Yeah, that's not how subpoenas work. Hold her in contempt.
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2026
270 points (99.3% liked)
politics
29322 readers
1901 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How convenient for her 🙄
Good thing it's not up to the DoJ.
Oh, it may not be this year, but she will testify.
Republicans are "governing" as if they know a Democrat will never be in power again, to hold them accountable.
If the country survives the fascists and then no one gets held to account, I hope at least Aaron Sorkin can make a show pretending there were consequences so we can all have copium again.
I support raking her over the coals, but it's not as if she'll give any kind of sane testimony anyway. Does no-one remember the 'DOW IS AT 50,000' nonsense?
Hahahah, then she can be arrested as a private citizen for contempt of Congress.
Holy fuck these people are stupid.
But isn't it the DoJ who would have to bring the indictment leading to the arrest?
What's your second guess?
Congress can find someone in contempt, and they can direct US Marshalls to round up anyone who tries to run off.
Congress can find someone in contempt
Remind me which party controls Congress?
they can direct US Marshalls to round up anyone who tries to run off.
The United States Marshals Service is part of the executive branch, not controlled by Congress. Remind me which party controls the executive branch?
Remind me which party controls Congress?
The same party that controls the Congressional committee that issued the subpoena.
The United States Marshals Service is part of the executive branch
Yeah, I should have said the Sergeant-at-Arms. Point being, their enforcement power, while not highly resourced, is independent of the Executive branch.
Remind me which party controls the executive branch?
The Republicans. You can look these things up, you know.
If she's still in DC, Congress actually controls the Capitol Police.
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN11570/IN11570.4.pdf
It would... maybe be unprecedented for them to say, arrest her if she ever is on/in any of the areas of the Capitol they have jurisdiction over... but you can make a case that that's within their lawful powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Police
Wiki says they technically have nationwide jurisdiction.
If Trump gets to turn ICE into the Gestapo, why not?
Congress could theoretically turn them into something like the US Marshalls.
load more comments
(8 replies)
The department argued that Bondi was subpoenaed in her official role as attorney general
That's just a blatant fucking lie. The subpoena was for Pam Bondi by name.
Yeah, I was going to say. She's still the same person, and she can absolutely be subpeonad
That is some sovereign citizen logic from the department
They have the right profile.
If something real would actually start happening to the corrupt pieces of filth, the world would be much better off.
Man, someone called this play on the day they fired Bondi. It will be interesting to see if Congress lets them get away with it or if they charge her with contempt.
Great example why so many in Congress are getting out while they still can. Don't have answer questions under oath.
Of course they'd still have answer questions under oath if subpoenaed. And you would only subpoena the person who held the office at the time of interest. No point in talking to their successor who would know nothing.
That's why the clintons didn't have to answer questions under oath
oh wait... not that. I guess you only have to answer under oath if the party with the majority decides it.
Man, someone called this play on the day they fired Bondi.
I know I can't be the only one, but I did!
Congress said up front that they still expected her to appear; let's see if they let them get away with it this time. [Spoiler alert: they will.]
Fun fact, criminal contempt of Congress requires a full vote for civil contempt, and then refers them DOJ to decide if they want to prosecute, which they likely decline.
They also can sent their Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest and bring her to Congress, and held until she complies.
https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/contempt-of-congress-process-and-penalties.html
load more comments
(3 replies)
The actual letter sent yesterday by Ro Khanna and Nancy Mace to Chairman Comer explains that the DoJ refusal to have Bondi appear has no legal substance at all. It's an easy read, so I included the text along with the source. See it for yourself.
Note especially the assertion made in paragraph 5, "As you know, Congress's oversight authority does not end when an official leaves office. In fact, just last year the Committee issued subpoenas to six former Attorneys General, spanning multiple administrations of both political parties."
Congress of the United States Washington, DC 20515
April 7, 2026
The Honorable James Comer
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515Dear Chairman Comer,
We urge you to make clear former Attorney General Pam Bondi remains obligated to comply with the Oversight Committee's subpoena and appear for her scheduled deposition on April 14, 2026.
We moved to subpoena Pam Bondi, and the Committee voted to approve this motion on a bipartisan basis, because the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) still has not complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act (Public Law No: 119-38), and because serious questions remain regarding the DOJ's non-compliance and their handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates while she was Attorney General.
The removal of Pam Bondi as Attorney General does not diminish the Committee's legitimate oversight interests in seeking her sworn testimony or the need for accountability and information about files withheld from the public by the DOJ. On the contrary, it makes her sworn testimony even more important, especially with respect to actions she took as Attorney General, matters already under investigation, and decisions made under her leadership.
When Pam Bondi appeared last month for a briefing, you reiterated you would continue to pursue her sworn testimony and would discuss holding her in contempt of Congress if she failed to comply. She also stated that she would follow the law with respect to her subpoena, which clearly requires her to appear before the Oversight Committee.
As you know, Congress's oversight authority does not end when an official leaves office. In fact, just last year the Committee issued subpoenas to six former Attorneys General, spanning multiple administrations of both political parties. The American people deserve answers about whether Congress was misled and whether information is being withheld by the DOJ.
We ask you to publicly reaffirm that Pam Bondi must appear on April 14 for a sworn deposition as ordered or face appropriate enforcement if she refuses to comply.
Sincerely,
Ro Khanna
Member of Congress
U.S. House of RepresentativesNancy Mace
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives
load more comments
(2 replies)
Oh yeah everyone knows if you get fired from your job you can’t be held responsible for anything you did at that job
Burn down every single Republican (legally and politically) and start from scratch. The whole lot of them are evil and corrupt. A decent chunk of Democrats too.
I hope she faces justice in other ways from the actual QAnon crazies who really care about the fact that Trump raped children for decades.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Convenient
Chairman needs to respond with, "The only excuses for absence we'll allow are death or incarceration."
Nah, even in that second case they should have her dragged out there in an orange jumpsuit.
Even in that first case they should have her dragged out there in an orange jumpsuit.
Just fucking face it.
The only people involved with Epstein who are ever going to face justice, are any Democrats who might be in the files.
But that would include Trump so also not happening.
"The department argued that Bondi was subpoenaed in her official role as attorney general"
Who wrote this slop? Lindsey Halligan?
There's only one witness who can answer what happened and why under her tenure at DOJ.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Oh nice just in time too, since SCOTUS vacated Bannon's contempt of congress. Fucking shower of bastards
Bullshit.
Good thing Congress has the authority to subpoena whoever they fuck they want.
Yeah I... this is amazing.
If she is a private citizen, well now she can be arrested for contempt of Congress.
view more: next ›