At the public hearing of the House Oversight Committee, Attorney General Pam Bondi was, to say the least, uncooperative. Without answering questions, she reached deep into her “Op Book” to attack Democratic representatives who questioned her about the failure to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act. Then came the subpoena, at the behest of Republican Representative Nancy Mace.

Committee Chair James Comer had little choice but to issue the subpoena after the committee vote, but made the return date April 14th. A lot can happen between now and then that could well distract people, including the committee members, from issues surrounding the Department of Justice’s monumental and, as yet unexplained, failure to comply with the law. Who knows who we will be at war with? Who knows whether Bondi will still hold the position by then? Who knows if Bondi will even show up? If she doesn’t, what does the committee plan to do about it? It’s not as if Chairman Comer gives a damn.

In what appears to be an effort to circumvent the subpoena, Comer called for a meeting of the Oversight Committee for a briefing by Bondi. There was no advance notice that would enable members to prepare, but since it was called as a briefing by Bondi, they were there to hear what the attorney general had to say. As it turned out, she had nothing to say.

Bondi offered no opening statement. Bondi offered no explanations, either for the failure to timely release the files, to untimely release all the files, for the failure to release specific files dealing with Trump, for the failure to release the files relating to Epstein’s “suicide,” for the failure to redact the naked images, names and personal information of Epstein victims, for spying on Democratic representatives who reviewed unredacted papers at DoJ or for the massive and inexplicable redactions of the papers released.

Instead, Comer asked if anybody had questions of the unsworn witness who had already been asked questions and refused to answer. There was one question that dominated.

During a private briefing Wednesday on the Justice Department’s investigation into Mr. Epstein and its handling of files on him, Democratic lawmakers pressed Ms. Bondi whether she still planned to appear for a deposition.

After being asked repeatedly, Ms. Bondi said that she would follow the legal requirements, several Democratic lawmakers told reporters afterward.

“I made it crystal clear, I will follow the law,” she told reporters after the hearing.

The Democratic contingent of the committee walked out after Bondi refused to give a direct answer to a direct question. “Follow the law” is meaningless weasel drivel, as Bondi well knows, which is why she offered it in response.

Chairman Comer seized upon this bizarre yet pointless adventure to bolster Bondi’s, and thereby Trump’s, claim to have tried to satisfy the committee.

But Mr. Comer argued that Democrats squandered their opportunity to ask Ms. Bondi substantive questions, accusing them of using the hearing for theatrics.

“They came out clutching their pearls, complaining that she wasn’t answering any questions and things like that,” he said. “The first three people to ask questions, all they did was complain.”

That, of course, was the point of the gambit, to create the appearance of Bondi being cooperative without cooperating at all.

Democratic lawmakers walked out of the briefing before it ended, accusing Ms. Bondi and Todd Blanche, her deputy attorney general, of avoiding their questions. They criticized Ms. Bondi for declining to explicitly agree to the deposition and argued that Wednesday’s briefing, which the Justice Department offered before Ms. Bondi was sent a subpoena, was an effort to avoid it.

“She’s not under oath, and she would not commit to actually going under oath and following the law,” said Representative Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the committee. “And so we have been frustrated.”

But what of the subpoena Comer issued after the bipartisan vote of the committee?

After the hearing, Mr. Comer said that he would proceed with trying to schedule the deposition. “That’s what we plan on doing,” he said.

But Mr. Comer would not say whether he would pursue holding Ms. Bondi in contempt if she did not agree to appear, and he acknowledged that he sent the subpoena reluctantly.

“I, personally, don’t see any reason for her to do a deposition,” he said.

Neither does Bondi. Neither does Trump. I have no idea what might be lurking in the undisclosed files or the overly redacted pages, but the Republican loyalists are pulling out all the stops to avoid it ever seeing the light of day. Comer’s statement provide little confidence that Bondi will ever appear for a sworn deposition, or suffer any consequences when she refused to comply with the subpoena, and even less confidence that Comer will take any action against her for her failure. How bad must those files be for Trump for his loyalists to be willing to do anything to make sure the public never knows? It’s hard to imagine any other reason for the Bondi gambit.