Pam Bondi’s comportment at Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was reassuring, especially her promise that, as attorney general of the United States, she would not abide an “enemies list,” nor target people because of their politics.

Well, that’s a relief. Because her new boss gives America reason to worry about such behavior.

Bondi’s responses to senators’ questions across the board were crisp and succinct. When Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) pressed her to chastise President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to run the FBI, Kash Patel, for making “inappropriate” remarks, she instead backhanded him with civility.

“What I can sit here and tell you,” she said, “is (Patel) will follow the law if I am the attorney general of the United States, and I don’t believe he would do anything otherwise.”

Bondi was everything one would expect of a career prosecutor and Florida’s former attorney general: unflappable, confident and steely with her smile. It seemed clear that most of those present respected her professional history and qualifications for the job. But lawmakers have reason to be concerned that she might not be so stalwart once Trump is in office.

As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) said, “At issue is not your competence nor your experience. At issue is your ability to say no.”

Can Bondi say no when Trump wants her to take on his perceived enemies in the media? Consider the nuisance lawsuit he filed last month in Iowa against a pollster whose predictions he didn’t like.

Trump accused Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer of “election interference” for projecting that Vice President Kamala Harris would win Iowa by three percentage points — and the Des Moines Register for printing her findings. The suit is probably going nowhere, but winning isn’t always Trump’s objective, even if he says it is. He can ruin people and companies just by jamming them up with expensive legal challenges.

His complaint says Selzer violated the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act when her erroneous survey results were printed in the capital city’s newspaper of record three days before Nov. 5. This law can’t possibly be applicable, however, given its requirement that a plaintiff identify a fraudulent or deceptive statement “in connection with the advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the solicitation of contributions for charitable purposes.”

Selzer made no fraudulent statement, nor did she solicit money. She made a rare mistake in her interpretation of polling data. Once considered the best pollster, according to FiveThirtyEight, she correctly predicted that Trump would win Iowa in 2016 and 2020, but misfired in 2024. Trump did not lose Iowa by three points; he won it by 13. Selzer left the Iowa Poll shortly thereafter, though she says this move had been planned for a year.

Had Trump lost Iowa to Harris, he might have had some reason to question the pollster’s methods or the newspaper’s decision to print her findings pre-election. But sue? In any case, he didn’t lose. So, what’s the beef? As we’ve learned through the years with Trump, winning is never enough.

Legal experts consider the case a SLAPP — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Plaintiffs don’t expect to prevail in SLAPP cases but seek to intimidate people or groups to silence them. Do Trump’s supporters really want this? If you think it’s a good idea to silence certain people — I have a few ideas — you might change your mind when it’s your side that’s being silenced.

Meanwhile, we’re about to have a president of the United States who thinks slapping people with spurious lawsuits is fair play. No doubt he has been encouraged by the $15 million that ABC News agreed to pay toward his presidential museum in a defamation settlement last month. Trump sued the news organization and anchor George Stephanopoulos for the latter’s use of the word “rape” in referring to Trump’s civil liability for sexually abusing and defaming author E. Jean Carroll.

ABC has pockets deep enough to settle such matters, but smaller companies or people like Selzer aren’t so well-positioned. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is representing Selzer pro bono. FIRE explains that SLAPP suits are “part of a worrying trend of activists and officials using consumer fraud lawsuits to target political speech they don’t like.”

For now, the First Amendment protects opinions. But the notion that people can be silenced by expensive legal intimidation — instigated by the president — is a clear and present danger to freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

One would like to think that Trump, having won fair, square and without challenge from Democrats, could assume office Monday and lead without being distracted by score-settling. Few people get a second stab at greatness, but Trump is like no other. By whatever forces of nature, providence or fate, he has been offered a choice worthy of the Holy Grail. He can strive to become a bigger man, ignore his critics and consider instead our country’s real enemies. Or he can stay an aggrieved narcissist with a chip on his shoulder, who only brags that he’s the bigger man.

Choose wisely, sir. If courage fails you, take inspiration from your future attorney general. Pam Bondi knows something about being the “biggest” person in the room. You might even smile at your critics now and then.

Kathleen Parker’s email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.