By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Deluzio and Crow have publicly stated their defiance following failed attempts to indict them. They contend that the Trump Administration and Department of Justice are weaponizing the legal system to suppress dissent and target political adversaries. Both individuals express outrage and resolve, asserting that such intimidation tactics will not silence them and that Americans are increasingly united against perceived corruption and abuse of power.
Read the original article here
It appears that during a recent House hearing, Pam Bondi was observed with what has been described as “burn book” notes specifically targeting Democrats. This detail emerged during a session intended to address concerns surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and the handling of related matters by her department. Witnesses to the proceedings noted a stark contrast in Bondi’s demeanor and responses depending on who was asking the questions. When Democrats posed inquiries, often described as heated and directly related to the Epstein case, Bondi seemed to deflect, dismiss, or change the subject entirely, sometimes resorting to what some perceived as personal attacks or simply failing to answer the questions posed.
In contrast, when Republican representatives took their turns, the atmosphere seemed to shift. The questions reportedly focused on issues like safety and immigration, and Bondi’s responses were described as full and direct. This disparity has led to considerable frustration, particularly given the stated purpose of the hearing was to provide a platform for Epstein survivors. Observers expressed dismay that while victims were present, their concerns seemed to be overlooked or actively disregarded by Bondi throughout the proceedings.
The observation of these notes has fueled speculation about Bondi’s approach to the hearing. Rather than appearing to prepare to answer substantive questions about her department’s actions or inactions concerning the Epstein case and its victims, the notes suggest a pre-meditated strategy of opposition and personal criticism directed at Democratic lawmakers. This perceived lack of preparation for the actual issues at hand, and instead a focus on attacking those asking the questions, has been characterized as a significant departure from the expected conduct in such a serious setting.
The contents of these notes, though not explicitly revealed in detail, have been interpreted by many as a form of “burn book,” reminiscent of a high school trope where individuals compile insults and criticisms of others. The implication is that Bondi was equipped with a dossier of negative points or talking points specifically designed to discredit or attack Democratic members of Congress, rather than to engage in a transparent and honest discussion about the matters under scrutiny. This focus on personal attacks over policy or evidence has been deeply disappointing to many who were watching the hearing.
Furthermore, the way Bondi allegedly handled these notes—rifling through papers, smirking, and then deflecting—has been described as a performative display that undermines the gravity of the hearing. It has been suggested that this behavior is not about providing answers but about generating soundbites for partisan media consumption, aimed at “owning the libs” rather than addressing legitimate concerns raised by the opposing party and, more importantly, by the victims themselves.
The effectiveness and appropriateness of this strategy are highly questionable, especially given the sensitive nature of the hearing. The criticism suggests that this approach is not only unproductive but also deeply disrespectful to the survivors of Epstein’s abuse who were present. The perception is that instead of offering empathy, accountability, or concrete plans, Bondi engaged in a display of deflection and what many are calling “whataboutism,” a tactic to avoid direct engagement with difficult questions.
The idea that someone in such a high-profile position would rely on a “cheat sheet” of insults rather than substantive answers has been called embarrassing and indicative of a broader issue within the current administration. It raises questions about competence and priorities, suggesting a focus on political gamesmanship over genuine public service and the pursuit of justice for victims.
There’s a strong sentiment that this behavior, including the alleged reliance on insult notes, is a clear indication of a cover-up and a disregard for the truth. The refusal to apologize to victims for not interviewing them, framed as not wanting to get into the “gutter,” has been particularly galling to observers, who see it as further evidence of a dismissive and callous attitude towards those who have suffered immensely.
Ultimately, the presence of these “burn book” notes during a critical House hearing has been seen as more than just an odd detail; it’s been interpreted as a symbol of a political strategy that prioritizes partisan attacks and evasion over transparency, accountability, and genuine concern for victims. The reactions suggest a deep disappointment and a loss of hope in the political process when such tactics are employed in the face of serious allegations and the presence of those seeking justice.