Listen to the article
Bondi Hearing Erupts in Chaos as AG Arrives with Opposition Research Binders
Attorney General Pam Bondi arrived at the Rayburn House Office Building carrying what would soon become the focal point of a contentious congressional hearing: oversized white binders filled with opposition research on every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
The massive binders appeared moments before Bondi’s entrance, carried by an aide struggling under their weight. Their contents would remain a mystery until the hearing began, but their sheer size caught the attention of reporters gathered in the hallway.
As Bondi approached the building entrance, journalists positioned themselves strategically along the corridor. When an aide instructed reporters to “let her get into the room,” Fox News correspondent Chad Pergram reminded them that the hallway remained open to the public, making questions fair game.
The brief exchange that followed—lasting just one minute and three seconds—touched on several pressing issues. Bondi declined to comment specifically on the Nancy Guthrie investigation, saying only that she was “praying for Savannah and her family.” She refused to discuss the mysterious closure of El Paso’s airport to air traffic for ten days. When asked about the Justice Department’s controversial handling of the Epstein files, Bondi stated simply, “We’re going to discuss that today.”
A final question about the Department’s failed attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers was deflected to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeannine Pirro before Bondi disappeared into the committee suite.
Once the hearing began, the purpose of the binders became clear. They contained detailed dossiers on every Democratic committee member, which Bondi referenced repeatedly during her testimony. Instead of focusing on substantive policy matters, the Attorney General used the materials to launch personal attacks against her questioners.
The hearing quickly devolved into chaos as Bondi traded barbs with committee members. She derided Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) as a “failed politician” and called Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the top Democrat on the panel, “a washed-up, loser lawyer.” When Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) challenged her to “give me your best” piece of opposition research so he could grade what her staff had assembled, tensions escalated further.
The contentious atmosphere overshadowed the hearing’s stated purpose of providing oversight of the Department of Justice. Instead, viewers witnessed five hours of shouting and disruptions in what observers described as one of the most chaotic congressional hearings in recent memory.
The hearing had been expected to focus on the Justice Department’s handling of several high-profile matters, including the partial release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats and at least one Republican had expressed concerns about excessive redactions in the files, which were released following President Trump’s signature on the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025.
Several Epstein survivors were present at the hearing, watching as the proceedings descended into partisan bickering rather than substantive examination of the issues that brought them there.
Other pressing matters that might have received attention included developments in the Nancy Guthrie disappearance case, the unexplained closure of El Paso’s airport, and the Justice Department’s unsuccessful attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers for allegedly encouraging service members to disobey unlawful orders.
Instead, the hearing will likely be remembered for its extraordinarily hostile tone and Bondi’s unusual strategy of arriving with prepared personal attacks against her questioners—all meticulously organized in what quickly became the most infamous binders in American politics since Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” comment during a 2012 presidential debate.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The binder controversy seems like a distraction from the real work that needs to be done. I hope the hearing can move past the political theater and focus on finding bipartisan solutions to the challenges facing the country.
Well said. Substantive policymaking, not political grandstanding, should be the goal. Voters deserve leaders who can put aside partisan divisions and work together for the common good.
This political controversy over the binders seems like a distraction from the real issues at hand. I hope the hearing can move past the theatrics and focus on substantive policy discussions.
Agreed, the binders seem like a cheap political ploy. The public deserves a serious and constructive debate on the important matters facing the country.
I’m curious to learn more about the specific contents of those binders and how they relate to the policy issues being debated. Transparency and good-faith dialogue should be the priority, not political theatrics.
Agreed, the focus should be on substance over spectacle. Hopefully the hearing can provide a clear-eyed analysis of the policy differences at hand, rather than get bogged down in political point-scoring.
While the binders may have been an attention-grabbing tactic, I’m more interested in understanding the core policy disagreements driving this political clash. What are the key points of contention that need to be addressed?
Good question. Getting past the surface-level theatrics to the underlying policy debates should be the focus. Hopefully the hearing can provide some clarity on the substantive issues at stake.
While the binders may have been a dramatic gesture, I’m more interested in understanding the core disagreements that led to this confrontation. What are the key policy issues dividing the parties, and how can they be resolved through constructive dialogue?
The controversy over the binders is troubling, but I hope the hearing can move the discussion in a more constructive direction. Voters deserve to understand the real policy differences between the parties, not just political posturing.