By John Q. Hosedrinker Congressmen Ted W. Lieu and Dan Goldman have urged Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to appoint a special counsel to investigate Attorney General Pam Bondi. This call follows Bondi’s February 11, 2026, testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, where she stated there was no evidence Donald Trump committed a crime. The Congressmen contend that recently released Justice Department documents from the Epstein files directly contradict this assertion, presenting evidence that suggests otherwise. They argue Bondi’s statement constitutes perjury, a crime under federal law, and emphasize the necessity of a special counsel due to the inherent conflict of interest.
Read the original article here
Reps. Jamie Raskin and Daniel Goldman have joined the chorus of voices calling for a special counsel to investigate Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. The core of their concern revolves around allegations that Bondi may have lied under oath during a congressional hearing concerning former President Donald Trump. This call stems from Bondi’s public statements on the matter, particularly her assertion that there was “no evidence” that Donald Trump had committed a crime, a claim that has been widely challenged.
The specific point of contention appears to be Bondi’s response when presented with video evidence linking Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein. Despite this visual, and what many perceive as overwhelming circumstantial and testimonial evidence pointing to potential wrongdoing by Trump, Bondi maintained her stance that no evidence existed. This apparent dismissal of readily available information has led to accusations that she was not truthful during her sworn testimony.
It’s felt by many that Bondi’s assertion of “no evidence” was not just a misstatement, but a deliberate attempt to mislead. The fact that Trump himself has a significant number of felony convictions further complicates Bondi’s claim. To state unequivocally that there is “no evidence” a crime has been committed, especially when so much information to the contrary is publicly known, strikes many as a blatant falsehood.
The call for a special counsel isn’t just about a single statement; it’s about accountability and the integrity of sworn testimony. For those demanding an investigation, Bondi’s alleged untruthfulness strikes at the heart of due process and the expectation that public officials will be honest when questioned under oath. The idea that she might have to defend her statement by claiming ignorance of the meaning of the word “evidence” highlights the perceived absurdity of her position.
Furthermore, the context of Bondi’s statements is crucial. She was speaking as a public official in a congressional setting, where truthful testimony is paramount. The perception is that she was not merely offering an opinion, but making a factual declaration that appears to be demonstrably false. This has led to the argument that her actions warrant a formal inquiry, similar to other investigations into alleged misconduct by public figures.
The request for a special counsel is seen by supporters as a necessary step to ensure that no one, regardless of their position, is above scrutiny when it comes to potential perjury. The argument is that if elected officials can simply deny the existence of evidence that is widely known, it erodes public trust and undermines the legal system. The hope is that an independent investigation can ascertain the truth and, if warranted, hold Bondi accountable for her alleged misstatements.
There’s a sentiment that Bondi, by allegedly lying under oath, has placed herself in a precarious position. The argument is that if she cannot defend her statement with facts, her only recourse is to argue a semantic loophole, claiming she didn’t consider certain information to be “credible” or “actual evidence.” This, for her detractors, is hardly a satisfactory explanation for such a definitive public declaration.
Ultimately, the push for a special counsel is driven by a desire to see alleged corruption and dishonesty addressed through formal channels. While some acknowledge the difficulty in prosecuting such cases, the underlying sentiment is that those who hold positions of power should be held to the highest ethical and legal standards, and that perceived violations of these standards should not go unexamined. The hope is that an investigation will bring clarity and, if necessary, justice.