Pam Bondi and the U.S. Department of Justice appear to be engaged in a carefully choreographed bit of procedural maneuvering: after declining to comply with a subpoena while in office, Bondi is now set to answer questions about Jeffrey Epstein as a "private citizen" but somehow potentially represented by a current DOJ official. There is no reason for Dhillon to be discussing this at all, much less have details on what Bondi has agreed to through counsel—unless, well, Dhillon is that counsel.  You don't need to be an expert on legal ethics to understand that no one can be both a high-level government attorney and then somehow switch to being a private attorney when Bondi needs a lawyer.  Lawyers are  prohibited  from situations where the representation of a client would be "materially limited" by their responsibility to another client. In this situation, Dhillon owes a duty of loyalty to the DOJ, her employer.…