Vermont Democratic Rep. Becca Balint abruptly left a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday after Attorney General Pam Bondi turned the congresswoman's own voting record against her during a tense exchange over Jeffrey Epstein.
Balint had been pressing Bondi on whether President Donald Trump knew about Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's interactions with Epstein. Bondi didn't take the bait. Instead, she pivoted — and the pivot landed.
"You didn't ask Merrick Garland anything about Epstein, not once … And also, I want the record to reflect that, you know, with this anti-Semitic culture right now, she voted against a resolution condemning —"
Bondi didn't get to finish. Balint cut her off, visibly agitated:
"Oh, oh, do you want to go there, Attorney General? Do you want to go there? Are you serious? Talking about antisemitism to a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust!"
Then she left the hearing room.
Bondi wasn't freelancing. The receipts are public record.
Balint voted against H. Res. 488, a resolution condemning an antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado — an attack allegedly carried out by Mohamed Soliman, an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa. Soliman reportedly shouted "Free Palestine" and "End Zionists" during the incident, according to the Daily Caller. The resolution also expressed support for more federal immigration enforcement involvement to detain criminal illegal immigrants.
That second part likely explains Balint's "no" vote more than the first — but it doesn't make the optics any less damaging. When you vote against a resolution condemning antisemitic violence because you object to the enforcement provision attached to it, you've chosen your priorities. The choice is visible.
Balint also voted "present" on H. Res. 894, a resolution introduced by Republican Tennessee Rep. David Kustoff in November 2023 that condemned and denounced all instances of antisemitism in the United States, rejected all forms of terror, hate, discrimination, and harassment of Jewish people, and reiterated support for the Jewish community. It passed the House on Dec. 5, 2023. Balint couldn't bring herself to vote yes.
A "present" vote on a resolution condemning antisemitism is a statement. It says: I was here, and I chose not to stand up.
Balint's line of questioning wasn't really about Epstein. It was about creating a soundbite tying Trump to Lutnick's past interactions with the sex trafficker — interactions that are part of the more than 3 million files the DOJ released on Feb. 1 under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Those files showed that Lutnick and his family had lunch with Epstein in 2012, that Lutnick had a drink with Epstein at his home on May 1, 2011, and that Lutnick signed an agreement to enter business with Epstein on Dec. 28, 2012. Lutnick told The New York Post he vowed never to be in the same room as Epstein after witnessing a massage table in Epstein's home in New York City in the 2000s. During a Tuesday hearing, Lutnick stated he had very little involvement with Epstein and had only met him three times.
There are legitimate questions about those interactions — the timeline between seeing a massage table and continuing to meet with Epstein doesn't line up neatly. But Balint wasn't interested in probing that. She wanted to ask whether the President knew, a question designed to generate headlines rather than answers. Bondi recognized the game and refused to play it on Balint's terms.
What happened on Wednesday is a case study in how congressional Democrats use hearings. The format is predictable:
Balint hit every mark. She asked a question she knew Bondi wouldn't — and shouldn't — answer the way she wanted. When Bondi responded by putting Balint's own record on the table, the congresswoman erupted, invoked her family's Holocaust history, and walked out before Bondi could finish her sentence.
Personal tragedy is real, and no one should diminish Balint's family history. But personal pain doesn't override a public voting record. You can lose a grandfather in the Holocaust and still be wrong to vote against resolutions condemning antisemitism in 2023 and 2025. The two facts coexist. Balint seems to believe only one of them should be allowed into the conversation.
Bondi's sharpest line wasn't about the antisemitism votes. It was the observation that Balint never asked Merrick Garland a single question about Epstein. Not once.
That's the tell. Democrats had years with their own Attorney General at the helm of the DOJ. The Epstein files sat unreleased. The Transparency Act hadn't passed. The pressure to disclose came from the right, not the left. And when the left's AG was sitting in that same chair, Balint had nothing to ask about the most consequential sex trafficking case in modern American history.
Now, with a Republican administration that actually passed the transparency act and released the files, Balint suddenly has urgent questions. Not about the files themselves, not about the victims, not about accountability — but about whether Trump personally knew about a cabinet secretary's decade-old meetings.
The selective outrage is the story.
Bondi's hearing wasn't a quiet affair. She engaged in exchanges with several Democratic members and even Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie over her handling of the Epstein files. The Attorney General clearly came prepared to defend her record and turn the questions back on the questioners.
Balint was the one who couldn't handle the return fire. Walking out of a hearing you voluntarily attended, after asking questions you chose to ask, because the witness brought up your own voting record — that's not righteous indignation. That's retreat dressed up as outrage.
If Balint's votes against those antisemitism resolutions were principled stands, she should be able to explain them under pressure. If they're indefensible, then Bondi did the public a favor by putting them on the record.
Either way, the congresswoman who demanded answers is the one who left the room before she had to give any.
