To the editor: If I were a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I would have asked Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi a series of straightforward questions — virtually all of which require nothing more than a yes-or-no answer (“Bondi clashes with Democrats over Epstein, political retribution claims,” Feb. 11).
Did she read the president’s Sept. 20, 2025, Truth Social memo directing the Justice Department to prosecute three specific political figures? Prior to that being posted, had the DOJ already planned to pursue those prosecutions? Did career prosecutors recommend those actions?
These are not partisan questions. They go to the heart of prosecutorial independence and the separation of powers.
I also would have asked about compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Did the department meet the statutory Dec. 19, 2025, deadline? Have any materials been withheld that are not legally exempt? Is it true members of Congress are limited to reviewing supposedly unredacted files on only four secured computers?
And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, will the attorney general commit to meeting face to face with survivors?
Having worked on Capitol Hill, I know oversight is not theater. It is Congress’ constitutional responsibility. Clear questions — and clear answers — create a public record that either strengthens confidence in our institutions or exposes weaknesses that must be addressed.
When accountability is at stake, silence and ambiguity are not acceptable substitutes for the truth or transparency.
Denny Freidenrich, Laguna Beach
..
To the editor: The attorney general’s role is not partisan, yet it increasingly appears to be treated that way in this administration. The nation’s chief law enforcement officer is expected to answer legitimate questions from Congress, demonstrate independence and show compassion for victims.
The Los Angeles Times’ recent reporting on Bondi’s House testimony regarding the Justice Department’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein materials showed lawmakers seeking answers about redactions, transparency and the treatment of survivors. The testimony often felt more like political defense than legal explanation with clear accountability.
Americans of all political views should be concerned when oversight is met with deflection. Public trust in the justice system depends on transparency and independence from political influence.
Citizens should write to their members of Congress and insist on stronger oversight and accountability. The rule of law depends on it.
Suzanne Y. Korinke, Seal Beach
..
To the editor: The print headline should have read “Bondi rude, evasive and inhumane,” not “defiant.” She was rude and did not give any substantial answers to the questions posed to her.
She refused to face Epstein’s victims, but spent plenty of time praising Trump. If this is the kind of inhumanity that we get from the head of the DOJ, I truly fear for the country.
Vicki Rupasinghe, Ojai
..
To the editor: In the Epstein hearing, Bondi told Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) he suffered from “Trump derangement syndrome.”
The problem is not some alleged Trump derangement syndrome. The problem is that Bondi and the rest of Trump’s lackeys suffer from “Trump adulation syndrome.”
Ed Schoch, Westchester
