For the “Group Chat” on Attorney General Pam Bondi’s combative House Judiciary Committee appearance over the Epstein files, CNN This Morning host Audie Cornish assembled a uniformly anti-Trump panel.
The result was predictable: a segment devoted entirely to criticizing Bondi’s tone and performance — with not a word about the insults Democrats hurled at her during the same hearing.
V. Spehar of Under the Desk News opened by praising Democrats for how they handled Bondi, declaring:
“I think they did a great job navigating her tantrum.”
Rolling Stone’s Matt Bai mocked Bondi’s preparation and demeanor:
“What you really need is to go to a joke writer before you come and then come as if you're coming to host an award show rather than testify for Congress. And then to show up and show so much contempt for the institution and the people.”
CNN commentator and Dispatch co-founder Jonah Goldberg piled on — to laughter from Spehar:
“So first of all, I don't think she's very bright.”
Tantrum? Contempt? A dullard? Goldberg uttered that jejune like about how Bondi's doing this for "an audience of one," and Sunday shows are entertaining now, because "you have cabinet secretaries saying stupid things that the president wants to hear, even though they're bad politically for them."
Yes, Bondi fired back at Democrats. But the hostility was not one-sided — something CNN’s panel never acknowledged. Democrats showed contempt for the Justice Department by fighting so angrily with her, but to CNN, that's what "Facts First" means.
Consider what Democrats said to her.
Rep. Jamie Raskin went far beyond policy critique:
“Your MAGA base despises you because you’re covering up the Epstein File … You will not win … Chicagoland rejects you. The American people reject you… Democrats must impeach and remove lawless officials like you … But you can spare yourself more humiliation — resign now.”
That’s not oversight. That’s campaign rhetoric delivered from the dais.
Rep. Ted Lieu escalated further:
“I believe you just lied under oath.”
An accusation of criminal conduct — not exactly gentle institutional discourse.
WATCH: CNN torches Bondi’s “tantrum” — but goes silent when Dems tell her to “resign now.” pic.twitter.com/oqQVmeVr4b
— Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) February 12, 2026
Rep. Pramila Jayapal accused Bondi of a “massive coverup” and demanded:
“It is about you taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that it has done to the survivors… Turn and apologize.”
And after Bondi corrected her title, Rep. Becca Balint sneered:
“My apologies, I couldn’t tell.”
Yet none of this merited even a passing mention from Cornish or her panelists. In CNN’s fractured fairy tale, the disrespect flowed in only one direction.
The segment eventually drifted into Goldberg lamenting the introduction of cameras into congressional hearings, hyperbolically warning:
“If we don't get back to that, the country's ruined.”
Yes, TV ruins everything, right, CNN? Cornish teased him:
“It’s a toothpaste back in the tube situation… So I will let you shake that fist at the sky.”
When Democrats accused Bondi of criminal conduct, called her “lawless,” and urged her to “resign now,” the panel’s silence was deafening.
So according to CNN’s Group Chat, Bondi’s tone was outrageous — but Democrats accusing her of criminal conduct and demanding her resignation was perfectly acceptable decorum. When it comes to congressional civility, CNN’s standard appears simple: outrage only runs one way.
CNN's clips of this hearing certainly had more heat than light. Couldn't they have made a more substantive selection of clips, or did they just want to slam Bondi for their own. Goldberg accused everyone involved at the hearings of "performing for their fan base, it's audience capture." As if CNN isn't performing for their ever-declining fan base?
Here's the transcript.
CNN This Morning
2/12/26
6:30 am ETDEMOCRAT COMMITTEE MEMBER BECCA BALINT: [Angry voice] These are senior officials in the Trump administration. This is not a game, Secretary.
PAM BONDI: I'm Attorney General.
BALINT: My apologies, I couldn't tell.
AUDIE CORNISH: It wasn't your typical hearing. Attorney General Pam Bondi fighting with the House Judiciary Committee as she faced tough questions over her department's handling of the Epstein files.
PRAMILA JAYAPAL: You're not going to answer this question, so let me just say this. What a massive coverup.
BONDI: Chairman, I'll direct it to you. No, I'm answering a question.
ANOTHER DEMOCRAT COMMITTEE MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, will you restore her time? The witnesses are up.
BONDI: I'm not going to get in a gutter with this woman.
TED LIEU: I believe you just lied under oath. There is ample evidence in the Epstein file.
BONDI: Don't you ever accuse me of a crime.
JERRY NADLER: How many have you indicted?
BONDI: Excuse me, I'm going to answer the question.
NADLER: Answer my question.
BONDI: No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question. Your theatrics are ridiculous.
NADLER: No. Answer it the way I asked it.
BONDI: Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people. This is a political joke, and I need to give my answer on that. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. He needs to -- you're a failed politician.
DEMOCRAT: Chairman, she's embarrassing you. This is your committee, and she is embarrassing me. You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch. Not on our time. No way. And I told you about that, Attorney General, before you started.
BONDI: You don't tell me anything.
DEMOCRAT: Yeah, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate.
BONDI: You don't tell me anything, you washed up [inaudible.] You're not even a lawyer.
CORNISH: Joining me now in the group chat, Matt Bai, national affairs columnist for Rolling Stone, V. Spehar, digital journalist and creator at Under the Desk News, and Jonah Goldberg, CNN political commentator and co-founder, editor-in-chief of The Dispatch. Where do we begin? Where do we begin?
First, we could begin with that binder that she had. So she was sort of flipping through it, ready for responses to Democrats. Were Democrats ready to respond to her?
V. SPEHAR: I think they were a little surprised that she had a clapback binder. Normally, you need to, like, have those within yourself, like how you're going to respond or critique somebody, but she had the Cliff Notes for it. I think they did a great job navigating her tantrum.
. . .
MATT BAI: Honestly, I find this isn't the first time I felt this way during this administration. I find it stunning, as sort of an institutionalist, as someone who's been here for a long time. I've been forgetting the -- even the merits of the hearing, I don't honestly care that much about the issue in terms of the investigation.
But to speak to Congress as a cabinet secretary. First of all, to have reached the point, as V. says, where you now need to show up. You don't have the briefing materials on the content. What you really need is to go to a joke writer before you come and then come as if you're coming to host an award show rather than testify for Congress. And then to show up and show so much contempt for the institution and the people. You call one person a washed-up lawyer, Jamie Raskin. You call another person a failed politician.
I understand that she's performing for a single audience, and that is the president only. But what really shocks me every time is that Republican members of Congress, even where we are today, aren't protective enough and proud enough of their institution and their life's work to not accept that kind of treatment and to not let the country see Congress degraded that way.
. . .BONDI [speaking to Dan Goldman]: You're about as good of a lawyer today as you were when you tried to impeach President Trump in 2016. Have you apologized for that?
The Dow is over 50,000 right now. The S&P at almost 7,000. And the NASDAQ smashing records. Americans' 401ks and retirement savings are booming. That's what we should be talking about. We should be talking about making Americans safe. We should be talking about -- what does the Dow have to do with anything? That's what they just asked. Are you kidding?
JONAH GOLDBERG: Well, so first of all, I don't think she's very bright [Spehar laughs.]
Second of all, the idea of somehow the Attorney General during constitutionally necessary oversight before the supreme branch of government saying we should be talking about the stock market is just, like if you wrote it in a political novel, an informed reader would say, well this makes no sense that they would say that.
More broadly, like I agree with Matt, I'm on a hobby horse about how Congress has essentially become a denuded institution and it breaks my heart in all sorts of ways. I don't think she's trying to be Trump. I think the only thing Trump respects is people who talk like him. And he wants all his people to be like Roy Cohn, to do his fights for him.
And I think that it's, and I agree entirely with Matt, that she's doing this performatively for an audience of one, which is why all the Sunday shows are weirdly, on a meta level, more interesting than they've been for about 20 years. Because you have cabinet secretaries saying stupid things that the president wants to hear, even though they're bad politically for them.
The one point I'll add, also as an institutionalist, is it is now almost obvious that it was a mistake to introduce cameras to Congress.
CORNISH: Wait, wait, wait. I covered Congress for a while when there was cameras. This is not a camera problem.
GOLDBERG: It's partly a camera problem, and I'll debate you that for hours.
BAI: Only in the sense that we introduced cameras to the world.
GOLDBERG: No, no, look --
CORNISH: I mean, you don't think this is a little bit of a Trump era problem?
GOLDBERG: Oh, no, I don't. I mean, Trump makes everything worse, but this is a problem. This kind of transparency. It is impossible to have somebody serious conversations when you're performing for constituencies. You cannot compromise, you cannot float controversial proposals if everybody is watching.
CORNISH: Do you think people trust things anymore that happen behind closed doors?
GOLDBERG: If we don't get back to that, the country's ruined. One of the reasons why these hearings suck so bad, not just this, but all of them, whenever they're televised, is everyone performs to send out their little five-minute dumb social media clips --
CORNISH: That's fair, that's fair.
GOLDBERG: -- to raise small donor contributions. So they're performing for their fan base, it's audience capture, it's not their jobs, and it's ruining the institution.
CORNISH: Okay, let me let you [Vehar] get in a word here.
SPEHAR: But I need to say that having the cameras and the transparency means that people can't tell the truth or they can't defend their honest-to-goodness position is false. I think we have a more educated, more civically engaged public because of the cameras, because of social media and the ways that they can replay the clips on the second screen.
GOLDBERG: I don't think there's any data to support that contention at all.
VEHAR [ignores Goldberg's comment and continues] Like, to the point that Fox isn't going to air something where they know that Pam Bondi is perhaps not gonna come off good or perhaps gonna get caught in a question that she can't answer, where the Epstein survivors are standing behind her.
The public is very sensitive to that. And if we don't have those cameras, then we're to trust, like you said, what just happens behind the screen. I don't think that the trust in the institution is there to not have cameras.
CORNISH: [Addressing herself to Goldberg] I understand your frustration coming from radio also. And it's a toothpaste back in the tube situation.
So I will let you shake that fist at the sky.
