AG Pam Bondi Absolutely Cooked Senate Dems...and Even Lib Reporters Couldn't Deny It

[MisterBeale]

I remember questioning by Democrats against former attorney generals.

I don't remember any DNC AG get something as fundamental and simple as free speech wrong.

"Why Everything Pam Bondi Said About 'Hate Speech' Is Wrong"​

"Why Everything Pam Bondi Said About 'Hate Speech' Is Wrong"

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Aaron Terr & Angel Eduardo) have a good rundown. An excerpt: While discussing...

reason.com

 

[Blisterfinger]

Good gawd, get a life

Doesn't look like your debating skills are improving much.

 

[Dante]

Doesn't look like your debating skills are improving much.

3 Key Takeaways From the Bondi Hearing all she did was troll Democratic Senators with prepared insults Trump-style​

The session before a Senate panel featured more fireworks than facts as Democrats and the attorney general repeatedly clashed.

In September 2024, Mr. Homan accepted a Cava bag with $50,000 cash in it, as part of an undercover F.B.I. investigation in which agents posed as businessmen seeking federal contracts, according to people familiar with the matter, who said there was an audio recording of the interaction.

Ms. Bondi refused to say at the hearing whether Mr. Homan kept the $50,000.

 

[Unkotare]

Not an answer, MAGA Nazi.

 

[rightwinger]

This AG is an embarrassment and a liability to both the GOP and MAGA folks.

I have absolutely no love for DNC or RINO senators, but this display of incompetence is an embarrassment to the American public and a liability to the administration.

Glenn Reacts to Pam Bondi's PATHETIC Senate Hearing​

1 hour ago

Pam Bondi Battles With Democrats, Takes Arctic Frost Questions From Republicans In Senate Hearing​

22 hours ago

She makes no attempt to appear to be an impartial AG

That is why she was selected

 

[JimH52]

She makes no attempt to appear to be an impartial AG

That is why she was selected

The same with trump. He doesn't even try to conceal his crimes. He admits them in public.

 

[MisterBeale]

She makes no attempt to appear to be an impartial AG

That is why she was selected

I honestly don't care if she is impartial. We haven't had an impartial AG since before Clinton.
Anyone that claims otherwise, for either political party, isn't being honest.



I just want one the knows the law and doesn't actually think that the AG has "attorney client privilege," with the president.

She is just is just plain dumb.

 

[postman]

Well.....congress is a courtroom as much as any court of law.
The members in congress are assumed to be under oath.
The quests or officials they're questioning are often under oath.
Just about every member of congress has a law degree, except AOC.
The point should be that if you're conducting a hearing you're bound by oath to uphold the law and not conduct yourself like a jackass.
Democraps have forgotten that long ago.

Re: The members in congress are assumed to be under oath.

That's absolutely false. None of the members are ever sworn to tell the truth.

 

[rightwinger]

I honestly don't care if she is impartial. We haven't had an impartial AG since before Clinton.
Anyone that claims otherwise, for either political party, isn't being honest.



I just want one the knows the law and doesn't actually think that the AG has "attorney client privilege," with the president.

She is just is just plain dumb.

Sorry Skippy, but not even close to the rampant catering of the Trump Justice Dept to the Presidents whims

Every previous AG has maintained a separation between the White House

 

[postman]

The same with trump. He doesn't even try to conceal his crimes. He admits them in public.

Trump took a page out of the movie "Basic Instinct"

Catherine: I'd have to be pretty stupid to write a book about killing and then kill him the way I described in my book. I'd be announcing myself as the killer. I'm not stupid.

Nick: Writing a book about it gives you an alibi for not killing him.

Catherine: Yes it does, doesn't it?

 

[JusticeHammer]

On the issue of transparency, the blonde sock puppet answered a question about Dotard's since deleted social media post demanding that she prosecute people on his enemies list by saying he's the most transparent prez in history.

It was, among many, a shining example of gaslighting. Where's the transparency on the Homan tape, the Epstein file, the proof for assassinating people in international waters, the legal justification for sending troops to US cities?

 

[MisterBeale]

Sorry Skippy, but not even close to the rampant catering of the Trump Justice Dept to the Presidents whims

Every previous AG has maintained a separation between the White House

 

[JusticeHammer]

She was very good at avoiding direct questions and insulting people. That's what she was there to do, that's what she did.

Imagine the freedom of having no accountability to worry about.

Demoncrats operate on no accountability, but cry when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[postman]

I honestly don't care if she is impartial. We haven't had an impartial AG since before Clinton.
Anyone that claims otherwise, for either political party, isn't being honest.



I just want one the knows the law and doesn't actually think that the AG has "attorney client privilege," with the president.

She is just is just plain dumb.

Re: I just want one the knows the law and doesn't actually think that the AG has "attorney client privilege," with the president.

Actually the Attorney General, like all the presidents cabinet, has "executive privilege" covering conversations with the president.

Of course the attorney-client privilege and crime-fraud exception might apply, but it's completely untested.

 

[postman]

Sorry Skippy, but not even close to the rampant catering of the Trump Justice Dept to the Presidents whims

Every previous AG has maintained a separation between the White House

Republicans were up in arms when former president Bill Clinton talked to the AG when they just happened to meet at the airport.

 

[MisterBeale]

Re: I just want one the knows the law and doesn't actually think that the AG has "attorney client privilege," with the president.

Actually the Attorney General, like all the presidents cabinet, has "executive privilege" covering conversations with the president.

Of course the attorney-client privilege and crime-fraud exception might apply, but it's completely untested.

I don't need some foreigner replying to me just to display his complete ignorance of American government.

Executive Privilege vs. Congressional Oversight: The Constitutional Tug-of-War

At the heart of American governance lies a dynamic tension between two powerful forces: executive privilege and congressional oversight.ContentsWhy It MattersExecutive Privilege: The President’s ShieldCongressional Oversight: The Legislature’s WatchdogNotable Clashes Throughout HistoryHow...

govfacts.org

 

[TimFitz]

Was this the list that Adam Schiff made?

Those Dems and "not Dems" deliberately asked questions that Bondi's ethical responsibility would not allow her to answer.

Bondi was no limited by any "ethical responsibility". All she was doing was playing to the Fox cameras.

 

[Delldude]

Bondi was no limited by any "ethical responsibility". All she was doing was playing to the Fox cameras.

Just like the dems taught her?

 

[postman]

I don't need some foreigner replying to me just to display his complete ignorance of American government.

View attachment 1171092

Executive Privilege vs. Congressional Oversight: The Constitutional Tug-of-War

At the heart of American governance lies a dynamic tension between two powerful forces: executive privilege and congressional oversight.ContentsWhy It MattersExecutive Privilege: The President’s ShieldCongressional Oversight: The Legislature’s WatchdogNotable Clashes Throughout HistoryHow...

govfacts.org

Executive privilege involves advice given to the president not being subject to congressional or legal review.

 

[mudwhistle]

Re: The members in congress are assumed to be under oath.

That's absolutely false. None of the members are ever sworn to tell the truth.

Nope. They're assumed to be following the law.

You never put a defense attorney under oath or a prosecutor under oath during a trial.

The assumption is that they are following the law.

Same goes with members of congressional committees.