Adam Schiff Complains About Pam Bondi Hearing — But Grassley’s Response Left Everyone Speechless
Last Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing exposed deep frustrations and divisions over the conduct of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s testimony. The exchange between Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) highlighted bipartisan concerns about oversight, decorum, and the increasing polarization of Congressional hearings. Here’s an in-depth look at what happened, why it matters, and what it means for the future of Congressional oversight.
Senator Schiff opened his remarks by expressing concern about the previous day’s hearing. As the junior-most member on his side, he had listened to all preceding exchanges and was troubled by the pattern of responses from Attorney General Bondi.
– Legitimate Questions Ignored : Schiff noted that his colleagues asked serious oversight questions—about the legal basis for military-style raids, the zip-tying of children, the use of undercover funds, and the justification for blowing up ships in the Caribbean. These are the types of questions central to Congressional oversight.
– Personal Attacks Instead of Answers : Rather than providing substantive responses, Bondi allegedly resorted to attacking the character of committee members, including direct insults. Schiff described these attacks as “canned,” suggesting they were prepared in advance rather than genuine reactions.
– Consequences for Oversight : Schiff warned that if such tactics become the norm, it would undermine the committee’s ability to perform its fundamental oversight role. He called for decorum and for witnesses to answer questions or clearly state why they cannot, instead of resorting to personal attacks.
Chairman Grassley responded by emphasizing his efforts to set a respectful tone for the hearing. He reminded the committee:
– Setting the Standard : Grassley had explicitly asked both sides to treat each other with respect before the questioning began. He even offered witnesses a chance to respond fully after senators finished their questions.
– Breakdown of Decorum : Grassley acknowledged that decorum was not upheld, not just by the witness but also by senators—particularly, he noted, those on Schiff’s side who made strong statements, interrupted, and spoke over the FBI director during previous hearings.
– Shared Responsibility : Grassley expressed disappointment in the insults directed at Democratic members but suggested that the breakdown in decorum was a cumulative result of both sides’ behavior. He admitted that he let the hearing “go on the way the senators wanted,” seeing little he could do beyond pleading for civility.
The heart of Schiff’s complaint is that Congressional oversight is being replaced by partisan attacks and evasions. When legitimate questions about government actions—such as military raids or financial dealings—are met with personal insults, the ability of Congress to hold the executive branch accountable is compromised.
Grassley’s response underscores the difficulty of maintaining order and respect in a highly polarized environment. While he set expectations for decorum, enforcement is challenging when tempers flare and partisanship overrides procedure.
Both senators agree that the committee cannot function effectively if hearings devolve into personal attacks and grandstanding. Schiff’s call for written questions and Grassley’s plea for civility suggest a desire to restore substance and respect to the process.
The Schiff-Grassley exchange at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing serves as a microcosm of broader challenges facing Congress: balancing rigorous oversight with respectful discourse in an era of deep division. As both senators recognize, the committee’s ability to fulfill its constitutional duties depends on witnesses answering questions honestly and members upholding decorum. Whether future hearings can overcome these obstacles remains to be seen, but the stakes for democratic accountability could not be higher.
