Congress

House Democrats think Pam Bondi just helped them in the midterms

Published

4 months ago

February 12, 2026

Democrats walked into the House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi Wednesday expecting her to be nonresponsive and combative. They walked out with what they believe to be a more compelling argument for winning back the majority.

For four hours, the nation’s top law enforcement officer largely refused to answer questions from Democrats about the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

In some moments, Bondi deflected queries by asking members if they cared about crimes or violence in their districts, flipping through a massive binder of research Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) derided as her “burn book.”

In others, she responded by lashing out at committee members in personal terms, at one point calling Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the panel’s top Democrat, a “washed-up, loser lawyer — not even a lawyer.”

“If we had the power, we would subpoena her, and we would require her to answer our questions,” Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, told reporters following the hearing. “So that is the importance of who’s going to be in control in Congress after the 2026 elections because we would like the subpoena power, so we don’t see this kind of phenomenal disrespect of Congress.”

Even if Democrats reclaim the gavel of the House Judiciary Committee, Bondi could still drag her feet. And her aggressive posture in attacking lawmakers during a regular oversight hearing of the DOJ — the purported purpose of Wednesday’s proceedings — suggests she will not cooperate easily.

“The questions I’ve asked … are not trick questions, they’re not gotcha questions, they’re actually basic questions about how the Department of Justice functions,” said Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), who said the hearing lacked “some modicum of resembling something that has typically been fairly conventional: an oversight hearing of the Department of Justice.”

The only relevant, new information that Bondi provided to lawmakers was in response to a question from a Republican, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who asked whether people would be indicted for ties to Epstein’s crimes.

Bondi said vaguely, “We have pending investigations in our office.” It was not clear whether she was referring to investigations into prominent Democratic officials, which had come after a directive from President Donald Trump.

Still, Democrats think Bondi’s hostile performance throughout the hearing will help their cause in the midterms as they make a case for a return to normalcy. At times, even House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan had to interrupt to ensure lawmakers could ask their questions.

“I can’t believe that the Attorney General of the United States of America would appear before hundreds of millions of Americans this way and then have a book of insults that she’s ready to lob at members of Congress … we’ve got to get back to the America that we had before they dragged us down into the mud like this,” Raskin said following the hearing.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a member of the Judiciary panel, also said the events Wednesday boost Democrats’ case in the midterm elections.

“She did an excellent job in appealing to Donald Trump, and it was [for] … one person audience: Donald Trump,” said Cohen, adding that the hearing “gave the public some information about what the Justice Department’s not doing correctly.”

In many ways, Bondi played directly into Democrats’ hands, and not only by trash-talking lawmakers whose questions she didn’t want to answer — similar to the maneuver she deployed when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee back in October.

Democrats coordinated with the victims of Epstein’s abuse so that roughly ten could sit in the hearing room behind Bondi. Lawmakers offered her the opportunity to engage with them directly and apologize for the department’s conduct or meet with the victims.

Bondi, in her opening remarks, said she was “deeply sorry for what any victim … has been through” but otherwise refused to take the bait. At one point, when Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) asked Bondi to apologize to the victims for what the Justice Department has put them through, Bondi declined: “I’m not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics.”

Democrats also headed into Wednesday’s high-profile hearing prepared to draw a contrast between their interest in asking hard questions about events that have captured the public’s attention — namely justice for Epstein’s victims and accountability for any potential accomplices — and Republicans’ more politically accommodating approach.

Jordan said on Wednesday evening he thought Bondi “handled herself very well” and expected Democrats to be aggressive. At one point, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) yelled at Bondi to be “quiet” as he fought to be heard, while Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.) called her “one of the worst” attorneys generals “in our history.”

“I think it went great — I mean, the bottom line is … under the leadership of the Attorney General and the president, crime is down,” Jordan said.

The only Republican who challenged Bondi was Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who led the charge to release the Epstein files in DOJ’s possession and picked enough fights with Trump that the president and his allies are now seeking to oust him in a primary.

Accusing Bondi of failing to comply with the law he shepherded through Congress with sloppy redactions — or lack thereof — of both victims and the name of one powerful man in the Epstein files, Bondi called Massie a “failed politician” and a “hypocrite.”

Massie, in an interview Wednesday evening, said it took Bondi “a long time to find my insult card.”

“I think she was crashing the whole time,” he said. “There was no effort really to answer any of the difficult questions.”

Asked about being the only Republican to ask a tough question at the hearing, Massie replied, “Nobody wants to get on the bad side of Trump … That’ll change once we get past our primaries.”

Congress

Moderates beware: Mamdani coalition portends a dramatically different Democratic Party in NYC

Published

3 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK — A coalition powered by Mayor Zohran Mamdani expanded the left’s reach Tuesday, winning younger voters across racial and ethnic lines and once again upending conventional wisdom about elections in New York City.

A series of hotly contested congressional and state elections pit a slate of Mamdani-backed democratic socialists and progressives against establishment candidates who, in several cases, differed little on policy aside from U.S.-Israel relations.

The results were staggering.

Midterm election cycles in deep-blue New York City tend to be sleepy affairs. Both this year and in 2022, just over 500,000 people cast ballots, less than 20 percent of eligible voters. But turnout within a congressional district spanning Upper Manhattan and the Bronx increased by roughly 50 percent between 2022 and Tuesday, with more than 66,000 voters heading to the polls.

In another seat covering parts of Brooklyn and Queens, turnout more than doubled from 2022, though state and federal elections were held on different days that year and the seat was not competitive, which would have reduced the number of voters going to the polls.

Congressional candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America were able to replicate the mayor’s success by winning younger Latino voters in Brooklyn and a majority of Black voters in Harlem. Combined with the DSA’s base in relatively wealthy neighborhoods, the result charted the far left’s broadening appeal and a potential reorientation of the electorate that will influence races for years to come.

“This was a big wave for DSA and they did a good job capitalizing on it,” said Evan Roth Smith, a pollster with Slingshot Strategies. “The question now is: Was this a wave cycle that will abate, or is it the start of the takeover?”

Much of Mamdani’s base is concentrated in the so-called “commie-corridor,” a series of neighborhoods along the Brooklyn-Queens waterfront filled with young, educated and affluent voters who’ve propelled several DSA candidates into office. They went gaga over Mamdani’s candidacy and, as Tuesday’s results show, will turn out for candidates he supports.

The area was crucial to Assemblymember Claire Valdez’s crushing 56-38 defeat of Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso.

“The factor that felt most significant to me were all of these New Yorkers who got activated and politicized in the mayor’s race last year who were looking for the next fight,” said Andrew Epstein, a political adviser to Mamdani who worked on Valdez’ campaign. “Those people didn’t go away. And they want to keep going.”

Valdez also won several heavily Latino areas that were expected to break for her opponent.

Reynoso was born in Brooklyn to Dominican parents and just a few years ago was a City Council member representing Bushwick, a long-gentrifying Brooklyn neighborhood that’s home to Latino families and young hipsters. Valdez was born in Texas, moved to New York City in 2015 and served in the state Assembly for just one term before launching her Mamdani-backed bid for retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez’s seat.

She ended up winning areas of Bushwick by even greater margins than the total results — in some election districts winning upwards of 80 percent of the vote.

“You don’t win the district by 35 points if you don’t have broad advantages across age and demographic groups,” said Michael Lange, an election analyst and Mamdani supporter who has tracked several contested races with extreme granularity. “Is she blowing him out of the water with Hispanic voters under 50? I see tons of evidence that the answer is yes.”

The age advantage was the common thread across several other races.

In Upper Manhattan and the Bronx, for example, younger Black voters in Harlem were key to Darializa Avila Chevalier’s win over Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who had built a small political empire in the district.

While gentrifying, the neighborhood remains a seat of Black political power and is home to younger households who tend to rent. That particular demographic is a strong indicator of why Mamdani won the area in 2025, even as he lost the Black vote overall to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose support was concentrated among older Black homeowners in Brooklyn and Queens.

While Espaillat never healed a rift with the Black community in upper Manhattan opened during his election in 2016, which contributed to his weak performance, Avila Chevalier demonstrated Tuesday that a significant share of voters there were not just supportive of Mamdani the person, but of the broader political movement he’s now leading.

Overall, she edged out Espaillat with Black voters 48-46, according to an analysis from The New York Times, which charted demographic breakdowns for several contested races.

Three winning congressional candidates endorsed by Mamdani — including former city Comptroller Brad Lander in Brooklyn, who unseated incumbent Dan Goldman — share several similarities. They won younger, college-educated and wealthier voters by huge margins, in several cases by 30 points or more, and lost lower-income voters to incumbents or candidates affiliated with incumbents — a sign that the movement seeking to boost struggling New Yorkers has not won them over.

While the DSA was able to win three state races without the support of Mamdani — a testament to the organizing prowess of the left that was essential to reactivating the mayor’s coalition — there were limits to the city’s leftward shift.

Rep. Grace Meng won her reelection race, though she only vanquished challenger Chuck Park by 14 points, an uncomfortable margin for an incumbent of her stature. Park, who ran to Meng’s left, was boosted by a huge turnout in Woodside, Queens, a multiethnic neighborhood that went heavily for Mamdani in last year’s mayoral race.

Elsewhere in the Bronx, however, incumbents remained strong. Rep. Ritchie Torres handily won reelection with 72 percent of the vote, though it was a low-turnout affair more consistent with an uncompetitive midterm. Nevertheless, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries touted the results — even as he watched a series of his endorsed candidates fall to the DSA in Brooklyn, his home borough, in a preview of the intraparty battles to come.

“In some higher-income districts, there was an outsized focus on the Middle East. In other districts, for instance, in the South Bronx, Ritchie Torres ran against somebody who was heavily critical of his position on Israel, and he won by fifty points,” Jeffries told MS NOW on Wednesday.

Congress

Divisive Israel vote to be discussed on Sunday House Democrats call

Published

4 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

An anticipated vote on cutting off U.S. military aid to Israel is among the subjects House Democrats are slated to discuss on an unusual teleconference Sunday evening.

Six people granted anonymity to describe private caucus plans confirmed the member call, which has not been publicly announced. Two of them said it would involve an amendment that would block aid to Israel and other appropriations matters.

Democrats are likely to be sharply divided on an amendment drafted by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to a fiscal 2027 spending bill funding the State Department and foreign aid programs. Massie is proposing to end Israel aid and cut the overall foreign military aide program by $3.3 billion.

House Republicans have not yet announced a vote on that bill, but two other people granted anonymity to describe GOP planning said it is likely to be added to the floor schedule next week. The House Rules Committee voted last week to set up debate on Massie’s amendment.

Senior Democrats want to talk through member concerns and strategy on the Sunday call, according to one of the six people.

The call comes just days after three outspoken critics of U.S. aid to Israel swept hotly contested House primaries in New York City, ousting two incumbents.

Meredith Lee Hill and Riley Rogerson contributed to this report.

Congress

House panel subpoenas Leon Black, escalating tactics in Epstein investigation

Published

5 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Oversight Committee slapped Leon Black with two subpoenas in the middle of his transcribed interview about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein — after Black refused to answer questions about potential non-disclosure agreements he had with women tied to the late, convicted sex offender.

Oversight Committee Chair James Comer announced the issuance of the subpoenas — for the NDAs and for Black to reappear for a formal deposition July 16 — after the first hour of Black’s interview had concluded with the billionaire investor insisting he would not discuss the terms of those agreements.

Black had initially agreed to appear voluntarily, but under the terms of a deposition, his testimony will be videotaped and under oath.

“We believe that information is vital to our investigation,” Comer, a Kentucky Republican, told reporters Friday. “We want to know, was Jeffrey Epstein involved in the NDAs? … Was he involved in awarding [of] funds to the women for the NDAs? What was the reason for the NDAs?”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel, seconded Comer’s decision to force a deposition to compel information that he also described as central to the panel’s ongoing Epstein probe — a rare moment of bipartisanship in an investigation that has been plagued by partisan bickering.

“There’s no question that as soon as this interview started, that the witness was not going to answer critical questions,” he told reporters.

After Black had already departed from the closed-door interview, his lawyer, Susan Estrich, said that Epstein “had no involvement with any NDAs, whether they exist or not,” and said her client has never abused a woman.

“They made a premeditated political decision to serve him with subpoenas after less than an hour of questioning, and before they even asked a single question about his legitimate payments to Epstein,” she said, referring to members of the Oversight panel. “This was nothing more than a planned political stunt.”

Estrich represented the late Fox News chairman Roger Ailes when he was facing sexual misconduct accusations. Black has also battled his own allegations of sexual assault, though he has denied the accusations — along with having had knowledge of Epstein’s wrongdoing over the course of their relationship.

Several Democrats who attended the interview were aghast at Black’s lack of cooperation. Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico told reporters that more than one of Epstein’s accusers had previously accused Black of committing sexual misconduct against them, too.

“Before Mr. Black left the interview, he admitted that he lived close to Epstein,” Stansbury said. “He often dined at his house. He went over for breakfast, for happy hours, attended impromptu dinners with world leaders, with academics, with scientists.”

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) alleged that Black “gush[ed] poetically about how smart and how great Jeffrey Epstein was” and accused him of walking out on the committee.

The bipartisan desire to get more information from Black comes as the committee’s Epstein investigation is set to hit the one-year mark in July, after Oversight Committee Democrats — frustrated with the Justice Department’s refusal to release the so-called Epstein files — forced a bipartisan vote to facilitate the publication of relevant materials.

That vote jumpstarted a congressional probe that has led to interviews with more than a dozen witnesses, including ex-Attorney General Pam Bondi, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates.

Comer has also asked acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to speak with his panel in the coming weeks, after Bondi accused him of being at the tip of the spear in overseeing the eventual release of the Epstein files in compliance with a law Congress passed in December.

Members will have more to ask Blanche following the Justice Department’s admission on Thursday that the DOJ had been violating the law Congress passed last November requiring the public release of the vast majority of government records relating to Epstein.

A federal judge gave Blanche one week to release certain names and other information that DOJ initially redacted from the millions of pages of the Epstein files — or provide a more detailed explanation for withholding them.

Critics believe the department has been seeking to protect powerful people implicated in Epstein’s crimes — including potentially President Donald Trump, who has not been charged with wrongdoing and has denied misconduct.