Has Pam Bondi entered the conversation for most corrupt AG in just 6 months?

[jc456]

that is not corrupt. Do you even comprehend the definition of the word?

The JUDGE acted corruptly and the EXEC moved to protect their domain.

they are the blah, blah, blah corrupt party. It's their entire existence.

 

[jc456]

It’s what corrupt leaders do. The people who should be rewarded are those who demonstrate principles. Loyalty to the president isn’t the goal.

loyalty to the people. The people put them in charge. pssst it was called an election.

 

[eagle7-31]

Taking the first place slot from the likes of John Mitchell, Ed Meese, Mitchell Palmer, and Bill Barr is no easy task. But Pam has sprinted out of the gate. She has presided over the DoJ's weaponization, turned a blind eye to the regime's refusal to comply with court orders, put an end to the anti-corruption task force, given contradictory statements about the Epstein file, tacitly approved violations of constitutional rights possessed by illegally deported immigrants, and now this.

Pam Bondi orders grand jury probe of Obama administration review of 2016 election​

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/05/pam-bondi-orders-grand-jury-probe-of-obama-administration-review-of-2016-election.html

Especially since Watergate, it has been vital that the DoJ maintain its independence from the executive branch of government. trump has violated that independence.

For those who believe in a unitary executive, DOJ/FBI independence is a constitutional solecism. On this view, Article II vests the “executive power” in the President alone, and he alone wields it. That means that the President can do what he likes with his Executive branch subordinates—hire them, fire them, ignore them, order them to act in certain ways, and the like. The presidential authority to direct and control an administration is especially clear with respect to law enforcement and national security, the story goes, since the President himself has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and is the “Commander in Chief.”

This is a nice theory. Sometimes (though not often) I wish that it were so. But the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover, but here are a few relevant ones. The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power (including in the context of the Clinton-era independent counsel statute). The FBI Director’s ten-year term—through which Congress signaled that the Director has independence from electoral politics—raises the political stakes for a President who fires an FBI Director mid-term, as President Trump learned last year. And career civil servants below these senior political appointees (like just-retired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) have extensive legal protections against presidential firing.

Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.

Independence and Accountability at the Department of Justice

Over the weekend some conservative commentators pushed back on my tweet-claim that President Trump has “threaten[ed] DOJ/FBI over and over in gross violation of independence

www.lawfaremedia.org

Pam has become the enabler of a would be autocrat, which is just what she was chosen for. By both acquiescence and proactive measures she has shown herself to be as incompetent as she is co-opted. She's making Bill Barr's hideous "exonerated" lie look like child's play. And her term has only just begun.

That honor goes to Merrick Garland.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That honor goes to Merrick Garland.

Nowhere but in the minds of the historical tumor that is the MAGA cult.

 

[IM2]

Taking the first place slot from the likes of John Mitchell, Ed Meese, Mitchell Palmer, and Bill Barr is no easy task. But Pam has sprinted out of the gate. She has presided over the DoJ's weaponization, turned a blind eye to the regime's refusal to comply with court orders, put an end to the anti-corruption task force, given contradictory statements about the Epstein file, tacitly approved violations of constitutional rights possessed by illegally deported immigrants, and now this.

Pam Bondi orders grand jury probe of Obama administration review of 2016 election​

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/05/pam-bondi-orders-grand-jury-probe-of-obama-administration-review-of-2016-election.html

Especially since Watergate, it has been vital that the DoJ maintain its independence from the executive branch of government. trump has violated that independence.

For those who believe in a unitary executive, DOJ/FBI independence is a constitutional solecism. On this view, Article II vests the “executive power” in the President alone, and he alone wields it. That means that the President can do what he likes with his Executive branch subordinates—hire them, fire them, ignore them, order them to act in certain ways, and the like. The presidential authority to direct and control an administration is especially clear with respect to law enforcement and national security, the story goes, since the President himself has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and is the “Commander in Chief.”

This is a nice theory. Sometimes (though not often) I wish that it were so. But the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover, but here are a few relevant ones. The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power (including in the context of the Clinton-era independent counsel statute). The FBI Director’s ten-year term—through which Congress signaled that the Director has independence from electoral politics—raises the political stakes for a President who fires an FBI Director mid-term, as President Trump learned last year. And career civil servants below these senior political appointees (like just-retired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) have extensive legal protections against presidential firing.

Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.

Independence and Accountability at the Department of Justice

Over the weekend some conservative commentators pushed back on my tweet-claim that President Trump has “threaten[ed] DOJ/FBI over and over in gross violation of independence

www.lawfaremedia.org

Pam has become the enabler of a would be autocrat, which is just what she was chosen for. By both acquiescence and proactive measures she has shown herself to be as incompetent as she is co-opted. She's making Bill Barr's hideous "exonerated" lie look like child's play. And her term has only just begun.

She is on track to be the most corrupt AG in our history.

 

[IM2]

That honor goes to Merrick Garland.

Not even close.

 

[Billiejeens]

It’s part of it. There’s also illegal campaign donations and accepting about $100,000 in gifts.

But that’s okay, I guess.

I guess you guys aren’t all that into law and order.

Any and all of that was fine with you all until he went against the Biden Admin.'s open border plan.

Then - Lawfare - that's a fine principle to have, yes?

 

[Rambunctious]

C'mon man. Kash Patel is so far up trump's ass he knows whether Don had cheese on his Big Mac.

Your head is far up so many peoples ass its not funny....

 

[Nostra]

Garland is the most corrupt ever, followed closely by Holder, then Reno.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Taking the first place slot from the likes of John Mitchell, Ed Meese, Mitchell Palmer, and Bill Barr is no easy task. But Pam has sprinted out of the gate. She has presided over the DoJ's weaponization, turned a blind eye to the regime's refusal to comply with court orders, put an end to the anti-corruption task force, given contradictory statements about the Epstein file, tacitly approved violations of constitutional rights possessed by illegally deported immigrants, and now this.

Pam Bondi orders grand jury probe of Obama administration review of 2016 election​

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/05/pam-bondi-orders-grand-jury-probe-of-obama-administration-review-of-2016-election.html

Especially since Watergate, it has been vital that the DoJ maintain its independence from the executive branch of government. trump has violated that independence.

For those who believe in a unitary executive, DOJ/FBI independence is a constitutional solecism. On this view, Article II vests the “executive power” in the President alone, and he alone wields it. That means that the President can do what he likes with his Executive branch subordinates—hire them, fire them, ignore them, order them to act in certain ways, and the like. The presidential authority to direct and control an administration is especially clear with respect to law enforcement and national security, the story goes, since the President himself has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and is the “Commander in Chief.”

This is a nice theory. Sometimes (though not often) I wish that it were so. But the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover, but here are a few relevant ones. The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power (including in the context of the Clinton-era independent counsel statute). The FBI Director’s ten-year term—through which Congress signaled that the Director has independence from electoral politics—raises the political stakes for a President who fires an FBI Director mid-term, as President Trump learned last year. And career civil servants below these senior political appointees (like just-retired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) have extensive legal protections against presidential firing.

Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.

Independence and Accountability at the Department of Justice

Over the weekend some conservative commentators pushed back on my tweet-claim that President Trump has “threaten[ed] DOJ/FBI over and over in gross violation of independence

www.lawfaremedia.org

Pam has become the enabler of a would be autocrat, which is just what she was chosen for. By both acquiescence and proactive measures she has shown herself to be as incompetent as she is co-opted. She's making Bill Barr's hideous "exonerated" lie look like child's play. And her term has only just begun.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Any and all of that was fine with you all until he went against the Biden Admin.'s open border plan.

What a bizarre lie

The things you people say to try to justify your own bad behavior...

 

[Marener]

Any and all of that was fine with you all until he went against the Biden Admin.'s open border plan.

Then - Lawfare - that's a fine principle to have, yes?

What evidence do you have to suggest the prosecutors were driven by political motivations?

 

[jc456]

Not even close.

blew right through him

 

[jc456]

What evidence do you have to suggest the prosecutors were driven by political motivations?

they were demofks. it's what you do.

 

[The Duke]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GxnLGXUaQAA8BQc?format=jpg&name=large

 

[Marener]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GxnLGXUaQAA8BQc?format=jpg&name=large

Creating a world where the former president can be called to testify on a whim of Congress is a pretty big step.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Taking the first place slot from the likes of John Mitchell, Ed Meese, Mitchell Palmer, and Bill Barr is no easy task. But Pam has sprinted out of the gate. She has presided over the DoJ's weaponization, turned a blind eye to the regime's refusal to comply with court orders, put an end to the anti-corruption task force, given contradictory statements about the Epstein file, tacitly approved violations of constitutional rights possessed by illegally deported immigrants, and now this.

Pam Bondi orders grand jury probe of Obama administration review of 2016 election​

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/05/pam-bondi-orders-grand-jury-probe-of-obama-administration-review-of-2016-election.html

Especially since Watergate, it has been vital that the DoJ maintain its independence from the executive branch of government. trump has violated that independence.

For those who believe in a unitary executive, DOJ/FBI independence is a constitutional solecism. On this view, Article II vests the “executive power” in the President alone, and he alone wields it. That means that the President can do what he likes with his Executive branch subordinates—hire them, fire them, ignore them, order them to act in certain ways, and the like. The presidential authority to direct and control an administration is especially clear with respect to law enforcement and national security, the story goes, since the President himself has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and is the “Commander in Chief.”

This is a nice theory. Sometimes (though not often) I wish that it were so. But the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover, but here are a few relevant ones. The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power (including in the context of the Clinton-era independent counsel statute). The FBI Director’s ten-year term—through which Congress signaled that the Director has independence from electoral politics—raises the political stakes for a President who fires an FBI Director mid-term, as President Trump learned last year. And career civil servants below these senior political appointees (like just-retired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) have extensive legal protections against presidential firing.

Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.

Independence and Accountability at the Department of Justice

Over the weekend some conservative commentators pushed back on my tweet-claim that President Trump has “threaten[ed] DOJ/FBI over and over in gross violation of independence

www.lawfaremedia.org

Pam has become the enabler of a would be autocrat, which is just what she was chosen for. By both acquiescence and proactive measures she has shown herself to be as incompetent as she is co-opted. She's making Bill Barr's hideous "exonerated" lie look like child's play. And her term has only just begun.

I will suprise you and sau that in a way, you're right. Hard to be more corrupt than Merrick Garland or Barrack's Wingman.

Unless you are Pam Bondi and you have made up your mind to give the democrats back.What they've been dishing out all this time.

How sad It must be for your party that Pam Bondi is better at them even at what they do best, lawfare.

We know that democrats hate smart, tough, strong women, preferring the likes of kamala.

It should comfort them to know that as long as they are innocent, they have nothing to worry about.

 

[jc456]

Creating a world where the former president can be called to testify on a whim of Congress is a pretty big step.

oh but it's okay to take one to court for bullshit 99 times.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

will suprise you and sau that in a way, you're right. Hard to be more corrupt than Merrick Garland or Barrack's Wingman.

Of course, this is attention-seeking blather, and you couldn't argue that as true if your life depended on it.

 

[Delldude]

Creating a world where the former president can be called to testify on a whim of Congress is a pretty big step.

Private citizen I believe.