yes, it's very time consuming, senator. >> and there's probably not a law enforcement officer anywhere in the world who wouldn't acknowledge that they could save time if they didn't have to go about it, and yet we require it. why is that so important that we do it? >> well? it's so important for the reasons you just laid out when i said i've done many of

them, i've approved them and not approved them as a state prosecutor because law enforcement, there are checks and balances and law enforcement must bring these warrants to prosecutors to see if there is sufficient evidence. then after that's done, they have to take them to a judge to have a judge sign them. so there have to be sufficient checks and balances throughout our system. >> so even after you as attorney general, as the chief law enforcement officer and prosecutorial authority in the state of florida approved it within your office, you still had to go to the judge. and 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 state wide prosecutor, nick cox, 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 anytime it would be inconvenient for prosecutors, or anytime national security might be

involved? >> i'm not certain about national security, but but absolutely no for a state prosecutor. yeah, there's no no exceptions. >> there's no catch all exception that just says this is important or it would be inconvenient for the prosecutor. and with good reason. we've learned through sad experience over many hundreds of years, not only in our own country, but also in that of our mother country. what happens when you don't have this in the loop? so you've been asked today a little bit about section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, also known as fisa. there are those who have repeatedly assured members of this committee, including myself, that don't worry, content of phone calls or electronic communications involving american citizens, sometimes resulting in the quote unquote, incidental collection of american citizens private conversations. don't worry, their fourth amendment rights are just fine. and yet, when they incidentally collect the communications of american

citizens, either because they're perhaps unwittingly talking to somebody who might be an agent of a foreign power and, 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 currently is no warrant requirement. this has the effect of what we call a de facto backdoor warrantless search. would you agree with me that that is potentially concerning anytime an american citizens private conversations are intercepted, stored, whether as an incidental collection or otherwise, they ought not be searched without some kind of probable cause showing. i assume you would agree with me. yes. yeah. it's important. sometimes people will defend that by saying national security is involved, as if that's the beginning and the end of the inquiry. that has never been the case, and i hope and pray it never will be the case, because

that's not what the fourth amendment says, not what it does, not what it ever can be. so it's my sincere hope that the next time fisa 702 comes up for reauthorization, congress finally do what it has been avoiding for a long time, which is to ensure that this doesn't happen. we've heard again and again from people who, if you're confirmed to this position, will soon 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 that we have within our system. and yet we found out time and time again that this has happened is, by some accounts, hundreds of thousands of times these things have been accessed where searches for an american citizens, private communications that have been intercepted and stored through incidental collection have been searched without those safeguards being

met, including instances 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've got to fix it. speaking of unacceptable, we have seen over the last few years the weaponization of government, specifically within the department of justice against law abiding americans, law abiding americans whose offense was something along the lines of, you know, them exercising their constitutional rights, ranging from catholics 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. as attorney general, how will you prevent the weaponization of the department of justice against americans? >> and, senator, you just gave the classic example of what's

been happening regarding the weaponization. i mean, going after parents at a school board meeting has got to stop for practicing your religion, sending informants in to catholic churches must stop. >> what about granting parents as domestic terrorists, or trying to incarcerate one's political opponent? as a sitting president of the united states will stop, must stop. >> your senator is exactly the 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've enjoyed knowing you, 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, thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, attorney general bondi, and 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 the qualifications and experience to do the job policy views to do the job in the 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 demonstrably have the relevant experience. i understand we will not see eye to eye on some or even many policies, but we had a constructive conversation last week about our shared interest in fighting the opioid epidemic, countering human trafficking and criminal justice reform, and supporting law enforcement. but i need to know that you share a core value, ensuring the department of justice remains free from partizan or political influence, in particular by the white house. so 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, and that is also my job to advise the president. my client is the are the people of america. >> a 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 doj prosecutors, came to you with a case to prosecute, grounded in the 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 got to be taken out of the system. i agree with you has been weaponized 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 sessions, bill barr. i don't think it's credible to say that it may never happen, that the president elect would direct an unethical or 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 to 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 directive or order to you or to the fbi 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 from some of us about the importance of having independence in the department of justice. it has a long tradition of independent special prosecutors, especially to handle high profile or often

political cases. if you got credible evidence of a criminal violation 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 have seen that for many, 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 officials within the department to make that decision. >> attorney general, do you do you think special counsel's 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 do not need to be senate confirmed, of course. >> but you did sign an 11th circuit brief arguing that they should be.

>> i will follow the law, senator. that's why i said that. >> understood. but i was just getting to the clarity about the difference between a position you've 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 fbi director at avoiding political pressure. and although he was chosen by president trump, he's being driven out so that he can be replaced. my perception i've 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 improprieties, went and looked for the evidence and said, i can't find any, and was then dismissed. i'm just going to ask you one last time. can you clarify for me that in following ethics and the law, you'd 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're a young prosecutor is to do the right thing. and i believe that has 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 of several others on this committee. i 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 politicization 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. >> thank you, senator. >> senator cruz would be next, but he's not here. so i call on

senator kennedy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss bondi, welcome. congratulations. can we agree that legitimacy is important to america's to america's criminal justice system? >> yes, senator. >> can we agree that legitimacy is important to the department of justice, which in part 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. >> and if that happens, we have chaos, don't we? chaos in 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 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's sitting in prison, senator. he's in jail because he was a crook. >> and the department of justice helped put him there, didn't it? >> yes, senator. >> do you remember a gentleman by the name of sam bankman freed? >> 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 belushi lookalike contest. and he thought it was cute. where is mr. bankman-fried today? >> i believe he is in prison, and i believe that's from the netflix series i saw as well, because he's a crook. >> and who helped put him there? >> the department of justice.

>> senator, can we agree that there's 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're out there risking their lives, especially the law enforcement officers, every single day. >> can we agree, though, that there 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 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 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, are you 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 who's who's 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'll bet you right now there's 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've got to fix it, counselor. you've got to fix it. and here's what, in my judgment, what 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're going to tell you, look, two wrongs don't make a right, but they don't. they do make it even don't resist or resist that temptation. help us restore legitimacy to the department of justice. >> thank you. senator. >> senator, thank you, mr.

chairman. >> welcome, miss bondi, and to your family. thank you. 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've been asked today. you say the right things, that you're going to be the 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 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 that a nominee for the fbi 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 fbi against political opponents, that he shouldn't be the fbi 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 roy

cohn, 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 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 ask you, an individual who says

that he is going to quote, come after and quote people he alleges, quote, helped joe biden rig the presidential elections, that he has a list of people who are part of this deep state, who should be prosecuted, that he's going to close down the fbi building on his first day in office. >> is that a person who, appropriately, should be the fbi director? aren't those comments inappropriate? shouldn't you disavow them and ask him to recant them? >> senator, i am not familiar with all those comments. i have not discussed those comments with mr. patel. what i do know. well, i'm asking you for your. 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 with running the fbi, 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. >> well, 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 to 372 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. and 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. senator, protecting our children from online predators. you've done so much on that front, and i thank you. i try i attempted to do that as well when i was attorney general, but i am 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. and that also, senator, is one of the core functions of the fbi, the cyber unit. they sit there. these these agents sit there all day long and investigate child predators. we tell parents constantly, you think you're talking to another child and you're not going to interrupt you. >> i welcome your positive response. i have one more question that i'm going to try to fit into this round. 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? and 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 you are if you are confirmed, senator, as i discussed with you during our meeting, that is pending litigation within the department of justice, well, it's pending litigation, but will you enforce that law? >> i can't discuss pending litigation, but i will i will talk to all the career officials again, prosecutors who are handling the case. absolutely. senator, talk, discuss with. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator tillis, miss bondi, 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've had a very impressive career there. though i do also have to admit i'm a

gator hater. so for the florida alum, i'm university of tennessee. but anyway, i actually in some of these hearings, i 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 of them really quickly. one was about you being a lobbyist. paid for it on the payroll of qatar. would you mind going back and repeating 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. it was anti-human trafficking in advance of the world cup. and human trafficking has been something that's been very important to me my entire career, especially when i was attorney general. >> and you also made it clear that you had a number of practitioners within the firm working on it. so this narrative that you were getting $115,000 a month from qatar is correct or not? >> not correct. >> okay. thank you. i, i want to

talk a little bit about well, first off i want to go back to you should be happy that so many comments have been directed towards kash patel, whose confirmation i am supporting. in fact, i'm meeting with him today because that means they're out of stuff for you. so 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 your that you will be loyal to the constitution and you will. you will live up to the oath, to the constitution and to protecting the american people. and i think, mr. patel, when he becomes here, he'll be able to get rid of the myth in the same way that you did as a lobbyist for qatar. he'll be able to get rid of that list of the enemies of, to be able to deal with the enemies list and the marketing department for your opposition

is going to have to come up with new material, because 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 that you can do. early into your confirmation, you will be confirmed and hopefully with some democrat support, that there have been dramatic reforms to 702. i've 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 like there were so many blinding flashes of the obvious. how could this not have already been a part of the approval matrix? so can you, after you're 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 that program stays in place. >> senator i or a designee will review all of 702 before it terms, of course, 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 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. and 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 on every single day and every one of our states wondering what an incredible job they do. so can you give me some sense of things that you would look at as maybe we could do it better from your perspective of having been a prosecutor for a in florida? >> yes. thank you. thank you. senator. yeah. 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. so i worked on a daily basis with local law enforcement and state and federal, not daily with federal. but i worked consistently with state, local and federal. then 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. and i'm going to do a second round as well. but i think i also check the bingo card for election denier. there

were some people, you know, seemed to suggest that you were denying the election. i think that you said that 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 that, or at least i inferred from a comment that you made a very important point, folks, there are election improprieties in every election. the matter of the question is a matter of scale and whether or not you can prove it. we've seen it in north carolina and seen it at other places. it's one of the reasons why i support voter id, because we want to make elections easy to vote and hard to cheat. but the fact of the matter is, people are cheating. so if anybody on this dais suggests that there aren't irregularities in every election, then they need to spend more time at home and really studying the facts. i don't think, though, that you've said that that biden is an illegitimate president. in fact, 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. a lot of people are going to say you're going to 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, because i want you to be consistent and not answering them. but i have to believe as a member, the last i was the last member out of the senate on january the 6th, i walked past a lot of law enforcement officers, excuse me, who were injured. i find it hard to believe that the president of the united states, or you would look at facts that were used to convict the violent people on january the 6th and say it was just an intemperate moment, that i don't even expect you to respond to that. but i think it's an absurd and unfair hypothetical here, and you probably haven't heard the last of it. thank you, mr. chair.

thank you. >> this is our question. >> this is before i call on senator hirono, after her and cruz's testimony. then 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 at after 30 minutes, and i'll be here. yes, chairman. and then i may leave the meeting to open the senate. so whoever's on our side is acting chairman. during that period of time. >> senator hirono, thank you, mr. chairman. as part of my responsibility to ensure 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. senator. >> have you ever faced discipline or 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 president elect trump's nominees. >> the first is whether the nominee is qualified and experienced enough to do the job. the second is the fitness to serve, which includes putting loyalty to the constitution over loyalty to the president. unfortunately, my view many of president trump's. president elect trump's nominees are lacking in at least one of these two requirements. miss bondi, your experience as a prosecutor is the kind of thing we would expect to see in a nominee for attorney general, but i do have questions and concerns about potential conflicts of interest, about whether you will keep doj's law enforcement responsibilities independent of the president's political whims, and about whether you will let facts and evidence guide your decisions. so let's start with the importance of facts, which you say is so important. miss

bondi, 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 president of the united states. >> miss bondi, you know that there is a difference between acknowledging it. and, you know, 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. okay, it's disturbing that you can't. give voice to that fact. moving on to d.o.j. independence from politics, mr. bondi, 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'd 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 on january 6th? hostages or patriots? quoting the trump as president elect, trump has said repeatedly, do you agree with his characterization of the felons that i referred to? >> i am not familiar with that statement, senator. >> i just familiarized you with that statement. do you agree with that statement? >> i'm 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. that is not my question. >> i went to a rape crisis center. i'm not familiar with the statement, but i went to a rape crisis center. i met with border patrol agents. i'm sure you've been to the border as well. >> so i want to get to my next question. so. i believe that you responded to a question from senator whitehouse, and 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 investigating 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 the

doj? >> it is the department of justice's decision. senator. >> so that sounds to me that you're saying that the white house will not have any kind of role. meanwhile, though, you have an incoming president who said, i have the absolute right to do what i want to do with the justice department and in fact, president elect trump considers the doj to be his law firm. i'll 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. >> i am listening to you now. could you respond to the question? yeah. >> 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. >> i'm very happy to listen to

your responses under oath, miss bondi. so 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 ag'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 certainly have not heard the president say that. but what i will tell you is two thirds of americans have lost faith in the department of justice, and it's statements like that. i believe that people continue to lose faith if i am confirmed as attorney general, it will be my job to not only keep america safe, but but restore integrity to that department. >> why don't we move on to plan on doing what you said every single day as attorney general on august 25th, 2025 on fox

news, you said. when republicans take back the white house, the department of justice, the prosecutors who will be prosecuted, the bad ones, the investigators who will be investigated, this is jack smith, one of those bad prosecutors that you will prosecute as ag senator, you hesitated a bit when i said the bad ones. every decision will be made in the eyes of the beholder. i'm just asking whether you would consider jack smith, senator, to be one of the people. how about liz cheney, senator? how about merrick garland? >> i am not going to answer hypotheticals. no one has been prejudged or nor will anyone be prejudged if i am confirmed, are the kind of people these are in fact, the people that you would prosecute. >> your time is up. would you like to? my time is like to respond, chairman. >> she is clearly not going to

answer that question. so let me get on to would you would you like to. i do have questions for the second round. >> you you'll have a second round. would you like to speak before i go on, senator cruz? >> no, sir. >> thank you. >> senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> general bondi, welcome. >> thank you for your long career in public service. and thank you for your willingness to take on this, 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's 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 politicization and the weaponization of the united states department of justice. and we don't need to ask, hypothetically, because joe biden publicly mused and allowed the new york times to report it, calling on merrick garland, why will he not prosecute trump more quickly? and merrick garland, sadly, he sat in that chair and promised to be apolitical. and he broke that promise almost the instant he walked into the department of justice. >> if you look on the west pediment of the supreme court of the united states, just above the entrance, there's a simple yet profound 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. and it is tragic to see the loss of confidence in the american people in the department of justice and in the fbi. i would note, i don't think there's an institution in america who has lost more respect from the american people than the fbi has in the last four years. that is a grotesque violation. of the obligation of the department of justice and the fbi. so i want to start with just 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. >> look, 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're 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 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 for when i was an intern. jury trials. 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. so. >> and how many of those cases would have been before a judge? >> oh, hundreds and hundreds as well, but hundreds before a jury, i would assume. >> and as attorney general of florida, how many lawyers did you supervise? roughly approximately 400. >> senator. >> now, i also want to clarify something. during the course of this hearing, several democrat senators have referred to you as as president trump's, quote, personal lawyer. now, 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? >> with an office of white house counsel? yes, senator. >> and is working within the white house counsel's office different than representing donald j. trump individually as his personal lawyer? >> absolutely. >> how is it different? >> you're working for the government. you're working for the office of white house counsel. you're not representing him in his personal capacity. >> and so you have not represented him in his business affairs, in his personal life, or in any of the criminal trials he has faced. >> no, senator. >> and, you know, when it comes to weaponization, it's worth noting that 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 two assassination attempts. >> senator, i have to say javert from les miz would be chagrined at the efforts of democrats to do anything possible to take him down. and i believe the real target in this was not president trump, but it was the american people that these prosecutions were brought because partizan prosecutors were terrified that the american people would do exactly what they did in november of 2024 and vote to reelect donald j. >> trump by 77.3% million americans, 77.3 million americans. >> will you commit? every day as attorney general to follow the law, to follow the constitution,

to uphold the rule of law without favor and without regard to the partizan 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 1225. and when we resume, senator booker will be recognized to ask his questions. >> and. good morning. >> i'm jose diaz-balart. you have been listening to the confirmation hearings for pam bondi. president elect donald trump's choice to be attorney general. she has been facing. have you been listening and watching? she's been facing questions from the senate judiciary committee about, among other things, her past comments on investigating those who investigated donald trump, the justice department's independence and the 2020 election, and so much more. with

us now, barbara mcquade, a former u.s. attorney who is now law professor at the university of michigan. and paul butler, former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at the georgetown university law center. so, barbara, i want to start with you. what do you make of what you've been hearing so far? >> well, jose, a huge part of this strategy by the republican senators clearly, is to put the department of justice and fbi on trial. >> we have heard the words weaponized, politicized again and again and again. >> and pam bondi is agreeing with those things. >> the suggestion that because the justice department charged donald trump with interfering in the january 6th in the election in 2020 and with retaining false documents, that somehow that was all cooked up, baseless, weaponized, politicized. >> i think it is a disgusting display of disinformation. >> and even if they alone don't believe what they're saying, members of the public are watching this, and i worry how many will be believing what they are hearing today. >> there certainly is a perception among many in the united states that the justice

department has been politicized. paul, what are your thoughts on what bondi has been going through so far this morning? well, jose, miss bondi has more courtroom experience than other recent attorneys generals. >> and so she's smooth and polished, and she's even found common ground with some of the democrats on issues like the opioid epidemic and pornography. but it's what she won't rule out that is concerning. she won't rule out discussing potential criminal prosecutions with trump. she won't rule out prosecuting reporters. she won't disavow or clarify her earlier pledge to prosecute the prosecutors and investigate the investigators who were responsible for trump's criminal cases. she actually thinks that kash patel is the right person to lead the fbi, so she's sounding like a yes woman to donald trump for all of their flaws, trump's previous attorneys general, barr and

sessions, at some point were willing to say no to him. in barr's case, it took trump trying to overturn the election. and what's most frightening is that for bondi as attorney general, she apparently would have tried to help trump in that effort, just as she did as a private lawyer. so again, she's sounding like the attorney general of trump's dreams. she's his roy cohn. i like to remind people that roy cohn was disbarred. >> and barbara, very quickly, the whole issue of how she talked about the 2020 election is something that she was asked repeatedly about, and she answered it in a very kind of. >> muddled way. >> yes. and i really think this is something senators should come back and hammer her on because she's very coy, although she will say that she accepts that joe biden is the president, she will not say that she accepts that the 2020 election is fair. those are two different things, and i think that senators should come back and really hammer her on that so

that we can get a clear answer from her. >> there is a 30 minute pause for lunch at that hearing, and we will, of course, resume it and bring it to you right here on msnbc. paul butler, barbara mcquade, thank you very much. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm jose diaz-balart. thank you for the privilege of your time. for the privilege of your time. andrew mitch prilosec knows, for a fire... one fire extinguisher beats 10 buckets of water, and for zero heartburn 1 prilosec a day... beats taking up to 10 antacids a day. it's that simple, for 24 hour heartburn relief... one beats ten. prilosec otc. for me? you rip me off, i'll kill you! >> what's your name again? jessica. >> what if you could tackle your dog's itching, soft stools and low energy? millions of pet parents are raving about doctor marty. nature's blend. such a

huge difference in her health. more energy, more playful. no more pooping issues. >> i'm doctor marty. i've been a veterinarian for more than 50 years. the dangerous ingredients added to many pet foods could be impacting your dog's lifespan. that's why i formulated nature's blend. >> now you can feed your dog wholesome cuts of real meat, vegetables and fruit with no vegetables and fruit with no artificial preservatives or i'm not a doctor. i'm not even in a doctor's office. i'm standing on the streets talking to real people about their heart. how's your heart? my heart's pretty good. —you sure? —i think so. how do you know? you're driving a car, you have the check engine light. but the heart doesn't have a hey, check heart sign. i want to show you something. put both fingers right on those pads. there you go. in 30 seconds we're going to have a medical-grade ekg reading. —there it is! —that is you. look at that. with kardiamobile, you can take a medical-grade ekg in just 30 seconds from anywhere. kardiamobile is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. and it's the only personal ekg that's fda-cleared to detect normal heart rhythm, bradycardia and tachycardia.

how much do you think this device costs? probably a thousand. $99! wow. that's impressive. checking your heart anytime, anywhere has never been easier. and kardiamobile is how hsa/fsa eligible. get kardiamobile today for just $79 at kardia.com or amazon. ♪♪ - [narrator] life with ear ringing or amazon. sounded like a constant train whistle i couldn't escape. then i started taking lipo flavonoid. with 60 years of clinical experience, it's the number one doctor recommended brand for ear ringing. and now i'm finally free. take back control with lipo flavonoid. two i want to be able to lay my hand flat. >> three i want a non-surgical recovery. >> four. i want options, non-surgical options and five. >> and if non-surgical treatment isn't offered, i'll get a second opinion.

>> let's go take charge of your treatment. if you can't lay your treatment. if you can't lay your hand f oh... stuffed up again? so congested! you need sinex saline from vicks. just sinex, breathe, ahhhh! what is — wow! sinex. breathe. ahhhhhh!

approved, get your funds as soon as the same day your loan is on deck. >> good day. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. we begin with major breaking news out of the middle east, where we can now report that negotiators in qatar have reached a gaza ceasefire deal and it has been accepted by hamas. the agreement lays out a six week initial cease fire phase that would begin in a day or two. once the israelis go through a cabinet process. after that, there would be a 48 hour wait and then a gradual withdrawal of u.s. of israeli forces. but first, the most important thing is that after 48 hours from whether it's thursday night or