Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, March 17, 2026

The Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee formally subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi to testify before lawmakers over her department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., issued the subpoena after five Republicans on the Oversight Committee and all Democrats voted in favor of a motion to call Bondi to testify about the release of troves of documents related to years of investigations into the late sex offender and his co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell.

The motion was brought by Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., earlier this month.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Gomer Comer has lost control of his Committee to the Dems and 5 Republicans (who would like to keep their jobs in the vote this Fall).

They'll have a Field Day with Blanche and Bondi.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2026-03-17 10:00 PM | Reply

Is this subpoena for AG Bondi's deposition?

Or is it a subpoena to appear before a hearing?

There seems to be a significant difference between the two.


Hearings are political in nature (as we saw with AG Bondi's appearance recent appearance in a congressional hearing).

Depositions, on the other hand, are a legal tool to gather evidence.

In a deposition AG Bondi likely would not be able to wander off into talking about the DOW hitting $50,000 instead of answering a pointed question about the Epstein files.


fwiw... I am not a lawyer... So, YMMV.



#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-03-17 10:37 PM | Reply

Bwahahaha.

FUCK YOU JEFF, YOU MEWLING COWARDLY CUNT.

#3 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-03-17 11:04 PM | Reply

@#2 ... Is this subpoena for AG Bondi's deposition? ...

Found this ...

Comer formally subpoenas Pam Bondi over Epstein investigation
thehill.com

... The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Tuesday formally subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi to answer questions about the Epstein files.

The committee voted earlier this month to subpoena Bondi, following a motion from Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who said it was unclear whether the Justice Department had turned over all records related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that were required under a law mandating their release.

"The Committee has questions regarding the Department of Justice's handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates and its compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act," Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) wrote in the cover letter of the subpoena.

"As Attorney General, you are directly responsible for overseeing the Department's collection, review, and determinations regarding the release of files pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the Committee therefore believes that you possess valuable insight into these efforts."

The subpoena requests Bondi appear for an April 14 deposition. ...

[emphasis mine]


#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-03-17 11:18 PM | Reply

deposition
www.law.cornell.edu

... A deposition is a witness's sworn out-of-court testimony. It is used to gather information as part of the discovery process and, in limited circumstances, may be used at trial. The witness being deposed is called the "deponent."

Oral Depositions:

Depositions usually do not directly involve the court. The process is initiated and supervised by the individual parties. Usually, the only people present at a deposition are the deponent, attorneys for all interested parties, and a person qualified to administer oaths. Sometimes depositions are recorded by a stenographer, although electronic recordings are increasingly common. At the deposition, all parties may question the witness. Lawyers may not coach their clients' testimony, and the lawyers' ability to object to deposition questions is usually limited.

Depositions are usually hearsay and are thus inadmissible at trial. There are, however, three exceptions to the hearsay rule that are particularly relevant to deposition testimony. The first is when a party admits something in a deposition that is against their interest. The second is when a witness's testimony at trial contradicts their deposition. The third is when a witness is unavailable at trial. See Federal Rules of Evidence, Article VIII. ...


#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-03-17 11:21 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort