BREAKING NEWS: Adam Schiff And Pam Bondi Have Shocking Clash Over Homan 'Corruption' Claims

Madam Chair, Attorney General Bondi, at your confirmation hearing in January, made a clear commitment you would not politicize your position. We are here today, your first oversight hearing nine months into your tenure, at a time when hundreds of career prosecutors have quit because they were required to take unethical actions at odds with that promise, or feared that they would have to take such actions if they remained on the job. When over a thousand former federal prosecutors have sounded the alarm about the unprecedented

degree to which the powers of DOG are being abused to go after the President's enemies. I approach this hearing with a heavy heart. As a former federal prosecutor myself, I served in a department that, whether it was under a Democratic or Republican president, would never use the office to go after the president's enemies or to hide the corruption of his friends. But today the Justice Department has been used to cover up the possible corruption of the mayor of New York or of a high

level administration official taking $50,000 reportedly in cash in a bag or a child sex predator who befriended the president and some of his cabinet members. And instead of preventing partisan weaponization, your department has engaged in a brazenly political prosecution at the president's explicit direction.

The department has become President Trump's personal sword and shield to go after his ever-growing list of political enemies and to protect himself, his allies, and associates. My questions, therefore, focus on these two themes, hiding the corrupt acts of his friends and prioritizing the political prosecution of his enemies. So let me start with the shocking allegations of bribery and pay to play.

Two weeks ago, four major media outlets reported that Tom Homan, the president's top deportation official working in the White House, took 50,000 in cash in a bag from undercover FBI agents in September 2024, just over a year ago. According to these reports, Homan indicated he would facilitate securing contracts in exchange for money once he was in office in a future Trump administration. Reportedly, this exchange was caught on tape. Rather than pursue this investigation without fear or

favor, the department and the FBI under leadership or that of your predecessor before you confirmed, quietly shut it down. Once news broke, your deputy and FBI director issued a joint public statement confirming that the Trump administration closed the investigation. White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt denied Homan took the $50,000, telling a reporter, quote, Mr. Homan never took the $50,000 that telling a reporter quote, Mr. Homan never took the $50,000

that you're referring to so you should get your facts straight. So today I hope you can help us get our facts straight. Was that true what the White House press secretary said when she denied Homan took the money? Did he take the

money? Senator Schiff, as I stated earlier, I was not in office, I was not confirmed when that was handled.

So does that mean?

Deputy Attorney General Blanch and Director Patel said that there was no evidence that Tom Homan committed a crime. Yet now you're putting his picture up to slander him

I'm putting his picture up showing an interview he gave with I think Fox in which he was asked explicitly about these allegations that he took a $50,000 bribe and He refused to answer. He said he didn't answer the question whether he took the money So I'm asking you the question. Did he take the money? Senator Schiff I answered that question

multiple times and frankly you know. Well I don't think with respect I don't think

you did but in case I just didn't hear you what is the answer did he take the

money? Senator Schiff that happened prior to my confirmation as Attorney General. I said that. Do you know sitting here whether you took the money? All I know is that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Patel said there was no case. And Caroline Leavitt is one of the most trustworthy human beings I know. So was she, you know Senator

Schiff, if you worked for me, you would have been fired because you were censured by Congress is one of the most trustworthy human beings I know. So was she, was she, was she right?

If you worked for me, you would have been fired because you were censured by Congress for lying with your egregious...

We can stipulate to, you can stipulate to all your personal attacks on the Democratic members of the committee.

Personal attacks? You've been attacking my FBI director. You've been attacking my office. You've been attacking...

But we, but we, but we're interested in is the answer to these oversight questions. So you were asked by my colleague. You were asked by my colleague.

Attacking good people.

A regular order, Madam Chair, so I can ask a question. You were asked by my colleague from Vermont whether you will support providing a video or audio tape if it exists of Mr. Homan taking $50,000 in bribe money from the FBI, will you support a request by this committee to provide that tape or tapes to the committee? Yes or no?

Senator Schiff, you can talk to Director Patel about that.

Well, I'm talking to you about it. You're the Attorney General. This will be your decision. Will you support?

You don't have to tell me what is my decision and what is not my decision. I said you can talk to Director Patel. You think you got a gotcha with Tom Holman, our border czar, who's been out there fighting for our country since Donald Trump took office.

I'm trying to ask you a question. Regular order, please. And you don't have to defer to the FBI director to pass the buck. So I'm asking you, will you support a request so that the committee, or indeed, I believe, the American people should be able to see

that video or audio tape. Will you support that request?

Will you apologize to Donald Trump

for trying to impeach him? I guess the answer is you won't support the request.

After you now know that Joe Biden tried to cover up Hunter Biden's involvement,

would you train? cover up Hunter Biden's involvement with Ukraine. Let me do this because I think it's valuable that the American people get a sense of what you've refused to answer today. So these are just some of the questions you refused to answer or have answered with personal attacks on members of this committee.

You were asked whether you consulted with career ethics lawyers, as you promised you would do during your nomination hearing when you approved the president receiving a $400 million gift from the Qataris. You refused to answer that question. You were asked who or what role you may have played or who played the role in asking that Trump's name be flagged in any of the Epstein documents gathered by the FBI? You refused to answer that question.

You were asked whether Homan kept the $50,000 bribe money. You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether Homan paid taxes on the $50,000 bribe money. You refused to answer that question. You were asked, did career prosecutors

find insufficient evidence to charge James Comey? You refuse to answer that question. You were asked how are military strikes on these boats in the Caribbean legal and you refuse to even ask answer that question. You were asked, excuse me, excuse me, you were asked did you discuss indicting James Comey with the president? You refused to answer that question. You were asked, did you discuss indicting James Comey with the president? You refused to answer that question. You were asked, did you approve the firing

of antitrust lawyers who disagreed with the Hewlett Packard merger? You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether you support a restoration fund for violent insurrections who attacked the Capitol on January 6th.

You refused to answer that question. You were asked whether you were firing career professionals, career prosecutors, just because they worked on January 6th question, January 6th investigations. You refused to answer that question. You were asked by my California colleague

whether you believe government officials, like immigration officials, have to abide by court orders. You wouldn't even answer that question. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing. Oversight? Excuse me, you can attack me after my time is over. Oh, well you've attacked all of us, including President Trump for your entire career. You can attack me later and I know you've got plenty of canned attacks, we've heard them all day to day. Can the tax on you? This is supposed to be. No one needs a can to tax on you. Excuse me, excuse me.

Regular order, Madam Chair. I'm trying to speak. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing of the Justice Department. And it comes in the wake of an indictment called for by the president of one of his enemies. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing and it comes in the wake of revelations that a top administration official took $50,000 in a bag and this department made that investigation go

away. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing when dozens of prosecutors have been fired simply because they worked on cases investigating the former president. This is and now the current president. What about the fires in California? Do you care about that? This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about. Are the riots in LA serious? About the cover-up of corruption, about the prosecution of the President's enemies. And when will it be, when will it be, when will it be that the members of this committee

on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those questions and refuse to accept personal slander as an answer to those questions.

Personal slander? Will you apologize to Donald Trump for slandering him? Personal slander?

Senator.

May I ask unanimous consent, Madam Chair, to introduce into the record the statement of a thousand former Justice Department officials who warned that the Comey indictment is a democracy-threatening abuse of power. May I also request unanimous consent for the introduction to the record of 282 former career officials at the Justice Department raising an alarm who were voluntarily or involuntarily forced to leave the department because of improper actions taken by the Department of

Justice. May I introduce with unanimous consent the Justice Department manual that talks about when initiating and declining charges are subject to impermissible considerations. And finally, Madam Chair, may I introduce the letter from Michael Ben-Eri, a career counterterrorism prosecutor, DOJ, a letter he nailed to his door which concludes by urging officials to do the right thing for the right reasons, to follow the facts and the law, and raises the alarm that the decision to remove experienced

career officials from U.S. attorneys' offices, the FBI, and critical parts of DOJ undermines our country's abilities to counter terrorist organizations, malign nation-state actors, and countless others that seek to harm our nation and its citizens. And he believes that the priority is prosecuting the president's enemies rather than protecting

the country.

May I have unanimous consent to enter these into the record?

Without objection.

Thank you. I yield back.

Senator Britt.

Senator Moody, may I clarify one thing he entered in the record? I just want to say that I believe he entered a letter by 200 and something former employees. Well, I believe the spokesperson for that letter was also the spokesperson for Jack Smith.

Senator Britt. Senator Britt.

Thank you, Madam Chair.