BONDI the Trashy B. Loves to LIE.
- Ian Miller
- Feb 14
- 3 min read
It was one of those moments in Washington when the air seems to tighten, when the choreography of oversight turns suddenly sharp.
Under the unforgiving lights of the United States House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Pam Bondi faced a line of questioning that cut straight to the nerve of the Justice Department’s credibility. The issue was not abstract policy or bureaucratic wrangling. It was a name. A hire. A decision.
And a video.
On that video, filmed amid the chaos of January 6, 2021, a man can be heard shouting “kill ’em” as police officers struggled to hold the line at the U.S. Capitol. That man, lawmakers revealed, is now employed by the Department of Justice.
His name is Jared Wise.
The exchange came after Colorado Congressman Joe Neguse pressed Bondi directly: Was it true that the DOJ had hired an individual who had been recorded urging violence against law enforcement during the Capitol attack? Bondi did not sidestep. She confirmed that Wise works for the department.
The justification, she explained, rested on a presidential pardon.
Wise had been federally charged in connection with his conduct during the riot. But after returning to office, President Donald Trump issued sweeping pardons to individuals tied to the January 6 cases, including Wise. In the eyes of the administration, that cleared the legal slate. (what utter BS)
Legally, a pardon erases the penalty. Politically, it does not erase the footage.
That is where the controversy now lives.
Critics argue that employing someone captured on camera urging violence against police officers undermines the Justice Department’s standing as the nation’s chief law enforcement agency. Supporters counter that a pardon restores full rights, and that employment decisions should reflect that legal reality.
The moment in the hearing room was electric. Bondi remained composed, but the implications of her acknowledgment rippled outward instantly. In a political climate still shaped by the aftershocks of January 6, personnel choices carry symbolic weight far beyond HR paperwork.
At stake is more than a single hire. It is a question of institutional identity. The Department of Justice presents itself as guardian of the rule of law, defender of public safety, and steward of accountability. When one of its employees once stood in a crowd chanting violent rhetoric at officers, that identity faces scrutiny.
Bondi’s defenders note that the Constitution grants presidents broad pardon power, and that those pardoned are, in the eyes of the law, restored. They frame the controversy as political theater — a replay of old battles meant to inflame.
Opponents see something else: a test of moral consistency. They ask whether the Justice Department can credibly prosecute threats against law enforcement while employing someone who, on video, appeared to encourage exactly that.
The images from that day in 2021 remain vivid in the American psyche — officers pressed against barricades, shouts echoing in stone corridors, a nation stunned. The fact that one voice from that crowd now draws a government paycheck has transformed an old wound into a fresh debate.
In Washington, symbolism matters. Optics matter. And under oath, in full view of cameras and history, the attorney general’s confirmation ensured that this story will not fade quietly.
Whether it becomes a passing political skirmish or a defining flashpoint for the Justice Department depends on what comes next. But for a moment in that hearing room, the past and present collided — and the echoes of January 6 rang out once more.
Comments