When Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, her string of deflections, non-responses and outright insults demonstrated her utter contempt for Congress. More to the point, it demonstrated Congress’ fecklessness when it came to forcing a cabinet secretary to explain her stunning failure to do her job or comply with the law. So naturally, the House is going for round two by subpoenaing Bondi to appear before the House Oversight Committee for a closed door deposition.

Over the objection of the panel’s Republican chairman, Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, five Republicans on the Oversight Committee joined Democrats to force approval of the subpoena, which was introduced by Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina.

Yes, that Nancy Mace.

The vote, 24 to 19, was a striking rebuke of a top Trump administration official by members of President Trump’s own party at a time when the Republican-controlled Congress has generally marched in lock-step with him.

In opposition to the subpoena, Chair Comer argued that Bondi was willing to “brief” the committee on the Epstein case.

Before Wednesday’s vote, Mr. Comer tried to fend off the subpoena, saying that Ms. Bondi’s chief of staff told him that the attorney general would brief lawmakers about her department’s investigation into Mr. Epstein.

During the vote, as Ms. Mace’s effort looked poised to succeed, he made a last-ditch attempt and reminded members that the “attorney general has offered to come in and give briefings.”

What were the chances that Bondi would voluntarily come forward and provide truthful, accurate and illuminating explanations for her abject failure to abide by the law and her efforts to actively conceal documents reflecting allegations against Trump?

But lawmakers from both parties have been angered by the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files, dating back to Ms. Bondi’s reversal last year on a promise to release previously undisclosed material in his case.

As it turns out, belligerence isn’t a great way to endear oneself to others or instill trust that you’ve done, or at least are attempting to do, the right thing even when it’s difficult or may anger one’s patron.

But will a subpoena to testify under oath rectify the situation?

Under the committee’s rules, Mr. Comer will be required to issue the subpoena for a closed-door deposition, in which Ms. Bondi will be under oath. The setting may force Ms. Bondi to contend more seriously with lawmakers’ questions than at a congressional hearing, where officials often perform for live television cameras and fall back on prepared talking points.

Granted, public hearings have become a circus, with representatives speechifying for the cameras while witnesses squander the rep’s five minutes with tendentious irrelevant explanations bearing no connection to the questions posed. Some would call it a farce. Others wouldn’t be so polite.

So will it be different because of “the setting”? Will “the setting…force” Bondi to provide serious answers to serious questions?

The nature of congressional hearings is that their informational value is largely dependent on the willingness of a witness to address the questions asked and the extent to which the witness cares about truthfulness. While a deposition in a lawsuit is backed up by a judge who can overcome a witness’ recalcitrance to respond with an order followed by sanctions or contempt, the same cannot be said for congressional hearings.

Sure, the refusal of a witness to appear or respond can give rise to a referral by the committee to the Department of Justice for prosecution for contempt of Congress. But when the witness is the Attorney General, who conveniently heads the DoJ, what are the chances? To add insult to injury, Bondi has proposed a regulation exempting DoJ lawyers from bar ethics and disciplinary action, instead putting all power in Bondi to decide what is and isn’t ethical. The chances of any action being taken against Bondi are ungood.

That there are limited options available to the House Oversight Committee to compel the attorney general to provide actual answers to questions when she doesn’t want to and her patron admires her for being belligerent and faithful to his interests rather than law or truth, is an unfortunate fact of life in Congress. Having abdicated its role as a branch of government to serve as the apologist and rubber stamp of the Executive, it’s entirely understandable why Bondi would treat representatives like pissants to be pummeled.

But without any other options available to try to get answers to why DoJ published the names and naked pictures of Epstein’s victims, but not the reports of Trump’s dalliance with a 13-year-old, what else can the Committee do? It’s unlikely to produce much light, and likely to give Bondi another chance to show The Boss how tough she is, but having forsaken any serious role in governance, it’s all Congress can muster, even if it has no clout to back itself up.