Below is a brief description of the duties and responsibilities of the United States Attorney General from the website of Department of Justice (emphasis added by me):

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government.  The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested.  In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court.

There is also a list of principal duties of the Attorney General on the same page at that website, but nowhere on that page or elsewhere in the website of the DoJ does it say that the Attorney General acts as a personal attorney of the President or as his/her spokesperson. Granted, the Attorney General is expected to provide advice and opinions to the President, but obviously that responsibility also does not translate into playing the role of a personal attorney or a spokesperson. Although the phrase “represents the United States” may sound somewhat vague, the general understanding seems to be that it means representation of the people of the United States, not the President of the United States. In fact, Attorney Generals from both parties have initiated legal investigations against the presidents of their time (to whom they reported), often through appointments of independent or special counsels. Historically, Attorney Generals have tried to distance themselves from the President to avoid even an appearance of improper influence or pressure from the Office of the President on them in fulfilling their duties as the chief law enforcement officer of the country.

Now, having all the above in mind, consider the following response from Attorney General Pam Bondi to a question about the public debate surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he sent details of a coming attack on rebels in Yemen to senior administration officials in a Signal group chat that accidentally included a magazine editor:

“It was sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released.” “What we should be talking about is it was a very successful mission.” “If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was in Hillary Clinton’s home. Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden’s garage, that Hunter Biden had access to.”

If the above statements sound to you like something that a White House press secretary or a spokesperson to the Defense Secretary would say, you are not alone. It is not clear in what capacity was Ms Bondi making those statements. Take the first sentence, for example. Instead of acting as a law enforcement officer whose main concern is upholding the law, she sounds like a defense attorney for the Defense Secretary, trying to minimize the perceived impact or importance of the incident. Then, in the second sentence, she sounds like a press secretary highlighting and underscoring the accomplishments of the administration.

But perhaps the most troubling part of her statement is the last part, where she resorts to whataboutism. For a law enforcement officer, what matters most is to enforce the law in the case that is in front of them. It does not seem very reasonable for a law enforcement officer to dismiss or downplay a case by citing other cases involving others, possibly political rivals of the sitting president, from the past. Especially when those very same cases were in fact investigated by the DoJ at the time. Hillary Clinton’s emails were extensively investigated by FBI, and James Comey’s famous announcement about that investigation days before the presidential election of 2016 was likely one of the largest contributors to her loss in that election. And the case of classified documents in Joe Biden’s garage was also thoroughly investigated by a Republican special counsel, Robert Hur.

As the Attorney General of the United States, Ms Bondi should know better, that those previous cases that she was citing were indeed investigated, and even if they were not, citing those cases is not an excuse to downplay a case that is currently under question.