Democrats cry foul over DOJ official representing Bondi in Epstein interview

WASHINGTON (CN) — House Democrats are sounding the alarm about the Justice Department’s purported plan for Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon to represent former Attorney General Pam Bondi in her “official capacity” during an interview with lawmakers about the agency’s handling of the Epstein files.

It would be a striking move by Dhillon, who is considered by some to be a top contender to replace Bondi at the head of the Justice Department. The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee argued Monday it would likely violate agency policy and ethical standards.

The Oversight Committee’s Republican majority last week announced that Bondi, ousted by President Donald Trump in April, would sit for a “transcribed interview” with lawmakers later this month on her compliance with federal law requiring the Justice Department to publish documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The former attorney general’s participation in the congressional Epstein probe has been a contentious topic on Capitol Hill — Democrats have accused her of dodging an initial deposition date set in a committee subpoena from March.

Republicans provided little information about how they arrived at the May 29 date for Bondi’s appearance, though they insisted they were working with the former Trump official’s “personal attorney” to set a schedule.

But in a letter to panel chairman and Kentucky Representative James Comer, California Representative Robert Garcia claimed there was evidence to suggest Dhillon, a current Justice Department official, would serve as Bondi’s counsel rather than a nongovernmental attorney.

“Although Assistant Attorney General Dhillon has refused to engage with Committee Democratic staff, her and DOJ’s actions to date suggest that she is acting in an official capacity in her apparent representation of Ms. Bondi,” said Garcia, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee.

The California congressman said that Justice Department staff provided committee Democrats with Dhillon’s official agency cellphone number when referring them to Bondi’s counsel for the upcoming interview. He also pointed to a social media post made from the assistant attorney general’s official account in which she wrote that Bondi, “through counsel, agreed to a specific date” for her interview with lawmakers.

Dhillon did not return a detailed request for comment. The Justice Department similarly did not respond to a request for comment.

But Garcia said that the top agency official’s participation in the Bondi interview, especially if she plans to represent the former attorney general in a personal capacity, would raise “troubling ethics concerns” and that it would “clearly violate” Justice Department policy.

“In that case, there would be a clear conflict of interest between Ms. Dhillon’s duties to DOJ and to Ms. Bondi individually,” said the lawmaker, who added that agency policy bars employees from practicing law unless “in the nature of community service” or to represent themselves or family members. “By no reasonable interpretation does Assistant Attorney General Dhillon’s representation of Ms. Bondi fall within these limitations,” Garcia argued.

And the committee’s top Democrat further contended that Dhillon’s attendance on behalf of the former attorney general would violate House rules governing depositions, which stipulate that counsel representing a witness can only consist of two “nongovernmental attorneys” and that other people “including government agency personnel” can’t attend.

Oversight Committee Republicans, however, have maintained that the deal reached with Bondi calls for a “transcribed interview” and not a deposition. A source familiar with the process told Courthouse News that there are no regulations governing those interviews and that such a practice is typical when a witness cooperates on setting a date.

A March subpoena approved by the Oversight Committee on a bipartisan basis set an April 14 date for Bondi’s deposition. The former attorney general failed to appear, however, and the Justice Department claimed she was not bound by the legal summons because she was subpoenaed in her capacity as a government official.

Still, the source told Courthouse News that witnesses in transcribed interviews are subject to federal law against making false statements and that such a prohibition applies to information given to both lawmakers and staff questioners.

Meanwhile, Garcia on Monday demanded that Comer agree to film Bondi’s May 29 interview with lawmakers and make the footage public. He also argued that if the former attorney general refused to answer questions during her appearance, she should be compelled to do so via another subpoena.

“I urge you to ensure that Ms. Bondi’s testimony is consistent with her obligations under the committee’s subpoena, and film the proceeding,” said Garcia. “The demands of justice and transparency for Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors require no less.”

Democrats were summarily excluded from deliberations with Bondi and her legal team that resulted in the transcribed interview later this month, a fact confirmed by Comer himself.

“I don’t even talk to them,” the committee chairman told Courthouse News. “All they do is complain.”

Bondi has been criticized across the aisle for the agency’s handling of documents related to the late financier and convicted pedophile. The Epstein files were released slowly despite an act of Congress compelling their publication, and some documents were improperly redacted.

During a pugilistic hearing in the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year, the former attorney general sparred with both Republicans and Democrats who she claimed were unfairly focusing on the Epstein files as a distraction from Trump’s record. The president has denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss