Did you watch the farce that involved the Congressional Oversight hearings with Pam Bimbo? Let me give you a brief recap. Before I begin, you should be aware that Ms. Blondy was called to testify due to the recent Epstein files issue. During her so called “hearings” no less than 13 elected officials interviewed her. Eleven Democrats and two Tepublicans decided to interrogate her to see if she could add any additional information to the millions of pages of redacted Epstein Case files. Here is how most of the interrogations went.
First of 13 Legislators to Interview:
“Thank you Attorney General Bondee for coming here to testify today. Before we get into my actual questions, I want to read my five minute campaign brochure into the record so that C-SPAN can double as a donor reel. This brochure is designed to show how tough I am. For the record, I hope that many of my constituents are tuned in to see how I tear you to pieces during this inquisition.”
5 minutes or so later
Legislator:
“My first question of the many I will try to get in during my allotted time with Ms. Blondy, concerns the issues I have already addressed in my opening monologue. Right now, Ms. Blondy, I would appreciate a simple yes or no answer.”
Attorney General Blondy:
“Why are you wasting taxpayers money when you should be getting down on your knees and thanking God for giving us the greatest president in the history of America. No, the greatest president in the history of the world. You are nothing but a washed up lawyer.”
Legislator:
“Ms. Blondi, you have not answered my question. I would like a simple yes or no answer so that I can get on with another monologue followed by another question that you will seek to avoid.”
Attorney General Blondie:
“Where did you get your legal degree? In a Cracker Box? In 2020 when the election and Presidency was stolen from the American People, I was doing my bit in Florida to save America —” (Interruption)
Legislator:
“Mr. Chairman would you please request the Attorney General to answer my questions? She is not answering my questions. I request additional time to continue this ridiculous interrogation. My constituents love it and I am getting many hits on my election site, so I would like to continue.”
Chairman:
The chair grants the First of 13 Legislators to Interview Attorney General Blondo an additional two and a half minutes and instruct Ms. Blondo to please answer the questions.
Attorney General Blondo:
“According to subsection 4, paragraph 9, appendix C, footnote 11 of the Department of Justice Hospitality Guidelines…” — (Interruption)
Legislator:
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Blondo is doing it again. She is avoiding the issues here. I would like a simple yes or no answer.
Attorney General Blondo:
“My answer is Yes.”
Legislator:
Yes what? I don’t remember the question. Which of my several non-questions were you responding to?
Mr. Chairman:
To the First of 13 Legislators to Interview. “Your time is up. You must yield the floor to the next Legislator. We have twelve more members remaining who want to conduct their interviews.”
The 13 Legislators Who Questioned Pam Blondi:
The following members of Congress were identified as having direct exchanges with or questioning Blondi during the hearing. You should note the variety of attacks and themes that were brought to bear against AG Blondy during each Lawmakers interrogation. It is likely that they brainstormed questions they could interrogate her with knowing she would not answer them. An AI model that I ran was able to simulate the entire hearing by repeating the phrase ‘Reclaiming my time’ for 4 hours.”
Only one person needed to ask these questions. “Based on standard Lean metrics, the hearing produced 0.3 actionable facts, 14.6 campaign clips, and 2.7 viral outrage cycles.” Do you think this was an efficient use of their time? Of course, the Republicans do not mind this because they plan to retaliate with a hearing on the mysterious lyrics that Bad Bunny sang at the Super Bowl Half Time show.
I must say a Bad Bunny hearing would rival the Pam Blondy hearing in public interest and no doubt media exposure. Can you imagine translating strange lyrics like:
Yo perreo sola (hmm, ey)
Yo perreo sola (perreo sola; hmm-hmm)
Yo perreo sola (ey)
Yo perreo sola
The Big Bad 13 Legislators:
Here are our astute legislators. If they are not public names, I am sure they were hoping that this inquisition with AG Blondy would lead to media recognition if not celebrity stardom. Note the main line of “attacks” under the names of each legislator.
(D-WA): Pressed Bondi to apologize to Epstein survivors in the room and accused the DOJ of a “massive cover-up”.
(D-NY): Questioned Bondi on why the DOJ redacted abusers’ names but not victims’ and asked how many Epstein co-conspirators were being investigated.
(R-KY): The only prominent Republican to challenge Bondi, criticizing the high number of redactions in the released files.
(D-GA): Accused Bondi of a “Jekyll and Hyde” routine for her differing treatment of Republicans versus Democrats.
(D-FL): Challenged Bondi to reveal personal “opposition research” she reportedly had on him in a binder at the witness table.
(D-CA): Questioned Bondi on President Trump’s past ties to Epstein and suggested she was being untruthful under oath.
(D-VT): Questioned Bondi on whether the DOJ had interviewed senior Trump officials about Epstein before storming out of the hearing following a heated exchange.
(D-CO): Questioned the hiring of a convicted January 6 rioter at the DOJ and the dismantling of the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team.
(D-PA): Criticized the DOJ for allegedly using the government to punish political enemies.
(D-IL): Accused Bondi of being an instrument of an “authoritarian agenda”.
(D-CA): Scrutinized Bondi for removing a DOJ report on domestic extremism from the department’s website.
(D-CA): Asked Epstein survivors in the gallery if they felt supported by the current DOJ (none raised their hands).
(D-TX): Faulted Bondi for her combative tone and failure to directly answer lawmakers’ questions.
While several Republicans, including Chairman
(R-OH),
(R-CA),
(R-TX), and
(R-CA), participated in the hearing, their time was largely spent defending Bondi or ceding time to her for rebuttals.
Conclusions:
If we ask the question “Why are these hearings a waste of time and money.” The hearing did not fail because of partisanship. It failed because of process design.
We can apply some Process thinking and find the following reasons:
The system rewards:
- Speaking rather than listening
- Performance rather than inquiry
- Time limits rather than follow-ups
- Clips rather than conclusions
At the end of five hours:
- No new names
- No new facts
- No new accountability
But we did achieve:
- Perfect procedural symmetry
- Maximum rhetorical throughput
- A fully optimized theater production
In summary, the hearing was not an investigation. It was a closed-loop political performance system operating at peak efficiency.
From a systems standpoint, it was flawless.
From a governance standpoint, it was a circus with a cast of clowns
Aging Capriciously 