The corridors of power have rarely seen such a spectacle. Former US attorney general Pam Bondi, once the nation’s top law enforcement officer, found herself subjected to a British-style cross-examination today, as a parliamentary committee sought answers on her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The hearing, unprecedented in its format and intensity, marks a radical departure from the deferential norms of US congressional inquiries.
Bondi, a close ally of President Donald Trump, was grilled for over four hours by a panel of MPs and legal experts, who demanded to know why her office failed to prosecute Epstein in 2014, despite compelling evidence of child sex trafficking. The cross-examination, modelled on the adversarial system used in UK courts, allowed the committee to challenge Bondi’s testimony in real time, a stark contrast to the scripted, often partisan exchanges typical of American oversight.
The tone was set early. Sir Keir Starmer, the former director of public prosecutions who now leads the committee, opened with a simple but devastating question: “Attorney General Bondi, did you personally direct that no charges be brought against Jeffrey Epstein?” Bondi, visibly unsettled, paused before responding. “I did not. The decision was made by career prosecutors based on the evidence available at the time.” Sir Keir pressed: “And what evidence was that? Because the evidence we have seen suggests a pattern of behaviour that warranted immediate action.”
The hearing quickly unravelled into a forensic dissection of the Justice Department's actions. Bondi was forced to admit that her office had never interviewed several of Epstein’s accusers, despite their willingness to testify. She claimed the decision was “complex” and involved “multiple jurisdictions”. But the committee was unimpressed. One MP, Stella Creasy, produced internal emails showing that Bondi had been briefed on the strength of the case months before the decision to drop it. “You were told this was a serial offender with young victims,” Creasy said. “Why did you not intervene?”
The cross-examination also delved into Bondi’s financial ties. Documents released by the committee showed that Bondi had accepted a $10,000 donation from a Trump-aligned PAC just days before the decision not to prosecute. When asked whether this influenced her judgment, Bondi called the suggestion “outrageous” but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the timing.
Throughout the ordeal, Bondi’s legal team attempted to intervene, but the committee’s chairman, Sir Keir, ruled that “the witness is required to answer directly”. This is the hallmark of British-style hearings: no prepared statements, no filibustering. Bondi’s evasions were met with sharp rebukes. At one point, she claimed she could not recall a specific meeting about Epstein. “I find that difficult to believe,” Sir Keir interjected. “Your memory seems to serve you well when it comes to defending your track record.”
The implications of this hearing extend far beyond Bondi’s political future. It sets a precedent for how powerful figures can be held to account in a system that often protects them. The use of British-style cross-examination, with its emphasis on direct challenge and rigorous testing of evidence, has exposed the weaknesses in American oversight. It is a model that could soon be adopted elsewhere, as citizens demand answers on everything from pandemic response to data privacy.
But there is a darker undercurrent. The Epstein files remain a labyrinth of secrets, with names redacted and trails purposefully lost. Bondi’s testimony, while dramatic, revealed little that was not already known. The real question is whether such hearings can ever truly penetrate the fortress of elite impunity. As one committee member muttered after Bondi left the room: “We’ve scratched the surface, but the wound is deep.”
For now, the world watches as a former attorney general’s career hangs in the balance. The verdict will not come from a jury but from a public increasingly intolerant of half-truths. And if Bondi’s cross-examination is any guide, the reckoning has only just begun.
