• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

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

As I pointed out, it may be difficult to prove that justice protests involve intimidation, in which case, no crime is being committed, where, with trespassing, there isn't much ambiguity.

Charges for the non-violent DC folks didn't just include tresspassing.
It also involved parading ie protests.

Its also against the law to parade and protest in front of justice's homes.
 
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".
Yeah? When did Biden threaten a pollster for publishing a result he didn't like?

When did Biden threaten to pull the license of a major broadcast network, because he didn't like the coverage?

When did Biden threaten to investigate Pence, Johnson, and other top Republicans?

Did you really forget that Trump was indicted, and in one case convicted, in state courts that have no connection to the White House?

Spare us the bullshit. Trump got investigated because he's a criminal and a fraud. There is no equivalency here.
 
So then, you don't have any problem if the Trump administration does what the Biden administration did, right? There won't be any concerns from you if the next AG goes after any Dem they feel like prosecuting?

Yeah, right ...
You didn't answer the question. That says enough.
 
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.

These are lies. Did not happen.
 
Ok, agreed that the latter is against the law.

However, (a) unlawfully ENTERING the Capitol is a larger offense than standing outside a judge's home, and (b) I am guessing most that were prosecuted were prosecuted on larger charges than just the one you mentioned and the one you mentioned was just added on to larger charges.

Congress is supposed to respond to public pressure. The reason why picketing is prohibited inside the Capitol is because it's a place of business- regardless of what one actually thinks of what is going on there

Meanwhile, judges and juries are not supposed to be influenced by public pressure. They are supposed to make indifferent decisions based upon law and fact.

So-- it's worse to try to influence a judge by picketing than trying to influence Congress by picketing.
 
care to point out which description is not true? Fact is, they are all very accurate.
Its in the same dishonest manner where the Dem's MSM propagandists referred to Pete Hegseth as a Fox News host, ignoring completely his highly decorated combat tours as well as his multiple post-grad diplomas. I.e. ignoring the politically inconvenient facts which don't align with ideology, so A story, not THE story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Its in the same dishonest manner where the Dem's MSM propagandists referred to Pete Hegseth as a Fox News host, ignoring completely his highly decorated combat tours as well as his multiple post-grad diplomas. I.e. ignoring the politically inconvenient facts which don't align with ideology, so A story, not THE story.

He supports war criminals, for God's sake.
 
Trump expects the Justice Department to investigate his long-discredited claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. I wonder how busy he will keep her on the Great Rewrite.
 
Its in the same dishonest manner where the Dem's MSM propagandists referred to Pete Hegseth as a Fox News host, ignoring completely his highly decorated combat tours as well as his multiple post-grad diplomas. I.e. ignoring the politically inconvenient facts which don't align with ideology, so A story, not THE story.
You didn't answer my question....which of the statements I made about Bondi is not true? You claimed it "poo flinging" recall?
 
You didn't answer my question....which of the statements I made about Bondi is not true? You claimed it "poo flinging" recall?
Its in the same dishonest manner previously highlighted Dem's MSM propagandists. Ignoring that:

she served as Florida attorney general from 2011 to 2019, the first woman elected to the office.​
. . .​
a Juris Doctor from the Stetson University College of Law in 1990.[2][3][4] She was a member of the Delta Delta Delta sorority as an undergraduate student.[2] Bondi was admitted to the Florida Bar on June 24, 1991.[4]
Bondi was a prosecutor and spokeswoman in Hillsborough County, Florida, where she was an assistant state attorney.[5] Bondi prosecuted former Major League Baseball player Dwight Gooden in 2006 for violating the terms of his probation and for substance abuse.[6][7] In 2007, Bondi also prosecuted the defendants in Martin Anderson's death.[8]
. . .​
In the general election, she faced Democratic nominee Dan Gelber, a former prosecutor who spent 10 years in the state legislature.[10] She ultimately comfortably defeated Gelber to become the state's first female attorney general.[11][12]
Bondi was re-elected in November 2014, receiving 55% of the vote. Her Democratic challenger George Sheldon, the former acting commissioner of the Administration for Children and Families, received 42%.[13]

again, only 1/2 the story, the 1/2 which contain the perceived political negatives, the 1/2 which is politically inconvenient, most probably due that the left find it impossible to believe that there are some people who have the temerity to hold political opinions and positions other than their own.

Bondi is well qualified for the position of AG, and the left can't stand it. 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Its in the same dishonest manner previously highlighted Dem's MSM propagandists. Ignoring that:

she served as Florida attorney general from 2011 to 2019, the first woman elected to the office.​
. . .​
a Juris Doctor from the Stetson University College of Law in 1990.[2][3][4] She was a member of the Delta Delta Delta sorority as an undergraduate student.[2] Bondi was admitted to the Florida Bar on June 24, 1991.[4]
Bondi was a prosecutor and spokeswoman in Hillsborough County, Florida, where she was an assistant state attorney.[5] Bondi prosecuted former Major League Baseball player Dwight Gooden in 2006 for violating the terms of his probation and for substance abuse.[6][7] In 2007, Bondi also prosecuted the defendants in Martin Anderson's death.[8]
. . .​
In the general election, she faced Democratic nominee Dan Gelber, a former prosecutor who spent 10 years in the state legislature.[10] She ultimately comfortably defeated Gelber to become the state's first female attorney general.[11][12]
Bondi was re-elected in November 2014, receiving 55% of the vote. Her Democratic challenger George Sheldon, the former acting commissioner of the Administration for Children and Families, received 42%.[13]

again, only 1/2 the story, the 1/2 which contain the perceived political negatives, the 1/2 which is politically inconvenient, most probably due that the left find it impossible to believe that there are some people who have the temerity to hold political opinions and positions other than their own.

Bondi is well qualified for the position of AG, and the left can't stand it. 🤷‍♂️
I agree that she passed the Florida Bar and was a prosecutor and the Attorney General in Florida. By definition these accomplishments are shared by 49 other people currently and hundreds over the past 10 years in the other states.

Do you agree that in addition to that she served as Trump's personal lawyer? That she is a full on election denier? That she hooked up with Guiiani in a wild bid to overturn the election? That she is a full partner of a government lobbying firm? Was/Is a Fox News contributor?

Do you think a election denying, government lobbyist and personal lawyer to the president is in some way a great candidate for US Attorney General?

Can you answer these questions without deflecting to some other nominee?
 
Well, it’s also against the law to demonstrate in order to pressure judges and justices to rule a certain way in a legal issue.
No matter what the cause

So the protests in front of the SCOTUS houses also were unlawful.
Nope
 
I agree that she passed the Florida Bar and was a prosecutor and the Attorney General in Florida. By definition these accomplishments are shared by 49 other people currently and hundreds over the past 10 years in the other states.

Do you agree that in addition to that she served as Trump's personal lawyer?
This immaterial.

That she is a full on election denier?
This an issue when cast in the frame of reference which the Dem's MSM propagandists wrongly and falsely casts it.

It is a factual statement that there were irregularities in the 2020 election.

That she hooked up with Guiiani in a wild bid to overturn the election?
Wrong and false framing again.

That she is a full partner of a government lobbying firm? Was/Is a Fox News contributor?
These immaterial, except, perhaps, in your mind only, a mind which appears to be unable to accept that there are people who have the temerity of holding political opinions and positions which differ from your own.

As to being employed government lobbying firm:

How Obama failed to shut Washington’s revolving door​


Further:

Lobbyists with Biden ties enjoy surge in revenue, clients​


So hardly something to get al fauxraged over, or, something to implore Trump to do something about, this 'revolving door'.
The option of fauxraging when Republicans are in office is just straight up hypocrisy and double standards.

Do you think a election denying, government lobbyist and personal lawyer to the president is in some way a great candidate for US Attorney General?
Asked and answered.

Can you answer these questions without deflecting to some other nominee?
You get the answer I want to give you, and nothing more. Kinda how these forums work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
"...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?
She will be loyal to Trump’s wishes, not the COTUS.
 
"...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?
Bondi will keep her nose planted in Trump’s ass, just like she did with DeSantis, and continue to ignore the COTUS.
Like leopards, cultist morons don’t change their spots.
 
Back
Top Bottom