Trump AG Pick Pam Bondi Is About to Regret What She Just Signed Up For

[j brown's body]

"...Democrats should start thinking right now about the opportunity presented by Bondi’s Senate confirmation hearings next year. This will be a major occasion to unmask just how far she’ll gladly go in corrupting the rule of law and unleashing the state on all the “vermin” he has threatened to persecute.

“The attorney general will be the weaponizer-in-chief of the legal system for Trump,” Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, told me. Bondi has been a very committed Trump loyalist through his most flagrantly lawless moments. As Politico reports, just after he lost reelection in 2020, Bondi immediately joined forces with Rudy Giuliani to sow doubts about the results, helping lay the groundwork for his insurrection attempt. Bondi also stood by him when he faced prosecution for his criminal hush money scheme and impeachment for extorting a foreign ally. All this isn’t just ancient history. It raises questions about what kind of attorney general she’d be...

For instance, how will a devoted election denier–turned–attorney general handle remaining prosecutions of people who assaulted the Capitol? Does Bondi view a pardon of all the Jan. 6 criminals as in keeping with the rule of law? ...Democrats can also press Bondi on how she’ll respond if Trump orders her to drop all remaining January 6 prosecutions. This is an opportunity for political theater: They can highlight specific cases of really heinous January 6 violence and ask Bondi if she’ll defend it when Trump pardons those good people.

Trump has threatened to prosecute enemies without cause. ...He has vowed to yank broadcasting rights to punish media companies that displease him and send the military into blue areas for indeterminate pacification missions. His advisers are reportedly exploring whether military officers involved in the Afghanistan mission can be court-martialed. Raskin says Bondi should be confronted on all of this: “Ask whether she thinks the First Amendment and due process are any impediment to what Trump has called for.”

Unlike Gaetz, Bondi seems to want to retain a tenuous connection to the purportedly respectable conservative legal movement. It won’t be easy for Bondi to answer hard questions about what she’ll do as Trump’s Minister of Retribution. And Trump will expect her to deliver on all of it...."

Will Bondi have to wrestle with her conscience and her respectability while carrying out Trump's war on his enemies, real and imagined?

 

[verrip1]

Yeah, the lib line is "Trump will be dangerous because he'll act just the way the Biden and Obama administrations did to their opponents".

But you just go on undermining any chances you'll have in the next midterms.

 

[Deuce]

Yeah, the lib line is "Trump will be dangerous because he'll act just the way the Biden and Obama administrations did to their opponents".

But you just go on undermining any chances you'll have in the next midterms.

If Trump didn't want to be so vulnerable to "lawfare" he should have committed fewer crimes.

But you just go on whining about how Trump, a white male billionaire declared above the law by the Supreme Court, is the biggest victim in human history.

 

[j brown's body]

Yeah, the lib line is "Trump will be dangerous because he'll act just the way the Biden and Obama administrations did to their opponents".

But you just go on undermining any chances you'll have in the next midterms.

For defending the First Amendment and due process?

Have we fallen that far?

 

[eohrnberger]

Yeah, the lib line is "Trump will be dangerous because he'll act just the way the Biden and Obama administrations did to their opponents".

But you just go on undermining any chances you'll have in the next midterms.

Agreed.

I was rather surprised that the OP didn't cite where he quoted the fan fiction from. I took a look, and:

Trump A.G. Pick Pam Bondi Is About to Regret What She Signed Up For

Trump’s choice to run the Justice Department may win confirmation, but Senate Democrats can lay down some serious markers during her confirmation hearings.

newrepublic.com

Which . . .

​

New Republic - Bias and Credibility

LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

. . . is no surprise at all.

Just the facts suitable for an extreme left perspective, so AKA leftist propaganda.

 

[Slavister]

.. just after he lost reelection in 2020, Bondi immediately joined forces with Rudy Giuliani to sow doubts about the results, helping lay the groundwork for his insurrection attempt
...

Given the above, below is not applicable.

Will Bondi have to wrestle with her conscience

 

[Rexedgar]

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett were asked questions as well….

 

[Athanasius68]

"...Democrats should start thinking right now about the opportunity presented by Bondi’s Senate confirmation hearings next year. This will be a major occasion to unmask just how far she’ll gladly go in corrupting the rule of law and unleashing the state on all the “vermin” he has threatened to persecute.

“The attorney general will be the weaponizer-in-chief of the legal system for Trump,” Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, told me. Bondi has been a very committed Trump loyalist through his most flagrantly lawless moments. As Politico reports, just after he lost reelection in 2020, Bondi immediately joined forces with Rudy Giuliani to sow doubts about the results, helping lay the groundwork for his insurrection attempt. Bondi also stood by him when he faced prosecution for his criminal hush money scheme and impeachment for extorting a foreign ally. All this isn’t just ancient history. It raises questions about what kind of attorney general she’d be...

For instance, how will a devoted election denier–turned–attorney general handle remaining prosecutions of people who assaulted the Capitol? Does Bondi view a pardon of all the Jan. 6 criminals as in keeping with the rule of law? ...Democrats can also press Bondi on how she’ll respond if Trump orders her to drop all remaining January 6 prosecutions. This is an opportunity for political theater: They can highlight specific cases of really heinous January 6 violence and ask Bondi if she’ll defend it when Trump pardons those good people.

Trump has threatened to prosecute enemies without cause. ...He has vowed to yank broadcasting rights to punish media companies that displease him and send the military into blue areas for indeterminate pacification missions. His advisers are reportedly exploring whether military officers involved in the Afghanistan mission can be court-martialed. Raskin says Bondi should be confronted on all of this: “Ask whether she thinks the First Amendment and due process are any impediment to what Trump has called for.”

Unlike Gaetz, Bondi seems to want to retain a tenuous connection to the purportedly respectable conservative legal movement. It won’t be easy for Bondi to answer hard questions about what she’ll do as Trump’s Minister of Retribution. And Trump will expect her to deliver on all of it...."

Will Bondi have to wrestle with her conscience and her respectability while carrying out Trump's war on his enemies, real and imagined?

Ms. Bondi will have to answer some very difficult questions, of course.
That is part of the territory.

But there are some good answers to be made: She could point out that non-violent protesters at the Capitol (and they do exist) perhaps should not have been prosecuted-- in light of the Biden Admin refusal to prosecute non-violent protesters in front of SCOTUS homes. Perhaps any remaining prosecutions of these folks can be dropped, but prosecutions of those who engaged in actual violence ought continue.
Perhaps those who did not engage in violence that day ought be pardoned, and not those who were convicted of acts of violence. . Trump seems to have hinted at such a qualification recently.

As for the rest, Bondi was correct to stand by Trump in his prosecution in New York state, his impeachment over the Ukraine imbroglio (hey, here is a question to ask on that front-- we have known for quite some time that there was an actual criminal investigation into H Biden's affairs when Trump had that "perfect phone call" with Zelensky-- a fact that was not released to Congress, and would have made that impeachment even more ridiculous: Was Bill Barr correct in not informing Congress about there being an actual legitimate reason for Trump to ask that of Zelensky?)

Not really clear what 1st amendment issues or due process issues are raised by court martialing officers involved in the Afghan mission.

 

[eohrnberger]

Ms. Bondi will have to answer some very difficult questions, of course.
That is part of the territory.

But there are some good answers to be made: She could point out that non-violent protesters at the Capitol (and they do exist) perhaps should not have been prosecuted-- in light of the Biden Admin refusal to prosecute non-violent protesters in front of SCOTUS homes. Perhaps any remaining prosecutions of these folks can be dropped, but prosecutions of those who engaged in actual violence ought continue.
Perhaps those who did not engage in violence that day ought be pardoned, and not those who were convicted of acts of violence. . Trump seems to have hinted at such a qualification recently.

I'd add to this the SCOTUS ruling which

At oral arguments, justices in the conservative majority probed whether the Justice Department had exceeded the scope of a statute that permits up to a 20-year prison sentence for people convicted of “corruptly” obstructing, influencing or impeding an official proceeding.​

​

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch brought up other potential actions to see whether they would qualify for prosecution under the statute that the Justice Department has used in hundreds of cases related to the Jan. 6 attack.​

Supreme Court questions use of statute against Jan. 6 defendants​

Supreme Court questions use of statute against Jan. 6 defendants - Roll Call

The Supreme Court aired concerns Tuesday about the 'obstruction' charge against defendants in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

rollcall.com

As for the rest, Bondi was correct to stand by Trump in his prosecution in New York state, his impeachment over the Ukraine imbroglio (hey, here is a question to ask on that front-- we have known for quite some time that there was an actual criminal investigation into H Biden's affairs when Trump had that "perfect phone call" with Zelensky-- a fact that was not released to Congress, and would have made that impeachment even more ridiculous: Was Bill Barr correct in not informing Congress about there being an actual legitimate reason for Trump to ask that of Zelensky?)

Not really clear what 1st amendment issues or due process issues are raised by court martialing officers involved in the Afghan mission.

 

[j brown's body]

Given the above, below is not applicable.

She has certainly walked up to the edge, letting trump U skate and telling lies about the 2020 election. She has been able to maintain her respectability. Trump is going to want quite a bit more.

 

[j brown's body]

Ms. Bondi will have to answer some very difficult questions, of course.
That is part of the territory.

But there are some good answers to be made: She could point out that non-violent protesters at the Capitol (and they do exist) perhaps should not have been prosecuted-- in light of the Biden Admin refusal to prosecute non-violent protesters in front of SCOTUS homes. Perhaps any remaining prosecutions of these folks can be dropped, but prosecutions of those who engaged in actual violence ought continue.
Perhaps those who did not engage in violence that day ought be pardoned, and not those who were convicted of acts of violence. . Trump seems to have hinted at such a qualification recently.

As for the rest, Bondi was correct to stand by Trump in his prosecution in New York state, his impeachment over the Ukraine imbroglio (hey, here is a question to ask on that front-- we have known for quite some time that there was an actual criminal investigation into H Biden's affairs when Trump had that "perfect phone call" with Zelensky-- a fact that was not released to Congress, and would have made that impeachment even more ridiculous: Was Bill Barr correct in not informing Congress about there being an actual legitimate reason for Trump to ask that of Zelensky?)

Not really clear what 1st amendment issues or due process issues are raised by court martialing officers involved in the Afghan mission.

Trump has spoken of a blanket pardon, so it would be good to hear from Bondi where she would draw the line. Her excusing even those nonviolent trespassers (who have received sentences commensurate with their crimes) who tried to prevent the the peaceful transfer of power can be seen as emboldening others who might try to stop the peaceful transfer of power in the future.

Trump wanted Zelinsky to announce an investigation, he didn't care if there was one, in order to release aid he had no legal authority to withhold.

I suspect the First Amendment issue involves his attack on media and due process involves his attacks on his political enemies.

 

[Kelby]

Agreed.

I was rather surprised that the OP didn't cite where he quoted the fan fiction from. I took a look, and:

Trump A.G. Pick Pam Bondi Is About to Regret What She Signed Up For

Trump’s choice to run the Justice Department may win confirmation, but Senate Democrats can lay down some serious markers during her confirmation hearings.

newrepublic.com

Which . . .

View attachment 67544507​

New Republic - Bias and Credibility

LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

. . . is no surprise at all.

Just the facts suitable for an extreme left perspective, so AKA leftist propaganda.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

 

[eohrnberger]

Factual Reporting: HIGH

As I posted: Just the facts suitable from an extreme left perspective, so AKA leftist propaganda.

 

[Kelby]

As I posted: Just the facts suitable from an extreme left perspective, so AKA leftist propaganda.

Yes, I've heard it said that facts have a liberal bias.

 

[j brown's body]

As I posted: Just the facts suitable from an extreme left perspective, so AKA leftist propaganda.

Would you like to dispute any facts from the article?

 

[verrip1]

For defending the First Amendment and due process?

Have we fallen that far?

No, for denying what you supported over three Presidential terms.

 

[verrip1]

If Trump didn't want to be so vulnerable to "lawfare" he should have committed fewer crimes.

But you just go on whining about how Trump, a white male billionaire declared above the law by the Supreme Court, is the biggest victim in human history.

Ah, the old 'whining' meme. Guess you ran out of real arguments, huh?

But I agree with you that the Dems acted like third world despots trying to send their political opponents to jail. And now you get to worry that your side will get the same treatment.

It's your team's precedent. Seems like it's now kinda distasteful when it might happen to your guys, doesn't it? Too bad you didn't put a stop to it when your guys started everybody down this path.

 

[Helix]

My guess is that we're all about to regret what Republicans signed up for.

 

[Deuce]

Ah, the old 'whining' meme. Guess you ran out of real arguments, huh?

But I agree with you that the Dems acted like third world despots trying to send their political opponents to jail. And now you get to worry that your side will get the same treatment.

It's your team's precedent. Seems like it's now kinda distasteful when it might happen to your guys, doesn't it? Too bad you didn't put a stop to it when your guys started everybody down this path.

I think it's ok to prosecute criminals even when they are political candidates, don't you? Should anyone who declares themselves a political candidate be given immunity from criminal prosecution?

 

[Athanasius68]

Trump has spoken of a blanket pardon,

He has. He has also qualified it a bit, distinguishing between those who committed acts of violence that day and those who just sort of roamed around.

so it would be good to hear from Bondi where she would draw the line.

Ok. But of course ultimately Bondi has no say in whether Trump decides to pardon.

Her excusing even those nonviolent trespassers (who have received sentences commensurate with their crimes)

who tried to prevent the the peaceful transfer of power

And the counter continues to be what of those non-violent protesters who unlawfully tried to pressure SCOTUS justices not to vote a certain way on the Dobbs decision.

can be seen as emboldening others who might try to stop the peaceful transfer of power in the future.

And not prosecuting the above law breakers can be seen as embolding those might try to influence judges in their impartial decisons based upon the law in the future.

As well as incite people to attempt assassinate such judges and jurors.

It goes both ways here. I suspect Bondi would seek to end such politicizing of the DOJ as we have seen during the present administration.

Trump wanted Zelinsky to announce an investigation, he didn't care if there was one, in order to release aid he had no legal authority to withhold.

I suspect the First Amendment issue involves his attack on media and due process involves his attacks on his political enemies.

 

[JMR]

Agreed.

I was rather surprised that the OP didn't cite where he quoted the fan fiction from. I took a look, and:

Trump A.G. Pick Pam Bondi Is About to Regret What She Signed Up For

Trump’s choice to run the Justice Department may win confirmation, but Senate Democrats can lay down some serious markers during her confirmation hearings.

newrepublic.com

Which . . .

View attachment 67544507​

New Republic - Bias and Credibility

LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

. . . is no surprise at all.

Just the facts suitable for an extreme left perspective, so AKA leftist propaganda.

High factual reporting......so they are suitable "facts"

 

[uptower]

By the midterms, Trump will have fallen out with up to half his cabinet. By 2028, most of them.

 

[Mr Person]

Yeah, the lib line is "Trump will be dangerous because he'll act just the way the Biden and Obama administrations did to their opponents".

Can you quote someone saying that?

 

[Slavister]

But there are some good answers to be made: She could point out that non-violent protesters at the Capitol (and they do exist) perhaps should not have been prosecuted

Please point to a case where non-violent protestor who did not ENTER the Capitol was prosecuted.

-- in light of the Biden Admin refusal to prosecute non-violent protesters in front of SCOTUS homes.

Please point to a case where Biden Admin refused to prosecute a non-violent protestor who ENTERED SCOTUS home.

 

[Mr Person]

<length snip>

Will Bondi have to wrestle with her conscience and her respectability while carrying out Trump's war on his enemies, real and imagined?

The ultimate threat here is this SCOTUS.

We still have a judicial system. I do appeals of convictions of indigent defendants and other related post-conviction work. I just try to make sure people got a fair trial and weren't ****ed by a lazy or overworked trial attorney. I can simultaneously be disgusted by what a person did if they did it, and also not give a flaming **** about it when I do my work. But whatever I feel, I'm fighting in an arena where a supposedly impartial judge is just calling balls and strikes, or appellate justices, etc.

Even if this Bondi person launches insane investigations, we've got a judicial bulwark that will shut it down.......


...... but only if the judicial branch plays fair and honest. grand juries, motions to dismiss, all the discovery you fight over, a human jury (unless it's a bench trial), etc.

And that applies to the rest of democracy. All the wrong people are in all the right places. Safety bred too much complacency, perhaps even on my part.

****.





(That said, I do recognize the financial damage of a sham prosecution. Perhaps I can consider that further an say something some other time. At the very least, he shouldn't be able to convict people.

One wonders: what about ordering people to be taken to some extrajudicial prison, telling the people who dragged the target there that it'll be taken over, they'll get a lawyer, etc., but then just.. doing whatever with the people in that prison?)