Pam Bondi threw a next-level hissy fit during her senate hearing but her schoolyard insults instead of answers only prompted more questions about Trump

Pam Bondi had quite the momentous senate hearing. The attorney general was roasted over and over again during her Senate Judiciary Hearing and she had all the answers. Or at least, she had a bunch of contentious non-answers, denials, and deflections.

Here she is arguing with Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Whitehouse’s offense? Asking a Yes or No question about whether or not Bondi knows about FBI photos featuring President Donald Trump with half-naked young women.

NOTABLE — Pam Bondi refuses to answer direct questions about if the FBI has incriminating photos of Trump with half-naked young women, but instead deflects from them by attacking Sen. Whitehouse pic.twitter.com/hNL3J7vN6N

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 7, 2025

Seems like an easy question to answer. But Whitehouse never gets one. Instead, he is insulted and attacked and the subject is changed. This is Deflection 101, with a little sprinkle of plausible deniability thrown in for seasoning.

The replies were not afraid to call it what it was.

1.

I think it can’t be overstated what a complete fucking disgrace it is that there is an Attorney General sitting before Congress acting like a petulant child and refusing to answer questions of oversight.

— Artie Vandelay (@ArtieVandelay1) October 7, 2025

2.

She couldn’t say “no”. That’s the headline.

— Nikos Unity (@nikosunity) October 7, 2025

3.

Lmao at no point does she say “No, there are no photos of Donald Trump with half-naked young women,” she goes straight on the attack. I’m not sure how she could’ve made Trump look guiltier unless she’d actually thrown the original photos at the senators. https://t.co/CclNjYFdvg

— Patrick Wyman (@Patrick_Wyman) October 7, 2025

4.

Look, I’m not a “conspiracy theory” kinda guy, but how hard would it have been to say “No, of course not!”

I can’t think of any other reason she would *not* say “No, of course not” than the obvious one. https://t.co/eXyxd1oqiW

— Josiah Hawthorne (@JosiahHawthorne) October 7, 2025

5.

The only thing clearer than her silence is her panic.

— _ (@SundaeDivine) October 7, 2025

6.

The faux outrage was really something https://t.co/DskBRNVzz0

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) October 7, 2025

7.

Rhetoric students:
Here’s an exemplary use of “tu quoque”—
“a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent’s own personal behavior & actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent appears hypocritical.” https://t.co/DCc6o9Bodg

— Lee Altenberg, Ph.D. (@AltenbergLee) October 8, 2025