Trump Demands That Bondi Move ‘Now’ to Prosecute Foes

[Roadvirus]

We all want to see how Pam Bondi navigate the rough waters trying to follow and interpret Trump's retribution against his perceived enemies.
You couldn't pay me enough to take her job.

She's navigating herself right into an ABA ethics board hearing.

 

[Roadvirus]

Trump had a terrible childhood

He had parents who had no balls to say "NO" to him once in a while.

 

[Roadvirus]

Or maybe you just don't understand the strategic logic behind calculated tariffs to create a more even trade playing field.

There is no logic to Trump's Tariffgeddons.

Look at Brazil. That's straight up political. Just because they are prosecuting his best bud for being a criminal.
Now we've got a 100% "movie tariff".

 

[Roadvirus]

He has enough money to keep his lavish life style intact.

Not if they get seized if he gets arrested for criminal actions he's committed since he got back in to power.

 

[jaypatriot]

Not if they get seized if he gets arrested for criminal actions he's committed since he got back in to power.

Your wishful thinking is bashing up against the reality of the president's executive powers.

 

[jaypatriot]

There is no logic to Trump's Tariffgeddons.

Look at Brazil. That's straight up political. Just because they are prosecuting his best bud for being a criminal.
Now we've got a 100% "movie tariff".

I don't know what a movie tariff is and if people want movies they can go to Netflix or Prime Video or a host of other streamers.

 

[jaypatriot]

She's navigating herself right into an ABA ethics board hearing.

Are you some sort of a Conservative Avenger going about Cabinet member you don't like? What is your super power that makes you believe Trump or Bondi are not immune to your threats?

 

[jaypatriot]

What about "No one is above the law"?

Tom Homan belongs in jail. Not in a paid government position.

And just what do you think he would be indicted for?
This oughta be good? Doing his job?

 

[Hip octogenarian]

A woman in TX wanting an abortion is free to go to New Mexico where abortions are still permitted.
You wrote: "in every state where there was a vote, allowing abortions has won."
Good. Let every state have a vote on abortion.

That is according to the Constitution. You don't like it?
Then petition your congress in that state.

That woman in Texas might be poor and live in central Texas, not at all near New Mexico. She should not have to make such a sacrifice merely to have the same rights as her sisters in New Mexico. Your cavalier attitude is truly insulting. The bottom line is that a government not allowing a woman's self-determination is barbaric and cruel. I don't like it that laws like this can vary state to state. We are all Americans; we should all have the same right of self-determination.

 

[Hip octogenarian]

Keep in mind there are federal laws and there are state laws.
When it comes to abortion, it is now a states' right issue.
But you already knew that.

Of course I know that. That's my point, that it should not be. No state should have the right to force a woman to give birth against her will. States should have no rights. People have rights.

 

[Hip octogenarian]

And just what do you think he would be indicted for?
This oughta be good? Doing his job?

He should have been indicated for taking that bag of money as a bribe. In case you forgot. "He was reportedly recorded accepting $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents posing as business executives."

 

[StillServing]

Trump Demands That Bondi Move ‘Now’ to Prosecute Foes​

President Trump demanded on Saturday that his attorney general move quickly to prosecute figures he considers his enemies, the latest blow to the Justice Department’s tradition of independence.

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Mr. Trump wrote in a social media post addressed to “Pam,” meaning Attorney General Pam Bondi. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Mr. Trump named James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director; Senator Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California; and Letitia James, the New York attorney general, saying he was reading about how they were “all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.”
============
This is exactly what Kamila Harris warned us all about but only some of us were paying attention.

Using the Justice Department to prosecute people who Trump thinks did mean things to him while closing investigations into loyalists, like Tom Homan who accepted taking $50,000 in cash from undercover F.B.I. agents, is what happens in dictatorships.

What's next, Trump foes "accidentally" falling out of windows?

Of course.

Why is anyone surprised?

During President Trump’s first administration despite Secretary Clinton’s obvious infractions of improper handling of classified documents, very questionable actions of the Clinton Foundation, deliberate falsification of the Russia-gate information, and espionage against US persons, President Trump decided to not seek prosecution of anyone. This is despite many of his supporters calling for it.

However, we saw major Democratic leaders call for convictions of President Trump. Several were elected into office on the sole promise that there were going to convict the former president without enumerating the crimes he was to have committed—just they were going to find a way to take him down.

And they nearly did. Now, they needed to construct “novel” ways to invent crimes and distort laws, but they nearly succeeded. Democratic states attempted to thwart the will of the people by trying to remove him from the ballot for things he was never found guilty of.

Then there has been the constant vilification of not only President Trump but those who voted for him as “enemies of democracy” by leaders of the same party who obstructed primary opponents to President Biden from getting on ballots, nullified state primaries, instructed federal agencies such as the FBI to prevent speech from opposing views to be voiced in various social media platforms, and then anoint the vice president to be their nominee without a single primary voter voting for her.

Leaders in the Democratic party have incited violence against members of the Supreme Court, elected Republican senators and congressional members, as well as law enforcement. They have inspired violence against other Americans on college campuses and have even excused the public assignation of someone they might disagree with.

I don’t like what is going on. None of it. I would far more like to discuss policy and ideas. But as democrats cheer the death of someone who strive to do this. As Democrats have fomented violence in substitution of discussion. As democrats have modeled the very approach of using indictments instead dialogue. Democrats have brought this on themselves.

 

[jaypatriot]

Of course I know that. That's my point, that it should not be. No state should have the right to force a woman to give birth against her will. States should have no rights. People have rights.

Too bad you don't like the idea of states' rights.
It's been part of the Constitution for over 230 years.
We are a representative government.

 

[jaypatriot]

That woman in Texas might be poor and live in central Texas, not at all near New Mexico. She should not have to make such a sacrifice merely to have the same rights as her sisters in New Mexico. Your cavalier attitude is truly insulting. The bottom line is that a government not allowing a woman's self-determination is barbaric and cruel. I don't like it that laws like this can vary state to state. We are all Americans; we should all have the same right of self-determination.

You wrote: "we should all have the same right of self-determination."
We do. Each state has the right of self-determination when it comes to legalizing abortion.
If states want the right to legalize abortion, they have that right.
It is not up to the federal government.

 

[StillServing]

States should have no rights.

Always nice to hear someone express their real feelings—you have no use for the Constitution.

 

[MTAtech]

Of course.

Why is anyone surprised?

During President Trump’s first administration despite Secretary Clinton’s obvious infractions of improper handling of classified documents, very questionable actions of the Clinton Foundation, deliberate falsification of the Russia-gate information, and espionage against US persons, President Trump decided to not seek prosecution of anyone. This is despite many of his supporters calling for it.

However, we saw major Democratic leaders call for convictions of President Trump. Several were elected into office on the sole promise that there were going to convict the former president without enumerating the crimes he was to have committed—just they were going to find a way to take him down.

And they nearly did. Now, they needed to construct “novel” ways to invent crimes and distort laws, but they nearly succeeded. Democratic states attempted to thwart the will of the people by trying to remove him from the ballot for things he was never found guilty of.

Then there has been the constant vilification of not only President Trump but those who voted for him as “enemies of democracy” by leaders of the same party who obstructed primary opponents to President Biden from getting on ballots, nullified state primaries, instructed federal agencies such as the FBI to prevent speech from opposing views to be voiced in various social media platforms, and then anoint the vice president to be their nominee without a single primary voter voting for her.

Leaders in the Democratic party have incited violence against members of the Supreme Court, elected Republican senators and congressional members, as well as law enforcement. They have inspired violence against other Americans on college campuses and have even excused the public assignation of someone they might disagree with.

I don’t like what is going on. None of it. I would far more like to discuss policy and ideas. But as democrats cheer the death of someone who strive to do this. As Democrats have fomented violence in substitution of discussion. As democrats have modeled the very approach of using indictments instead dialogue. Democrats have brought this on themselves.

Please cite when President Biden directed his DoJ to prosecute Trump. The prosecution of Trump was commenced by professional career prosecutors. This is an important difference.

Accusations of lawfare against both Donald Trump and Joe Biden differ based on the nature of the legal actions involved, their application, and the political motivations perceived by their critics.

Trump personally directed and used the power of the presidency against his opponents, as noted in reports by NPR and PBS. The allegations against Biden have focused on his family's past business dealings, though investigations did not find evidence of wrongdoing on his part, and a key witness admitted to fabricating testimony.

In other words, Trump was investigated and prosecuted for crimes that he actually committed. Nobody can deny that Trump knowingly took classified military documents after leaving office, kept them, refused to return them, lied that he returned them all when he didn't, hid them and took every means to keep them. This is a crime in which people are spending 20 years in prison after sentencing.

Contrastingly, Trump is ordering the prosecution of people that he doesn't like, and telling his DoJ to find a crime.

You brought up Hillary Clinton, Trump's AG, Jeff Sessions, looked into her and determined that there was nothing to prosecute.

 

[Roadvirus]

Are you some sort of a Conservative Avenger going about Cabinet member you don't like? What is your super power that makes you believe Trump or Bondi are not immune to your threats?

I'm just your average sane Conservative Republican who is expressing his displeasure about the current Republican President's (and the losers that make up his Cabinet) methods & lawlessness.

And i am not threatening anyone.

 

[Roadvirus]

And just what do you think he would be indicted for?
This oughta be good? Doing his job?

Bribery.

 

[jaypatriot]

Bribery.

Show me proof Homan accepted a bribe.

 

[jaypatriot]

I'm just your average sane Conservative Republican who is expressing his displeasure about the current Republican President's (and the losers that make up his Cabinet) methods & lawlessness.

And i am not threatening anyone.

Isn't free speech a great thing in this country?
Too bad it did not apply to Charlie Kirk.

 

[Hip octogenarian]

Too bad you don't like the idea of states' rights.
It's been part of the Constitution for over 230 years.
We are a representative government.

There is no mention of states' rights in the Constitution. Who told you otherwise? The Constitution protects the rights of people, not states. States are arbitrary creations of men; people are created by nature. I agree that we are a representative government, and that government should represent all Americans equally, regardless of what state they happen to live in.

 

[Hip octogenarian]

You wrote: "we should all have the same right of self-determination."
We do. Each state has the right of self-determination when it comes to legalizing abortion.
If states want the right to legalize abortion, they have that right.
It is not up to the federal government.

"We" means people, not states. No state should have the right to subjugate women and force them to give birth against their will. You think states are more important than people. I believe the opposite.

 

[Hip octogenarian]

Always nice to hear someone express their real feelings—you have no use for the Constitution.

Actually, the polar opposite is true. I respect that great document because it protects the rights of people over the rights of states. No state has the right to allow slavery,for example, or to deny women the right to vote. You have a truly screwed up idea of what the Constitution is if you put the rights of states over the rights of people.

 

[jaypatriot]

"We" means people, not states. No state should have the right to subjugate women and force them to give birth against their will. You think states are more important than people. I believe the opposite.

People live in states. Those people have representatives within their states.
If the people in the states can't get their representatives (federal and state) to vote for abortions in that state, then that is the peoples' problem and not the federal government.
Women wanting an abortion in those states will either self-medicate or go to a state where abortions are permitted.

 

[jaypatriot]

There is no mention of states' rights in the Constitution. Who told you otherwise? The Constitution protects the rights of people, not states. States are arbitrary creations of men; people are created by nature. I agree that we are a representative government, and that government should represent all Americans equally, regardless of what state they happen to live in.

That ship has already sailed by order of the Supreme Court.
Live with it.
Complain to your state reps if you want it changed.