At a Senate hearing, Senator Adam Schiff puts it to Pam Bondi directly: the president has said Jack Smith should go to jail, so will she investigate him? Bondi won't commit, saying she hasn't seen the file. She agrees she would need a factual predicate, and answers "Absolutely" when Schiff asks: "And not a summary by the president either, right?"
The receipt
- Who
- Adam Schiff
- Where
- hearing - Pam Bondi attorney general confirmation hearing
- Original footage
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel · watch the full video from this moment
- Length
- 50 seconds, unedited within the cut
Read the transcript
So let me start with one very specific non -hypothetical. The President has said Jack Smith should go to jail. Will you investigate Jack Smith? Senator, I haven't seen the file. I haven't seen the investigation. I haven't looked at anything. It would be irresponsible of me to make a commitment. regarding anything without, you're a long practicing attorney without looking at a file. So you would need a factual predicate to open investigation of Jack Smith, is that right? Not a summary by you sitting here, yes sir. And not a summary by the president either, right? Absolutely. So a summary by the president or his desired investigation of Jack Smith would not be enough for you to open investigation of Jack Smith, is that right?
Machine transcript of the clip's audio; names are checked, small words may differ.