I will stipulate here that Bondi is unethical, unprofessional, incompetent, and a hack attorney who was arguably the worst of Trump’s Cabinet appointments once Matt Gaetz withdrew. Nothing that occurred at today’s embarrassing (to everyone, including me) hearing altered any of that. Furthermore:
1. Being rude and confrontational to members of Congress is demeaning to our government, however much our terrible elected representatives deserve it. Bondi’s boss might enjoy a “fiery” hearing, but it is disgraceful and unnecessary. Being cool under fire is what Americans should expect from their top lawyer. If Democrats like Rep. Jayapal and Rep. Raskin want to act like hyper-partisan assholes as they so frequently do, the best way to expose them is by contrast.
2. Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias! CNN actually had the gall to write, “It seemed Bondi was playing to the “audience of one” — Trump. But that came potentially at the expense of appealing to an American public that really does want answers.” If the public “wants answers,” it is incumbent on Congress to run hearings that are substantive and involve genuine matters of concern, rather than throttle a contrived scandal that was supposed to embarrass President Trump but that has behaved more like a boomerang. The Democrats on the committee seemed to only be interested in “gotcha!” questions, attacking the President, and deflecting from their own President’s absolute inertia on the same matter they were criticizing Bondi for her lack of zeal regarding. Had the committee members delivered a fair and professional inquiry, or even attempted to hold one, CNN blaming Bondi for failing to sufficiently enlighten the public would be valid. But they didn’t, and it isn’t. The CNN commentary once again just proved again that the news media is interested in partisan advocacy above all else.
Ethics Alarms 
“Nothing that occurred at today’s embarrassing (to everyone, including me) hearing altered any of that.”
The only part of this essay I will disagree with is the statement above.
The reason for my disagreements is that the spectacle that occurred is a mere reflection of the electorate. We are rapidly devolving as a society into an literal Idiocracy. We college students unable to read texts and must rely on videos to gain any limited understanding. We have others who only want to believe their lived truth which has been distorted by others who told them what to believe.
It is no wonder that the spectacle in Congress will be viewed favorably by some factions on each side. We will not regain decorum until both sides are held to account. I don’t recommend anyone hold their breath for that to occur any time soon.
For those young women that are clamoring for the release of the Epstein files; you are the eyewitnesses to any abuse you are claiming so name your abusers and file suit. Stop with being used as pawns. I become suspect of those claiming abuse but need to have the government provide them with a list of names.
The Democrats are ethically estopped from complaining about this since they sneered and laughed about George Galloway’s insulting treatment of Norm Coleman and laughed that he didn’t lay a glove on him. They are doubly estopped since “impeach the motherfucker” became their war cry. That doesn’t mean you are, of course, but I would like to point out that Democrats only give a damn about civility or decorum or things like that when it’s their person who’s getting attacked.
I for one think Bondi could have gone a lot further than she did. I think it is perfectly ok to call AOC Congresswoman Lipstick or Ilhan Omar a Muzzie inbreeder with a fucked-up doo-rag or Nancy Pelosi Nancy Bug Eyes, and it would have been ok to call Barney Frank a butt-dart player. Insults can’t flow only one way, and if only one side is shooting the other side will soon be dead.
I would take a slight edit to your “Democrats only give a damn about civility or decorum or things like that when it’s their person who’s getting attacked.” I think it is more in line with their thinking that they only care about civility and decorum when they find it useful. If it is useful to sacrifice one of their own to pretend they hold to some standard, like hanging Al Franken out to dry over his harassment problems, they won’t hesitate to do so. But in terms of Democrats crying about decorum in this embarrassment of a hearing, the thing to remember is the rule for radicals, “Hold them to their own standard.” Democrats have no objective standards up to which they live. The only “standard” is whatever is useful at that moment to push their cause. But they recognize that many in their opposition have standards, and the goal is always to point out and use as a cudgel whenever the opposition does not live up to those standards.
This is why complaints of Democratic hypocrisy are so ineffective, and why suggesting they are ethically estopped from complaining about anything doesn’t matter (to them). To a certain extent, if they can bog their opposition down on grousing about hypocrisy, that merely means they know they found sore spot they could keep poking. If that doesn’t seem to be effective at riling the opposition, they move on to something else. And then something else again. And something else again. It is nonstop pressure, from any angle they can find to apply it.
Don’t tell me you agree with progressive that words equal violence. Insults have no practical purpose.
I think they can be a tactic to make someone angry or throw him off his game. I remember calling my opponent an unmade bed during oral argument and he lost his place completely. Sometimes you really might believe it, like calling your opponent an asinine fool who obviously did not do the research, or another one a fat Polak with a face like a horse whose nose isn’t in the center of it, and just think you are pouring well-deserved contempt on the deserving.
OK, tactics I can kind of understand, but insults still don’t prove the facts of your case. If I was a judge or jurist, I’d look less favorably upon the case of a lawyer who resorted to name-calling, because it would indicate to me he couldn’t win on the case’s merits. That goes double for insulting someone’s physical appearance. Calling a person a fool who acts foolish is one thing, but going after a person’s features seems way below the belt. I was born with facial defects, and going after my looks will certainly not make me say, “Well golly gee wilikers, you must be right after all!” And if I saw someone do that to somebody else, even if the target deserved reproof for something they actually did, I would not hold the insulter in high esteem.
I also thought the performances at the hearing were childish and unprofessional. But I don’t share your opinion of Bondi, who whatever you want to say about her personally, has presided over a Department of Justice that has been consistently winning the lawfare battles that unethical federal judges and lawyers are waging against this administration. Incompetent she is not.
And while I reiterate that her performance at the hearing was unprofessional, it was certainly understandable. To put it bluntly, acting professionally and calmly in the face of insulting, partisan attacks from the Democrat representatives does nothing but encourage more of the same. This is the lesson of Mitt Romney and the 2012 presidential campaign, and it’s a lesson this administration has learned well. At some point, fighting fire with fire is the appropriate response, notwithstanding the fact that doing so means you have to suffer some burns. My understanding is that Bondi did not start the gratuitous insult game but rather was responding to it in kind. If I thought for a second that her exercising some restraint in her remarks would either create a favorable impression with the undecided electorate or cause the Democrat inquisitors to tone down their approach, I would be right with you in your criticism. But I don’t, and recent history seems to agree with me.
What I really wanted to see was the chairman cutting off all questioning and responses and dismissing the hearing, telling the Attorney General and the Congressmen that unless they could act with some decorum he would not reconvene the proceedings. But even such a basic move was apparently too much to ask. A low point in our legislative cultural history, for sure.
I can’t bothered to read all the posts here. Bondi spoke as exactly as an asshole would.
Perhaps someone here could convince me of the value of responding to an asshole
I’ll wait.