Bondi Declares “Weaponization” Over After Comey Indictment — But Questions Remain

On Friday night, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared on Hannity and made bold remarks claiming that the “weaponization” of the legal system has come to an end — in light of the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. In her view, the scales of justice are being reset, and no one is above scrutiny.

The Justice Department disclosed earlier Thursday that Comey has been charged with one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstruction of a congressional investigation. The announcement has rekindled debates about selective enforcement and institutional accountability.

A New Message: “Weaponization” Is Over

During the Fox News appearance, host Sean Hannity raised broader concerns: citing Trump-era investigations, FBI actions, and legal cases pursued against Trump allies, he said he had become “nervous for the country.” Bondi calmly interjected that listeners need not worry — because “the weaponization has ended.”

“You shouldn’t be nervous any longer because Donald Trump is in office, and the weaponization has ended,” she told Hannity. “Everything is on the table now: former FBI directors, heads of intelligence agencies, officials at every level, even billionaires funding anti-Trump causes. We will investigate them all.”

She pledged a new enforcement ethos: no distinctions in treatment. “No longer will there be a two-tier system of justice,” she said. She also invoked cooperation with key intelligence and law enforcement figures—naming FBI Director Kash Patel, Todd Blanche, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Radcliffe—saying they would work “around the clock” to hold wrongdoers accountable.

The Legal Stakes and Comey’s Indictment

Comey’s indictment centers on allegations tied to his 2020 testimony before Congress, when he reportedly told lawmakers he “did not authorize someone at the FBI to be an anonymous source.” The DOJ asserts he misstated that fact. His testimony also touched on the Steele dossier, questions about how the FBI handled politically sensitive information, and memory lapses regarding classified briefings.

During Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in 2020, Comey stated he could not recall being briefed on internal problems with the dossier and denied being aware of efforts to shield it. The legal case now contends those statements were knowingly false.

Separately, the DOJ is investigating whether senior FBI officials mishandled classified records tied to the bureau’s Russia investigation (codenamed Crossfire Hurricane). Reports emerged earlier this year that “burn bags” — containers typically reserved for the destruction of sensitive documents — were found at FBI headquarters, containing materials connected to the Russia probe. Some claims suggest those documents were hidden and only recently discovered under new leadership.

FBI Director Kash Patel has publicly stated that he uncovered thousands of files related to Russia in these bags, which he contends were improperly stored or concealed. Meanwhile, Tulsi Gabbard, serving as DNI, has declassified documents she says undercut the 2017 intelligence community findings about Russia’s influence efforts, and has accused former Obama-era officials of plotting a “coup” against Donald Trump.

Pushback, Skepticism, and Legal Reality

Bondi’s sweeping claims have ignited pushback from legal experts and critics. Many argue that indicting Comey — a former FBI Director — does not necessarily resolve deeper concerns about fairness in prosecutions or systemic abuse of power. Critics also note that prosecutorial discretion is not new; just because prosecutions may shift does not guarantee consistency or lack of bias going forward.

Moreover, some analysts caution that Bondi’s framing may be more political than legal. The notion that one indictment can end weaponization presupposes perfect impartiality across countless agencies, policies, and levels of government — a standard many believe is unattainable.

There is also historical precedent for weaponization not being a one-off. Investigations into presidents, cabinet officials, and intelligence agents have long raised questions about overreach, selective targeting, or institutional pressure. Even as new leadership changes direction, underlying structures and incentives often remain.

The Broader Implications

For proponents of Trump and conservative legal reformers, the Comey indictment stands as a symbolic correction — a turning point signaling that no figure, no matter how powerful, is immune. They view it as a signal that earlier investigations were politically motivated and unbalanced.

Yet for critics and skeptics, the real test lies ahead. Will this moment mark a genuine shift in how justice is applied — or will it be selective football, deployed when politically convenient? Will future indictments reflect equal treatment, or will new patterns of targeting emerge?

As the national conversation intensifies, one thing is clear: Bondi’s declaration — weaponization ended — is not universally accepted. It will be weighed not just by headlines, but by subsequent actions of prosecutors, oversight bodies, courts, and public officials.

In a landscape where law, politics, and power intersect, few claims are final. The Comey indictment may mark a new chapter, but whether it rewrites the book remains to be seen.