WASHINGTON, D.C. – A routine House Judiciary Committee hearing exploded into a high-stakes investigation this week, as Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) systematically exposed former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s previously undisclosed personal involvement in decisions related to the
Armed with internal emails, visitor logs, and campaign finance records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Crockett cornered Bondi with evidence suggesting potential improper influence on prosecutorial decisions that directly disadvantaged Epstein’s victims.
Bondi, a high-profile Republican legal commentator, saw her carefully constructed image as a champion of equal justice collapse, leaving her visibly distraught and unable to answer direct contradictions between her sworn testimony and the newly revealed documents.
Pam Bondi had appeared before the committee to testify on prosecutorial discretion, emphasizing her career-long commitment to making decisions “without regard to wealth, status, or connections.”
Representative Jasmine Crockett, a former civil rights attorney, immediately challenged this claim by focusing on the non-prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. While the initial 2008 plea deal was negotiated before Bondi took office, Crockett’s inquiry focused on
Crockett’s methodical, prosecutorial style quickly established the gravity of the inquiry, signaling that this was not mere partisan theater but a targeted pursuit of accountability.
Crockett presented a sequence of four documented events, methodically building a case that linked Bondi’s private interactions with Epstein’s legal team to her official denial of support for his victims:
Crockett presented an email dated April 3, 2014, from Bondi’s chief of staff to the head of the human trafficking unit. The email explicitly stated:
“Per AG Bondi’s directive, all inquiries from new Epstein victims are to be routed directly to the front office. No new investigations are to be opened without explicit approval from the AG herself.”
Crockett pointed out that this unprecedented personal intervention came shortly after 11 additional Epstein victims had filed sworn statements seeking the AG’s support to invalidate the controversial 2008 plea deal.
Crockett then delivered the first major blow by presenting a document from Bondi’s visitor log:The log shows Alan Dershowitz, who was one of Epstein’s primary attorneys, meeting with you in your office for 53 minutes on May 2, 2014.
The private meeting, which took place just 15 days before Bondi personally signed the rejection letter, directly contradicted Bondi’s attempts to distance herself from the ongoing case. Bondi visibly struggled to maintain her composure, claiming she couldn’t recall the specific content of the meeting.
The most damaging revelation followed: a documented financial connection between Bondi’s campaign and Epstein’s inner circle.
“Two weeks after you signed the letter denying assistance to Epstein’s victims, your campaign received a $25,000 donation from a company called East Coast Investments LLC.”
Crockett revealed that this LLC was managed by another of Epstein’s personal attorneys, Darren Indyke. This revelation created a palpable shockwave, suggesting money had influenced prosecutorial decisions that directly affected victims of sexual trafficking.
Finally, Crockett demonstrated that Bondi had overruled her own internal experts. She presented a memo from the human trafficking unit that had analyzed the new victim claims:
The memo states, ‘These additional victims present credible evidence that would support state action to join the CVA motion. Their rights were clearly violated…’
Bondi’s eventual decision to deny assistance flew directly in the face of her staff’s recommendation, cementing the perception that her private meetings and donations held more weight than the professional judgment of her own department.
As Crockett methodically summarized the evidence, Bondi’s professional composure completely fractured. She attempted to claim the documents lacked “full context,” but her excuses crumbled when Crockett presented the final, devastating piece of evidence:
“I have here a transcript of your sworn deposition… where you testified, ‘No, it would have been legally permissible for our office to join the CVA motion. It was a discretionary decision.’”
This directly contradicted Bondi’s attempts to tell Congress there were “jurisdictional and procedural complexities.”
Crockett’s final challenge was the most devastating: “The evidence suggests precisely the opposite: that after private meetings and campaign contributions, you personally intervened to deny support to victims… despite your own staff’s recommendation. How do you reconcile these contradictions?”
Bondi was left in silence, unable to offer a coherent defense.
The impact of Crockett’s five minutes was immediate:
DOJ Review: The Department of Justice announced it would review the newly revealed documents to determine whether they warrant a criminal investigation into how the Epstein case was handled by various authorities.
Career Damage: Bondi’s scheduled television appearances were immediately canceled, and her political aspirations suffered a severe blow as her credibility was effectively dismantled.
Legal Accountability: The exchange served as a powerful validation for Epstein’s victims, reinforcing their claim that the justice system was rigged against them by wealthy defendants and their allies.
Representative Crockett’s approach reinforced her reputation as one of the most effective questioners in Congress, demonstrating that methodical preparation and documentary evidence can hold even the most media-trained and powerful figures accountable. The hearing sent a chilling message that prosecutorial independence and ethical conduct are under intense scrutiny, and that powerful connections cannot permanently shield the truth.
Trump’s Approval Ratings Plunge as Americans Weigh Chaos Against ChangeFor weeks, rumors had been swirling across Washington: the latest round of presidential approval ratings would not be kind to Donald J. Trump. Pundits whispered that the numbers could be catastrophic, even historic. Now the data is public, and it has confirmed what many had suspected — while also reigniting the debate over whether Trump is a uniquely embattled president or simply the most polarizing one in modern American history.
The numbers reveal a leader under pressure, a presidency defined by perpetual confrontation, and a country deeply divided nine months into Trump’s second term.
Trump returned to the White House the same way he left it: swinging.
Executive orders stacked high on his desk, cabinet reshuffles that blindsided even loyal allies, sudden reversals on trade, sweeping immigration crackdowns, and nonstop battles with the media, universities, and the legal establishment.
To his supporters, this is Trump unchained — the embodiment of “America First” in its rawest form. To his critics, it is déjà vu: a presidency running on chaos, fueled by grievance, and exhausting to watch.
Asked earlier this month whether he would consider “toning it down” in response to growing fatigue, Trump dismissed the idea outright.
“You don’t fix a broken country by whispering,” he said. “You do it by shouting truth louder than the lies.”
It was classic Trump — brash, unapologetic, and impossible to ignore. But while the president relishes the fight, his advisers have been watching something far more sobering than rallies and applause lines: the polls.
The latest YouGov national survey paints a troubling picture for the White House. Trump’s approval rating has slipped to 41 percent, with 52 percent disapproving — his lowest point since returning to office.
Just nine months ago, Trump rode a brief wave of optimism following his second inauguration. Early moves on the economy had pushed him above 50 percent approval, even among some skeptics. That goodwill has now evaporated.
Trade fights, tariff hikes, and near-daily confrontations with the press have dragged him down. Even within his own party, cracks are showing. While 82 percent of Republicans still back Trump, that number is five points lower than his peak during his first term. Among independents, the numbers are brutal: just 32 percent approve, with nearly two-thirds disapproving.
“These are the kinds of numbers that define a presidency,” said Peter Hartwell, a veteran political analyst. “If independents abandon you and your base starts to soften, you’re in serious trouble.”
The regional breakdown of the polling is even more alarming for Republicans.
Ohio: approval has fallen from 57% to 48%.
Iowa: down from 55% to 46%.
Florida: for the first time since 2019, Trump’s approval has dipped below 50%.
The erosion is sharpest in the suburbs — the same battlegrounds that handed Trump his comeback victory in 2024.
“The pattern is unmistakable,” Hartwell noted. “Voters who once held their noses and backed Trump because they trusted him on the economy are now questioning whether the constant confrontation is worth it.”
The president himself remains undeterred. In a recent Fox News interview, Trump waved off the numbers as “garbage from bad pollsters.” He even turned his fire on Fox, accusing Rupert Murdoch of hiring the “worst pollsters” in the industry.
Later, on Truth Social, he doubled down: “The fake news loves their fake polls. But the people know the truth — the country is winning again, and they feel it.”
It is a familiar strategy. Throughout his career, Trump has cast polls not as a reflection of public sentiment but as another weapon wielded by enemies determined to bring him down.
“They’ve been wrong about me every single time,” he told a rally crowd in Pennsylvania. “Why should I believe them now?”
For all Trump’s bluster, approval ratings have concrete consequences. They shape congressional momentum, sway financial markets, and influence global diplomacy.
“When a president’s approval dips below 45 percent, members of his own party begin to calculate differently,” said historian Elaine Berns, who has tracked presidential popularity for decades. “They stop taking political risks for him. That’s especially dangerous heading into midterms.”
History bears her out: the president’s party has historically lost an average of 28 House seats when approval ratings fall below that threshold. For Republicans, the possibility of a Democratic wave in the upcoming midterms looms large.
The YouGov survey highlights a broad spectrum of discontent:
Republicans: 35% express frustration over tariffs, which some blame for slowing markets and driving up consumer costs.
Democrats and Independents: 62% believe Trump “stokes division,” 55% say he “undermines the rule of law,” and 49% say they no longer trust his economic claims.
Even on core issues once central to his brand — immigration, crime, and trade — support has softened. In 2024, nearly 60 percent of Americans said Trump’s immigration stance was “about right.” Today, fewer than half agree.
“What voters expected was order,” said pollster James Robshaw. “What they’re seeing is unending confrontation.”
Trump’s strongest base remains older, white, non-college-educated men — the demographic that powered his return to the White House.
But the numbers are stark elsewhere:
Under-30 voters: 72% disapprove.
Black voters: 81% disapprove.
Latino voters: 63% disapprove.
Inroads Trump made with Hispanic men in Texas and Florida in 2024 are eroding, according to the data.
“The message of jobs, security, and strength is being drowned out by chaos,” said Democratic strategist Maria Gonzalez.
Yet Democrats face their own problem. No potential challenger currently commands significantly better approval ratings. Vice President Kamala Harris sits at 39 percent favorability, while California Governor Gavin Newsom is at 37.
The dissatisfaction cuts both ways: America may be weary of Trump, but it hasn’t embraced an alternative.
At rallies in battleground states, Trump projects defiance.
“They can print all the fake polls they want,” he told a cheering crowd in Pittsburgh. “But here’s what’s real: gas is cheaper, crime is down, the border is tighter, and factories are coming back. You see it with your own eyes.”
Mocking YouGov directly, he added: “I call them You’re Wrong.”
The crowd roared — a reminder that, whatever the national numbers say, Trump’s core base remains fiercely loyal. Rasmussen reports that 89% of self-identified MAGA voters would “definitely” vote for him again — a level of loyalty most politicians could only dream of.
Trump’s presidency has never been about data points or traditional political benchmarks. His movement runs on emotion — distrust of institutions, anger at elites, and the belief that he alone fights for “forgotten Americans.”
That is why, even with approval ratings hovering below 45 percent, Trump still fills stadiums. To his followers, he is more than a politician. He is a symbol of defiance.
“Polls capture opinion, not conviction,” Berns observed. “And Trump’s movement is built on conviction.”
Still, the political risks are undeniable. Republican lawmakers are nervously eyeing the midterms, while Democrats are sharpening their attacks. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer summed up their strategy bluntly on X:
“Donald Trump’s approval ratings are falling for one simple reason — Americans are waking up to the damage his chaos is doing to the country.”
For Trump, the challenge now is not simply to dismiss the polls but to prove, once again, that he can defy them. His career has been defined by doing exactly that: winning when experts said he couldn’t, surviving when critics declared him finished, and returning to power when history suggested it was impossible.
As he told reporters before boarding Air Force One this week:
“The fake news says the numbers are down. I say America’s going up. We’re winning — and the best is yet to come.”
Whether the country agrees will be tested not in the polls, but at the ballot box.