I HAVE THE ACTUAL BONDI SUBPOENA AND IT DOES IN FACT SAY “ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES”

You have undoubtedly heard that Bondi is resisting honouring the subpoena from the House of Representatives, using as an excuse that it was directed to Pamela Bondi in her role as Attorney General, and that she’s not the Attorney General anymore.

And you may have seen the letter that the House sent to her (included for Notes from the Front members) along with the subpoena, but the subpoena was nowhere to be publicly seen (but now I have it – do *not* ask me how I got it – also included for Notes from the Front members).

The scuttlebutt was that while the letter was addressed to “Dear Attorney General Bondi”, the subpoena was addressed only to “The Honorable Pamela Bondi”.

Well, the scuttlebutt was wrong.

Now here’s the thing: the argument that she is making, that she is no longer the Attorney General and that the subpoena was *for the Attorney General* actually may have some weight (not much, but some). That’s because the House *can* be seen to have subpoenaed “the person holding the office of Attorney General”, with the name just a formality. OR it can be seen as them subpoenaing Pamela Bondi, with the title of the office just a formality. (Why the House didn’t just re-issue the subpoena to her as an individual is beyond me, but I’m sure that they had their reasons.)

But here’s the other thing: under the subpoena she was supposed to show up at Congress to testify *today*. And she didn’t.

So now Congress is threatening her with contempt. And lest you think that is a toothless threat, because who will enforce it, check this out:

You’ve heard of civil contempt, and you’ve heard of criminal contempt, but have you ever heard of inherent contempt? That is *Congress’* inherent (hence the name) power to have Congress’ Sergeant-at-Arms, or its deputy, detain someone for contempt.

It’s rarely used, but then this administration itself has attempted to use a few rarely-used remedies. It’s just that this time it will be used *against* the administration, rather than the administration trying to invoke some arcane power (and usually unsuccessfully, at that).

Notes from the Front members: the full subpoena to the Honorable (cough, cough) Pamela Bondi Attorney General, and the House cover letter, is in your inbox now!

Not a Notes from the Front member? Never miss one of my legal updates (like this one) or Epstein updates – get them right in your inbox (no ads, no spam, just legal and Epstein updates)! You can join right now below, get the document, and help keep me in coffee to continue my reporting! It also gives you access to all the documents and our private chat! And yes, really, your $5 a month helps support my coffee habit and helps me keep on with all of the research and writing I do for you. Join here:

https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/i-have-the-actual-bondi-subpoena

Otherwise, you can ensure that you never miss a legal update (just like this one) or Epstein update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite – it’s like Notes from the Front but without the documents and private chats. You can sign up for that here (yes, it’s really completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://annepmitchell.substack.com/

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word “inherently”. It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering why everyone is talking about some inherent thing, and just what it is! ;~)



Source