We aren’t at the worst-case scenario yet. But if you squint, you can see it looming out there, just over the horizon.

A decision isn't expected to be imminent, one source said, but debate within the administration has shifted recently to more deeply exploring how and when the act might be invoked.

Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California took Attorney General Pam Bondi to task Tuesday for her incessant deflections and evasions throughout a Senate judiciary hearing. Bondi had verbally attacked Democratic senators throughout the hearing rather than answer their questions. Schiff was, evidently, keeping track of questions Bondi left unanswered, and he ran through the lengthy (yet inexhaustive) list after the attorney general derailed his own inquiry about releasing a video of Tom Homan, now Trump’s border czar, accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents in 2024. “I think it’s valuable that the American people get a sense of what you’ve refused to answer today,” Schiff told Bondi. The following questions are those that Schiff noted went unanswered, or were met with personal attacks, by the attorney general: 1. Did Bondi consult with career ethics lawyers when she approved Trump’s acceptance of a $400 million jet gifted by Qatar’s royal family? 2. Who ordered that Donald Trump’s name be flagged in the FBI’s review of the Epstein files? 3. Did Homan keep his $50,000 from the undercover agents? 4. Did Homan pay taxes on the $50,000? 5. Did DOJ prosecutors determine there was “insufficient evidence” to charge former FBI Director James Comey before he was indicted? 6. How did the administration determine whether U.S. military strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean were legal? (Here, Bondi interrupted, asking the senator, who worked for the justice department before his career in politics, “Do you have a law degree, Senator Schiff?”) 7. Did Bondi discuss indicting Comey with Trump? 8. Did Bondi approve the dismissal of antitrust lawyers who opposed the Hewlett Packard–Juniper merger? 9. Does Bondi support a “compensation fund” for people prosecuted in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots? 10. Is Bondi firing career prosecutors for working on January 6 investigations? 11. Does Bondi think government officials must follow court orders? After concluding the list, Schiff made the following statement, though he was peppered with interruptions from Bondi—who brought up red herrings, such as wildfires and riots in his home state, and threw personal barbs, calling the senator a “failed lawyer.” > This is supposed to be an oversight hearing of the Justice Department, and it comes in the wake of an indictment called for by the president of one of his enemies. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing, and it comes in the wake of revelations that a top administration official took $50,000 in a bag, and this department made that investigation go away. This is supposed to be an oversight hearing, when dozens of prosecutors have been fired simply because they worked on cases investigating the former president.… This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about … the cover-up of corruption, about the prosecution of the president’s enemies. Schiff implored members of the committee to “demand answers to those questions” and to refuse “personal slander as an answer to those questions.” Bondi in turn said Schiff should apologize for “slandering” Trump.

The justice stripped the veneer of constitutional principle from the court’s latest blatant culture war.