By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In her first oversight hearing as Attorney General, Pam Bondi faced questions regarding the Justice Department’s actions, including the handling of investigations into Donald Trump’s perceived enemies. She repeatedly evaded questions about whether Trump directed prosecutions and declined to answer about conversations with the White House. Bondi defended the Justice Department’s refusal to release additional Epstein-related documents and responded combatively to Democratic senators, including personal attacks. Furthermore, Bondi was unable to provide clear answers on the number of undocumented immigrants in Chicago or whether it is a “sanctuary city.” This contentious hearing highlighted the Justice Department’s actions following Trump’s demands to prosecute his enemies, sparking significant scrutiny.
Read the original article here
After fiery exchange over Epstein files, Pam Bondi is unable to answer basic questions about immigrants in Chicago. It’s really something, isn’t it? The whole situation surrounding Pam Bondi and her inability to answer simple questions about immigrants in Chicago is just… well, it’s a mess. It’s the kind of mess that makes you shake your head and wonder what’s really going on behind the scenes. I mean, the whole thing is a prime example of the way things seem to be going these days.
It all starts with a fiery exchange. The Epstein files, a topic that’s as sensitive as it is relevant. And Bondi, in the midst of this storm, is supposedly tasked with overseeing things. But then comes the part where she’s asked about something seemingly straightforward: the number of immigrants in Chicago. And that’s where things really fall apart.
The question, posed by a Senator, was simple: “How many ‘illegal immigrants’ are in Chicago?” The response? A pause. A shuffle of papers. And then, the answer, “countless.” That word, “countless,” hangs in the air, and the implications of it. It makes you wonder, how can someone in her position not even venture a rough estimate? Is it a genuine lack of information, a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, or something else entirely? It’s a clear indication of how little effort is put into actually understanding the complexities of the situation.
Then, she throws out another, seemingly unrelated fact, claiming a “1,000 percent increase” in attacks against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It is supposed to make people stop and think but it doesn’t. It is used as a deflection to the simple question asked. The question, of course, is not answered.
And it’s not just the numbers. Bondi can’t seem to provide any real answers. She seems to be operating from a pre-written script, or talking points, that barely relate to the questions being asked. It is a frustrating thing to watch. Instead of addressing the core issues or providing real facts, she sticks to generalities, making accusations, and changing the subject. This is a tactic all too familiar in today’s political landscape.
And when pressed on whether Chicago is a “sanctuary city,” the response is just as evasive. Instead of giving a clear answer, she pivots. She points the finger at others, accuses without providing context or evidence. It’s a classic case of deflection, of avoiding the real issues and instead trying to shift blame.
The whole charade is a reflection of a larger issue: a lack of accountability. I mean, what’s the point of holding these hearings if the people being questioned don’t have to answer the questions? What’s the use of asking for straightforward facts when the response is always a variation of “I can’t tell YOU that”? The result is that no one is held responsible.
It’s not just about Bondi, of course. It is a symptom of a bigger problem. It highlights a system where loyalty often trumps competence. Where those in positions of power seem to prioritize political posturing over, you know, actually doing their jobs.
It’s also worth noting that she is operating under a cloud of controversy. The Epstein files, and the unanswered questions surrounding them, add another layer of complexity to this already convoluted situation. It’s as if any semblance of truth has disappeared, leaving nothing but soundbites and talking points.
The fact that she can’t even answer basic questions about the situation in Chicago is telling. It shows a lack of preparation, a lack of care, and a willingness to simply recite a script. This isn’t a matter of her being “caught off guard” or “not knowing the answer”. It’s a pattern of avoidance.
What is the point of it all? Is it to appease a certain base? To muddy the waters? To distract from the real issues? Whatever the reason, it is clear: the American people deserve better. They deserve leaders who can answer basic questions, who are prepared, and who are accountable. They deserve someone who knows the basic facts and can deliver a response that makes sense.