What will Donald and Elon’s next fight be about?

Plus – Bondi disqualified herself in her hearing.

Hi, Talking Feds fans!

(We still need a moniker for this group—polls are open, and the winner will receive a Talking Feds mug!)

You know the segment “Five Words or Fewer” at the very end of our episodes? It’s always a hit with you and a pain for our guests. In this segment, guests tackle a ridiculous current event hypothetical in—yes—five words or fewer.

Well, we’re opening it up to you, our subscribers!

This week, guests Jason Kander, Charlie Sykes, Ali Vitali, and I had to answer this question: What will Donald and Elon’s next disagreement be about? And, of course, they worked on their answers in the back of their heads during an hour of lively discussion on critical topics. You can hear the question and their responses (at 54:00) here: bit.ly/ConvictTF.

Think you can do better than their impromptu efforts? Submit your five-words-or-fewer entries here! The best response will earn a much-coveted Talking Feds mug.

---

A quick note on Pam Bondi’s confirmation hearing this morning:

Yes, her qualifications make her at least a plausible Attorney General candidate, and her demeanor was poised and professional. But any and all of that is completely overshadowed by her refusal to concede that Trump lost the 2020 election.

It’s not an unfair or “gotcha” question: Bondi’s previous record of election equivocation, if not outright denialism, makes the question entirely relevant. She is under oath before the United States Senate, and her prevarication is absolutely illegitimate and disqualifying.

Perhaps equally troubling is her refusal to say explicitly that she would defy White House pressure as Attorney General. There, at least, she has the excuse of Trump’s declaration that he will demolish the previous norms dictating non-interference, so the response the Senators are seeking puts her arguably in the position of having to promise to defy the Chief Executive.

But no similar excuse is available for her simple failure to tell the truth—as she surely knows it—before the Senate and the country. Trump might claim that 2 + 2 is 5, but his nominees have to swear an oath in their hearings to tell the truth. There is no plausible theory of executive power that justifies her refusal to answer a straightforward factual question.

In a previous era, enough Senators would have made clear that her continued prevarication would cost her their votes. In today’s degraded political environment, that is unlikely—but we should nevertheless insist on her lack of fitness to serve as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

Talk to you later.