House Judiciary Committee Oversight of the Department of Justice · February 11, 2026
The full transcript of AG Pam Bondi's February 11, 2026 House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing was obtained from Rev.com in two parts. Every identifiable question posed by a Democratic member was cataloged with timestamps, and Bondi's response was classified as one of three types: direct answer, deflection, or counter-attack.
Rev.com certified transcripts: Part 1 · Part 2. Total hearing duration: approximately 5 hours. Total transcript length: ~50,000 words.
Direct answer — A response that addresses the substance of the question asked, regardless of whether the questioner was satisfied with it.
Deflection — A response that avoids the question by invoking a different topic, asking a counter-question, claiming the question was already answered, or running out the member's clock.
Counter-attack — A response that ignores the question entirely and instead targets the questioner personally with pre-prepared opposition research, insults, or crime statistics from their home district.
Transcript quality varies — some speakers are labeled generically ("Speaker 8," "Speaker 12") rather than by name. Inaudible segments are noted in the transcript. The analysis cataloged 59 identifiable questions from Democratic members; the actual number may be higher when accounting for questions lost to cross-talk or members who yielded before asking.
The most revealing pattern is not who asked — it is what was asked about. Questions on topics favorable to the Trump administration received instant, direct answers regardless of complexity. Questions on unfavorable topics received deflection or counter-attacks regardless of how straightforward they were.
| Topic | Dem Asked | Dem Answered | Dem Rate | GOP Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epstein accountability | 14 | 0 | 0% | — |
| Trump connections | 8 | 0 | 0% | — |
| Survivor treatment | 9 | 0 | 0% | — |
| DOJ operations | 7 | 0 | 0% | 100% |
| Minnesota / ICE killings | 5 | 0 | 0% | — |
| Domestic terrorism lists | 3 | 0 | 0% | — |
| Biden DOJ failures | 0 | — | — | 100% |
| Crime stats validation | 0 | — | — | 100% |
| Pro-admin policy | 0 | — | — | 100% |
| Safe consensus | 4 | 4 | 100% | 100% |
| Bipartisan framing | 3 | 3 | 100% | — |
The row for DOJ operations is especially telling. When Rep. Neguse (D) asked "How many people work for the Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team?", Bondi stalled, mocked him, and attacked crime in his district. When Republican members asked about DOJ operations (fraud division, immigration courts, Safe Cities program), they received full, detailed, multi-minute answers.
Bondi's non-answers were not random. They followed five distinct, repeating patterns — deployed with enough consistency to suggest preparation rather than improvisation.
The same hearing. The same witness. The same chair. The same oath. Below are paired exchanges showing how the same type of question received opposite treatment based on who asked it.
Republican members asked approximately 75 questions across the hearing, including rapid-fire "true or false" sequences (Rep. Knott: 8 questions, Rep. Gill: 15 questions). Every single one received a direct, cooperative answer — often with volunteered additional information, personal warmth, and offers of follow-up meetings.
Eight of 59 Democratic questions received some form of direct answer. All eight shared at least one of these traits — revealing the conditions under which the behavioral switch could be temporarily bypassed.
Rep. Cohen (D-TN) praised the Memphis task force before asking questions. Rep. Correa (D-CA) framed Epstein as "our problem, not your problem." Both received warm, cooperative answers.
Rep. McBath (D-GA), whose son Jordan Davis was murdered in a case prosecuted by Bondi's Florida office, received genuine empathy: "I'm so very sorry for what happened to your family." This lasted exactly until McBath pivoted to the Minnesota killings — at which point Bondi replied "Well, that's not accurate" and then attacked crime in McBath's Atlanta district on the next Republican's time.
Rep. Swalwell (D-CA) described death threats against himself and his children. Bondi responded with the single authentic cross-party moment of the hearing: "None of you should be threatened, ever. None of your children should be threatened. I will work with all of you on both sides of the aisle." This was the only time in five hours that her voice softened for a Democrat.
"Should law enforcement leaders be honest?" (Kamlager-Dove) — "Of course."
"Does a convicted sex offender deserve special treatment in prison?" (Ross) — "No."
These are questions where any non-answer would be a scandal in itself.
Even so, each was immediately followed by a question that was refused.
For the record — here is every question from a Democratic member that received any form of direct answer, and why.
| Member | Question | Bondi's Answer | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rep. Cohen (D-TN) | "Violent crime in communities is critically important?" | "Yes." | Consensus question |
| Rep. Cohen (D-TN) | Memphis task force and Mayor Young | "Thank you for saying that about Mayor Young. He's been great to work with." | Cohen praised her first |
| Rep. Swalwell (D-CA) | "I'm asking for your help to protect life — my children have been threatened." | "None of you should be threatened, ever. None of your children should be threatened. I will work with all of you." | Human emergency |
| Rep. Correa (D-CA) | AI and cyber crimes as a bipartisan issue | "I look forward to working with you on any crimes involving child sex predators and cyber crimes." | "Our problem, not your problem" |
| Rep. Correa (D-CA) | "Make sure the perpetrators' names are unredacted." | "If any man's name was redacted that should not have been, we will, of course, unredact it." | Conditional — no commitment |
| Rep. McBath (D-GA) | "Should officials be respectful and supportive of victims' families?" | "I'm so very sorry for what happened to your family. Yes, I agree." | Personal connection — prosecuted her son's case |
| Rep. Ross (D-NC) | "Does a convicted sex offender like Ghislaine Maxwell deserve special treatment?" | "Let me be crystal clear. No." | Consensus — only answer possible |
| Rep. Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) | "Is it important for law enforcement leaders to be honest?" | "Of course, as well as members of Congress." | Consensus — but added jab |
Every answered question falls into one of three categories: consensus questions no one could refuse, bipartisan framing that signaled alignment, or a personal connection that momentarily bypassed the partisan filter. Not a single substantive oversight question — about Epstein, Trump, DOJ operations, survivors, or accountability — was answered.
Beyond the content of her answers, Bondi's approach systematically exploited the mechanics of congressional hearings to evade accountability.
Each member gets exactly five minutes. Bondi exploited this by beginning long, unrelated answers that consumed the clock. When members tried to redirect with "I'm reclaiming my time," she frequently challenged their right to do so: "You don't get to reclaim your time." This is incorrect — reclaiming time is an established House procedure — but the act of contesting it consumed additional seconds.
A consistent pattern: Democrat asks tough question → Bondi stalls or refuses → member's time expires → next Republican yields their time → Bondi uses it to launch a personal attack on the previous Democrat using pre-prepared materials. This was observed with Jayapal, Nadler, Lofgren, McBath, Ross, Neguse, Goldman, Balint, Garcia, Kamlager-Dove, and Crockett — at least 11 instances.
Ranking Member Raskin referenced it in his opening: "In the Senate, you brought something with you called a Burn Book, a binder of smears to attack members personally." Throughout the hearing, Bondi produced personal information about Democratic members with speed and specificity that indicated preparation — Reid Hoffman donations (Lofgren), X account posting history (Lofgren), ACLU positions (Ross), stock trading (Raskin), filing deadline decisions (Garcia), impeachment history (Goldman), and specific criminal cases from each member's district, complete with names and nationalities. Rep. Moskowitz challenged this directly: "Flip to the Jared Moskowitz section of the binder. Give me your best one."
Chairman Jordan's discretion amplified the asymmetry. He consistently allowed Bondi to continue speaking after Democratic members' time expired ("I think our next witness will be more than happy to let the Attorney General respond") but cut off Democratic members sharply ("Time of the gentleman has expired"). He also permitted Republicans to yield their time for Bondi's counter-attacks and rarely intervened when she talked over Democratic questioners.
Perhaps the most extraordinary moment came when Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) announced she would not ask any questions at all: "I'm not going to ask any questions of this witness, because this witness has revealed that she has no intentions of answering questions." Instead, she turned to her colleague Rep. Balint and asked a series of "right or wrong" questions — raping children, killing citizens, enriching yourself as president — to demonstrate the questions Bondi wouldn't engage with. A sitting member of Congress determined that asking questions was futile.
The constitutional purpose of an oversight hearing is executive branch accountability to the legislative branch. When the witness categorically refuses to answer one party's questions while enthusiastically answering the other's, the hearing ceases to function as oversight. It becomes two parallel events: a campaign rally for the majority party and a wall of contempt for the minority. The institution itself is the casualty.
Equally revealing is the set of topics that no Republican member raised. In five hours of questioning, the majority party did not ask a single question about: