Pam Bondi is gone as U.S. attorney general, but House Democrats say she will not be forgotten, as they vow to hold her accountable, especially regarding Epstein files

Pam Bondi might be gone from her role as U.S. attorney general, but House Democrats vow she will not soon be forgotten. In fact, an article at HuffPost indicates Dems tend to make sure Bondi's life becomes quite unpleasant. Under the headline "Pam Bondi must still answer for Epstein files cover-up, House Dems say," Ryan Grenoble writes:

Pam Bondi may no longer be the U.S. attorney general, but she’s still on the hook for everything that happened while she was, Democrats say. 

After news of Bondi’s firing trickled out Thursday, Democratic lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee re-upped their commitment to deposing Bondi and forcing her to answer questions about the Justice Department files on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as well as about his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, under oath.

“Attorney General Pam Bondi has been leading a White House cover-up of the Epstein files. She has weaponized the Department of Justice to protect Donald Trump and put survivors in harm’s way by exposing their identities,” said ranking member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.). “She will not escape accountability and remains legally obligated to appear before our committee under oath.”

Garcia said that “serious” investigations into the conduct of former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will also continue.

“If they think we are moving on because they were fired,” said Garcia, “they are gravely mistaken.”

Other Democrats joined Garcia in taking a "we mean business approach," Grenoble reports:

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who, along with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), helped force the release of the Justice Department’s files concerning Epstein, also said he expects Bondi to comply.

Khanna pointed out that he and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) had “subpoenaed Bondi to testify before the Oversight Committee on April 14th. Even though she has been fired, she must still answer to Congress about the remaining documents, why there have been no new prosecutions, and why she participated in a cover-up.”

Dems generally seem disinclined to grant any wayward Trumpers "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. Grenoble writes:

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), who also sits on the committee, agreed.

“Pam Bondi may be leaving the Department of Justice, but she must still follow the law and respond to the Oversight Committee’s subpoena to be deposed about covering up Epstein files,” he said in a statement. “I have a lot of questions. The American people deserve answers, and the Epstein survivors deserve justice.”

House Dems, like many members of the public, seem particularly interested in Bondi's actions connected to the Epstein files -- and that is understandable. But any inquiry should not stop there. Consider some of the ugliness surrounding her office that reflects disdain for the rule of law.  Here is a USA Today summary of controversies that swirled around Bondi as AG.

Perhaps nothing defines the warped nature of Bondi's tenure like a press release from the House Committee on the Judiciary, headed by Democrats ranking member Jamie Raskin. Dated 2/11/26, the release is titled "15 Questions Pam Bondi Refused to Answer Before Congress":

Here are the questions the Attorney General refused to answer before Congress, amid nationwide calls for truth and transparency: 

1. Bondi refused to answer how many of Epstein’s co-conspirators her DOJ has indicted (zero).   
    
2. Bondi refused to answer whether she would create a joint task force to give state attorneys general and district attorneys around the country access to DOJ’s trove of evidence regarding Epstein and his co-conspirators, so they can go build the cases and bring the indictments DOJ refuses to pursue.
    
3. Bondi refused to answer whether the email from the Epstein files involving Steve Tisch is worthy of further investigation.   
    
4. Bondi refused to answer whether it’s important for prosecutors to protect sexual assault victims’ identities.
    
5. Bondi refused to answer why 500 of her attorneys somehow didn’t redact dozens of survivors’ names, identities, and sensitive photographs.
6. Bondi refused to answer why she refused to investigate Prince Andrew who is shown in disturbing photos in the Epstein files.  
    
7. Bondi refused to answer whether she has knowledge if President Trump was at parties with underage girls.  
    
8. Bondi refused to answer whether she has prepared a list of so-called domestic terrorism groups. And she refused to commit to providing the committee with that list.  
    
9. Bondi refused to answer when DOJ decided not to investigate Lex Wexner as a co-conspirator and why.  
    
10. Bondi refused to answer whether DOJ owes anything to Epstein’s victims, even as Donald Trump sues for $10 billion in personal damages from the federal government.
11.  Bondi refused to answer how many employees work at the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (which she eliminated).
12. Bondi refused to answer whether DOJ has questioned Secretary Lutnick and other Administration officials about their ties to Epstein.  
     
13. Bondi refused to answer who at DOJ signed off on Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer.
     
14. Bondi refused to answer whether her Department would consider recommending a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. 
     
15. Bondi refused to answer whether the President has lied when he spread a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory about the murder of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman. 

White House ballroom has been described as a facility for entertaining guests; now it sounds like a military installation, and some call it a "bunker." What gives?

The most recent renderings of White House ballroom (NY Times)

A few days ago, Donald Trump's ballroom was described as a much-needed facility to entertain White House guests. Now it has evolved into a "shed" for some sort of military installation under the White House -- a "bunker" some are calling it. That is quite a transformation in less than one week's time. How did that happen? It's a confusing turn of events, and The UK Independent provides one of the best explanations we've seen under the headline "Trump reveals military is building a 'big' bunker under his planned White House ballroom." A subhead reads: "Bunker construction appears to be related to the secure shelter and communications underneath the former East Wing." Ariana Baio reports:

President Donald Trump has confirmed that the military was involved in the construction of a “big complex” underneath his planned White House ballroom – and hinted at it being a new bunker.

While speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday, the president provided updates on his $400-million ballroom and showed off renderings of the 90,000-square-foot structure, which replaced the original East Wing.

“The military is building a big complex under the ballroom, which has come out recently because of a stupid lawsuit that was filed,” Trump said, referring to a complaint that led U.S. Judge Richard Leon to grant an injunction pausing construction of the ballroom.

How did a ballroom that originally was designed to host galas, formal dances, and the like suddenly become what Trump now describes as a "shed" with military purposes in mind? Trump's answers to that question, so far, hardly have been models of clarity, as Baio writes:

Although Trump did not fully explain the purpose of the underground bunker, he hinted it was for security reasons.

“The ballroom essentially becomes a shed for what’s being built [underneath by] the military, including from drones, including from any other thing,” Trump said, adding that the windows will be “bulletproof.”

Any time Trump opens his mouth, Americans have become used to bracing themselves for the truth to take a beating. When he becomes evasive, that often is a signal of him making stuff up on the spot. And that can lead to assertions that are downright goofy, such as "a dance hall needs bulletproof windows."  What kind of dances is the White House planning to host? If you get an invitation, you might want to send your regrets.

The Telegraph is making a noble effort to report a story built on a shaky White House narrative, so it is  difficult to fill all the potholes Trump & Co. have placed  along the way. You can almost feel Baio struggle to piece things together as she writes:

Trump’s ballroom is one of several construction projects he’s undertaken to update the White House to align with his aesthetic.

The president has insisted the massive ballroom is necessary to provide entertaining space for state dinners, banquets and even potentially the presidential inauguration. As of now, the White House uses tents set up on the lawn to extend space during large events.

A weekend report from the New York Times looked at the proposed facility and some of its architectural features. Critics blasted the proposal, saying its stairs lead to nowhere and its columns will block views from inside the ballroom.

Now we have this question: Are those design flaws present because the facility always has been planned as a military installation, not a ballroom? This much is clear: The Times article hit a raw nerve with the administration -- and in Trump World, that often is a sign subterfuge is underway. Baio writes:

[The Times] report left press secretary Karoline Leavitt fuming.

"President Trump and his lead architect have built world-class buildings around the world, and they are ensuring the People’s House finally has a beautiful ballroom that’s been needed for decades — at no expense to the taxpayer," she said.

Trump’s decision to tear down the historic East Wing to make room for his privately funded ballroom has drawn scrutiny. Some argue the president should have received permission from the appropriate commissions before making the decision. [A federal judge already has found he should have sought authorization from Congress.]

Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt had installed a bunker underneath the East Wing, called the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, to serve as a secure shelter and communications center for the president in the event of an emergency. 

White House stories continue to change, suggesting something is going on that has not been fully explained to the American people. We suspect that is by design. Baio writes:

White House officials previously hinted the president might have ordered renovations of the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. At a National Capital Planning Commission meeting in January, White House director of management and administration Joshua Fisher said some plans were “top secret” – such as those related to underground construction below Trump’s new ballroom.

Lawyers for the Trump administration also indicated in lawsuit filings that renovations, part of the ballroom construction, were of “national security” importance. They argued that because of those plans, construction should not be paused for any reason.

Plaintiffs in the case, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, referred to that “top secret” construction in a recent filing as a “bunker.”

Additionally, at a cabinet meeting last week, Trump told reporters the military was involved in the White House ballroom construction but that it was supposed to be a secret.

It seems increasingly clear that Trump's "ballroom" project is about more than hosting banquets, state dinners, and such. So what really is going on, what are we not being told? We will strive to shine light on that question in upcoming posts. We hope you will join us.

Everyday Americans understand tenants can't make alterations to property they don't own, but Trump can't seem to grasp it, so a U.S. judge has set him straight

Demolition in action to make space for ballroom (AP)

Imagine renting a house and deciding you want to tear out a fireplace to build a rumpus room. Imagine that you move ahead on this project without consulting the person who owns the house, your landlord. Do you have a problem on your hands? The answer is yes because, in the U.S., it generally is unlawful for a tenant to make renovations to a property he does not own. Here's how the superlawyers.com website puts it:

The landlord is responsible for structural improvements, habitability needs, and major home systems. As the property owner, they are responsible for keeping the property compliant with building codes and health regulations. They will also address tenant requests for repairs and maintenance to the building. . . . 

Typically, daily maintenance and minor repairs are the tenant’s responsibility. The tenant is also responsible for making repairs to the damage they caused. If the tenant wants to make major changes or improvements, they will likely need the approval of the landlord. This restriction is typically included in the lease. There may also be a term that requires the tenant to restore the property to its pre-lease condition if they do make significant changes.

You probably are thinking to yourself: "That's a simple concept: If you don't own it, don't mess with it." It is simple, but it apparently is too complex for Donald J. Trump, president of the United States, to comprehend. That's why Richard J. Leon, U.S. judge for the District of Columbia, issued an injunction yesterday bringing construction on Trump's White House ballroom to a halt.

In essence, Leon ruled, the American people own the White House by virtue of paying taxes, and that means Trump is the equivalent of a tenant, one who must go through the people's representatives, in Congress, to proceed with even minor alterations. To be sure, the president's vision for a ballroom certainly is grand (and tacky) in scope, and that makes it especially important, Leon found, that Trump makes sure he obtains authority to alter the property. In a jointly published story, CNN and AOL have details about a decision that left America with one pissed off president:

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump from moving ahead with any further work on a massive new $400 million ballroom on the former site of the White House East Wing.

“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” Judge Richard Leon wrote.

Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said he was delaying implementation of his ruling for two weeks to allow the government to appeal. But he warned that “any above-ground construction over the next fourteen days that is not in compliance” with his ruling “is at risk of being taken down depending on the outcome of this case.” The Trump administration immediately told the judge it will appeal. 

The issues are not complicated, but Leon seemed to take care not to bruise the president's ego, which might be more massive than his planned (and tacky) ballroom. CNN/AOL report:

The crux of the issue, Leon concluded in his decision, was that Trump had not received approval from lawmakers to undertake the bold construction project, which he said was required by federal law.

“(U)nless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!” he wrote, adding that the good news” is that Trump and Congress can work to authorize the project.

According to CNN/AOL, Trump is taking his pet project personally. Perhaps that is why yesterday's ruling had to sting: 

Trump, a former real estate developer, has been personally involved in ballroom details, from floor plans to marble selection.

“I’m so busy that I don’t have time to do this, but – I’m fighting wars and other things, but this is very important, because this is going to be with us for a long time,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One Sunday evening, adding, “I think it’ll be the greatest ballroom anywhere in the world.”

The ballroom project has an estimated size of approximately 89,000 square feet, according to lead architect Shalom Baranes. By contrast, the primary White House structure, the Executive Mansion, is just 55,000 square feet.

Trump has maintained that the project isn’t subject to any oversight and that he should be able to continue it without any serious scrutiny. He has promised it will be complete in the summer of 2028, months before he leaves office.

Was Trump a tad peeved at having his grand plans short-circuited -- for now? As you might expect from our toddler-in-chief, the answer is yes. From a joint report at The New Republic and Yahoo! News:

Trump, incensed, took to Truth Social to rail against Leon’s decision.

“The National Trust for Historic Preservation sues me for a Ballroom that is under budget, ahead of schedule, being built at no cost to the Taxpayer, and will be the finest Building of its kind anywhere in the World. I then get sued by them over the renovation of the dilapidated and structurally unsound former Kennedy Center, now, The Trump Kennedy Center (A show of Bipartisan Unity, a Republican and Democrat President!), where all I am doing is fixing, cleaning, running, and ‘sprucing up’ a terribly maintained, for many years,” Trump wrote. 

“Yet, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a Radical Left Group of Lunatics whose funding was stopped by Congress in 2005, is not suing the Federal Reserve for a Building which has been decimated and destroyed, inside and out, by an incompetent and possibly corrupt Fed Chairman.”

Trump’s ballroom was initially projected to cost $200 million, and the price has since ballooned to double that.

Trump might think he is above needing oversight, but Judge Leon has other ideas -- and unlike Trump -- he seems to take the role of Congress seriously. From CNN/AOL:

Throughout the 35-page ruling, Leon repeatedly emphasized that Congress has a role to play in the project.

“The President may at any time go to Congress to obtain express authority to construct a ballroom and to do so with private funds,” Leon wrote. “Indeed, Congress may even choose to appropriate funds for the ballroom, or at least decide that some other funding scheme is acceptable.”

“Either way, Congress will thereby retain its authority over the nation’s property and its oversight over the Government’s spending,” the judge wrote. “And the American people will benefit from the branches of Government exercising their constitutionally prescribed roles. Not a bad outcome, that!”

Leon seemed to go out of his way to make the ruling palatable to Trump -- like trying to make a 5-year-old believe spinach really does taste good. The judge also took pains to point out the White House relied on flawed legal arguments -- suggesting perhaps that the president wasn't at fault; he just needed better lawyers. Here's more from CNN/AOL:

In ruling against Trump, Leon also said the president had improperly relied on a federal law that gives presidents the authority to use congressional funds for the “care, maintenance, repair” and “alteration” of the White House, among other things, to justify his decision to unilaterally move ahead with construction.

That law, the judge said, does not allow for the “wholesale demolition of entire buildings and construction of new ones.”

“Under defendants’ reading, virtually any change to the White House could be framed as an ‘alteration’ or ‘improvement,’” he wrote. “Indeed, some might even view tearing down the White House and building a modem skyscraper in its place as an ‘improvement.’”

Let's hope the judge doesn't give Trump any ideas. Speaking of which, this court case clearly goes beyond the White House, so a number of interested parties shared thoughts about what transpired yesterday:

Carol Quillen, the president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, meanwhile, called Tuesday’s ruling “a win for the American people.”

“We are pleased with Judge Leon’s ruling today to order a halt to any further ballroom construction until the administration complies with the law and obtains express authorization to go forward,” she said.

In a phone interview with CNN, Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources, which would have some jurisdiction over the project should it ultimately come to Congress, said he planned to be “very actively engaged” going forward.

“I think there’s no other way to read this; they have to come to Congress. I know they hate doing this, but we are not potted plants in the legislative,” Huffman said. 

What's coming next? Here's a summary from CNN/AOL:

The White House has repeatedly said that any above-grade construction could begin as soon as April – and the ruling also comes days before a key commission stacked with Trump loyalists is expected to green-light the plans.

The National Capital Planning Commission, which oversees planning for federal buildings and land in the nation’s capital, is set to hold a final vote on the project Thursday morning that is widely expected to pass despite thousands of public comments overwhelmingly opposing the plans. 

From Rush Limbaugh to Jesse James, Missouri has a history of supporting conservatives, but a "No Kings" traffic jam revealed widespread resistance to Trump

"No Kings" protests in St. Louis, MO (See more below.)

Our Legal Schnauzer family had a Saturday unlike anything we had ever experienced. We got stuck in a traffic jam and wound up having a blast. 

How did that happen? It started with a late-morning lunch at one of our favorite Mexican restaurants. Our route home takes us by one of the major shopping malls in the region, but that doesn't normally cause a bottleneck on a lazy Saturday. But as we approached the mall this time, traffic started slowing down and eventually came to a halt.

As impatient drivers started cutting through side streets, we couldn't figure out what was happening. Finally, we could see that the traffic light ahead was changing, but nobody was moving. As devoted liberals, we knew it was No Kings Day, but in this conservative part of conservative Missouri, we figured that would be a pretty sleepy event. We were delighted to be proved wrong about that.

Why were our expectations low for a day that was all about protesting the policies and incompetence of the Donald Trump administration? Missouri has voted solidly for Trump all three times he has been on a presidential ballot -- 56.8 % to 38.1 % over Hillary Clinton in 2016, 56.8 % to 41.4 % over Joe Biden in 2020, and  58.5 % to 40.1 % percent over Kamala Harris in 2024. In other words, national elections here are as uninteresting as they are in Alabama and most of the Deep South -- with the occasional exception of Georgia or Florida. 

You might say Missouri comes by its conservatism honestly. Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh grew up in Cape Girardeau in the southeast corner of the state, and upon his death in 2021, his home state moved to establish an annual Rush Limbaugh Day. The legislation passed the Missouri House, but in a sign that state Democrats still have a spine, was removed during negotiations.

In my post about the Limbaugh Day issue, I noted the state also produced a couple of other notorious conservatives -- the outlaw pair of Frank and Jesse James. Heck, I wrote, why not honor them as products  of the state's "Little Dixie" region. This is from my post that essentially drew comparisons between Rush Limbaugh and the James brothers:

Based on the words of [Limbaugh Day supporters], there seem to be two primary reasons for honoring Limbaugh: He gained a certain level of notoriety  in his field, and he was conservative. Is that really the standard for statewide celebrations in Missouri?

If so, why not honor Jesse James? The bank robber and outlaw is from Missouri, and he was good at what he did, earning him notoriety. If he were alive today, he almost certainly would be a Republican; he might be on Trump's cabinet. Let's consider this background info about Jesse James, from his Wikipedia entry:

Jesse Woodson James (September 5, 1847 – April 3, 1882) was an American outlaw, bank and             train robber, guerrilla, and leader of the James–Younger Gang. Raised in the "Little Dixie" area of         western Missouri, James and his family maintained strong Southern sympathies. He and his                     brother Frank James joined pro-Confederate guerrillas known as "bushwhackers" operating in                 Missouri and Kansas during the American Civil War. As followers of William Quantrill and                     "Bloody Bill" Anderson, they were accused of committing atrocities against Union soldiers and             civilian abolitionists, including the Centralia Massacre in 1864.

       After the war, as members of various gangs of outlaws, Jesse and Frank robbed banks,                         stagecoaches, and trains across the Midwest, gaining national fame and often popular sympathy            despite the brutality of their crimes. The James brothers were most active as members of their own         gang from about 1866 until 1876, when as a result of their attempted robbery of a bank in                     Northfield, Minnesota, several members of the gang were captured or killed. They continued in crime for several years afterward, recruiting new members, but came under increasing pressure from law enforcement seeking to bring them to justice. On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was shot and killed by Robert Ford, a new recruit to the gang who hoped to collect a reward on James' head and a promised amnesty for his previous crimes. Already a celebrity in life, James became a legendary figure of the Wild West after his death.

Today, we would call Jesse James a "domestic terrorist." But he was "a celebrity in life and a legendary figure in death." And as a Confederate sympathizer and product of "little Dixie," he almost certainly was a conservative -- likely a racist. Heck, sounds like he needs to be honored in his home state.

If Jesse Jesse and Frank James were alive today, Trump probably would make them honorary members of ICE. We saw firsthand evidence on "No Kings Day" that Trump's presidency is not going over so well in Missouri these days.

As we approached the mall on Saturday, my wife Carol (in the passenger seat) could see groups of people holding signs on the sidewalk. Then, she saw people driving pickups with pro-Trump signs in the back. This appeared to be an attempt to harass peaceful protesters, exercising their First Amendment rights -- just what you would expect from Trumpers.

As we passed through the intersection, we could see that sidewalks on both sides of the street were packed with protesters as far as our eyes could see. As we drove slowly ahead, we got a laugh out of numerous signs -- especially those that noted Republican support for pedophiles. As I tried to keep my eyes on the road, Carol waved and spoke with several protesters, including a veteran in uniform. She wanted to make sure they knew we were on their side and appreciated their efforts to stand against glorified fascism. I tried to do my part by letting out a few shouts of "Down with Pedos!" 

According to multiple news reports, perhaps the No. 1 theme of "No Kings Day" 2026 was that it crossed ideological boundaries, with almost half of events held in conservative strongholds, such as this area of Missouri. Based on the throngs we saw packing sidewalks in what has been a Trump-supporting state, it seems unlikely that all of those folks were liberals. We suspect the libs were joined by a sizable number of Republicans who have grown dissatisfied with the chaos and corruption of Trump 2.0.

Might that spell disaster for the GOP in the 2026 midterms, assuming Trump is unable to rig the elections? We certainly hope so. 

"No Kings" protests in Springfield, MO