Bondi, DOJ continue procedural chicanery over Epstein questions

Call it a jurisdictional magic trick: too official when subpoenaed, just private enough when it’s time to talk, and yet somehow still represented by the same government she no longer serves.

Pam Bondi (Phil Pasquini/shutterstock.com)

Pam Bondi and the U.S. Department of Justice appear to be engaged in a carefully choreographed bit of procedural maneuvering: after declining to comply with a subpoena while in office, Bondi is now set to answer questions about Jeffrey Epstein as a “private citizen” but somehow potentially represented by a current DOJ official.

There is no reason for Dhillon to be discussing this at all, much less have details on what Bondi has agreed to through counsel—unless, well, Dhillon is that counsel.

You don’t need to be an expert on legal ethics to understand that no one can be both a high-level government attorney and then somehow switch to being a private attorney when Bondi needs a lawyer.

Lawyers are prohibited from situations where the representation of a client would be “materially limited” by their responsibility to another client. In this situation, Dhillon owes a duty of loyalty to the DOJ, her employer. If she’s representing Bondi, she also owes a duty of loyalty to Bondi, her client.

You see the problem here.

There are also House rules that say only nongovernmental attorneys can represent witnesses, and government agency personnel can’t attend at all. But you see, Bondi isn’t appearing pursuant to a subpoena any longer. Rather, she’s appearing for a “transcribed interview,” a neat little thing the Republicans on the committee cooked up for her, so she can apparently have Dhillon break ethical rules with impunity.

DailyKOS

Call it a jurisdictional magic trick: too official when subpoenaed, just private enough when it’s time to talk, and yet somehow still represented by the same government she no longer serves.