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

Marener
"Or when the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously concluded that the Russians tried to influence the election to help Trump."

The Senate Intelligence Committee is now void and null as they were denied all the exculpatory evidence recently released in the Clinton and Durham annexes.... they did not have all of the facts and their report is now invalid .

The chairman of the 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report, Rubio, said the EXACT OPPOSITE..


the new releases

7/21
Newly Declassified DOJ Watchdog Report Shows FBI Cut Corners in Clinton Email Investigation

midyear ig report

7/31

Newly Declassified Appendix to Durham Report Sheds Additional Light on Clinton Campaign Plan to Falsely Tie Trump to Russia and FBI’s Failure to Investigate
Durham annex


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tulsi Gabbard

The report and the Russia Hoax memo here
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

whistleblower



 
Marener
"The classified January 2017 ICA included the Steele report to indicating specifically in no uncertain terms that it was not used to create the conclusions.
Or when the CIA tradecraft review from 2025 indicates that the conclusion of Russia wanting to elect Trump was a moderate confidence instead of high confidence. Not a fabrication but a mild difference of opinion.
"


Trash in, trash out...
Yet you left out the juicy part CIA tradecraft review from 2025 indicates
1754537859313.webp


and may I point out the "high confidence" crap is just that... the ICA LITERALLY does not claim these judgements are fact or certainties, and their judgement could very well be wrong...
page 13
1754538301460.webp
 
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​


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.


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.
This is fantastic watching the entire Democrat Party collapse in front of us. Hillary losing an election, or the thought of Trump winning an election created a mental illness that started when Trump came down the escalator and it continues today. No one is believing you or your talking heads. The Obama Cartel is going down!
 
and may I point out the "high confidence" crap is just that... the ICA LITERALLY does not claim these judgements are fact or certainties, and their judgement could very well be wrong...
They never claimed it was impossible for them to be wrong.

You guys are creating a criminal conspiracy out of a difference of opinion which is, to put it plainly, very stupid.
 
Explain how “dissent” was criminalized. That sounds outlandish.
Democrats have always slammed any Republican president. Trump is not by any means the first "literally Hitler" in the White House.

Maybe it was because Trump was an outsider and the Democrats counted on Never Trump Republicans for cover, or maybe Obama was the first Dem president to use the strategy of stacking the justice system and the intelligence agencies with only the most extreme of Democrats and then to order them to go after the incoming republican.

Either way, the weight of both federal and state justice systems were deployed In ways that would have stopped most presidents in their tracks. Not because they believed that Trump had committed any crimes. They searched for crimes for years, and could only come up with a falsification of business records misdemeanor that they dressed up as a felony and split into multiple count for a show trial.

In short, Trump suffered criminal prosecution, not because of crimes, but because he dared to go against the Democrats and the establishment, Republicans.

One thing many Republicans kept saying is that this could happen to any one of us if we let it happen to Trump. True enough, but was that really the point? What happened to Trump was bad enough whether it ever happened to anyone else again or not.

Sadly, for your side, the Trump survived that process and learned a new strategy for going after his own opponents. I will use another old catchphrase that applies here.


Y'all made your bed. Now you must lie in it.
 
Democrats have always slammed any Republican president. Trump is not by any means the first "literally Hitler" in the White House.

Maybe it was because Trump was an outsider and the Democrats counted on Never Trump Republicans for cover, or maybe Obama was the first Dem president to use the strategy of stacking the justice system and the intelligence agencies with only the most extreme of democrats and then to order them to and go after the incoming republican.

Either way, the weight of both federal and state justice systems were deployed In ways that would have stopped most presidents in their tracks. Not because they believed that Trump had committed any crimes. They searched for crimes for years, and could only come up with a falsification of business records misdemeanor that they dressed up as a felony and split into multiple count for a show trial.

In short, Trump suffered criminal prosecution, not because of crimes. But because he dared to go against the democrats and the establishment, Republicans.

One thing many Republicans kept saying is that this could happen to any one of us if we let it happen to Trump. True enough, but was that really the point? What happened to Trump was bad enough whether it ever happened to anyone else again or not.

Sadly, for your side, the Trump survived that process and learned a new strategy for going after his own opponents. I will use another old catchphrase that applies here.


Y'all made your bed. Now you must lie in it.
Have you considered the possibility that Trump actually acted illegally and therefore his prosecution was justified?

Trump did a lot of bad things. He’s not a good person.
 
Have you considered the possibility that Trump actually acted illegally and therefore his prosecution was justified?
I sure did consider that possibility, thinking 'smoke, fire, right?' I waited for the "more than circumstantial" evidence to come out for these crimes, as promised by Adam Schiff based on his insider knowledge from inrell briefings.

Nope.

The smoke was all there was, generated as if by the 221st Chemical Company.
 
15th post
I sure did consider that possibility, thinking 'smoke, fire, right?' I waited for the "more than circumstantial" evidence to come out for these crimes, as promised by Adam Schiff based on his insider knowledge from inrell briefings.

Nope.

The smoke was all there was, generated as if by the 221st Chemical Company.
I think the FBI finding dozens and dozens of classified documents when they searched Mar a Lago to be more than just “smoke”.

That doesn’t seem very circumstantial.
 
I think the FBI finding dozens and dozens of classified documents when they searched Mar a Lago to be more than just “smoke”.

That doesn’t seem very circumstantial.
"Find them?" Seriously?

They knew they were there, as Trump made no secret if it. Every president since G. Washington kept documents after keaving office.

Whats the crime?
 
"Find them?" Seriously?

They knew they were there, as Trump made no secret if it. Every president since G. Washington kept documents after keaving office.

Whats the crime?
But Trump did make a secret of it. He handed over a few documents to the FBI and gave them a statement saying they searched everywhere and they had no more documents at all.

That was obviously untrue as the FBI discovered.

Trump was legally required to turn over every document with classified markings and did not do so.

Did you not know this? Or did you forget? I’m genuinely curious.
 
But Trump did make a secret of it. He handed over a few documents to the FBI and gave them a statement saying they searched everywhere and they had no more documents at all.

That was obviously untrue as the FBI discovered.

Trump was legally required to turn over every document with classified markings and did not do so.

Did you not know this? Or did you forget? I’m genuinely curious.
You have the story not quite right.

Trump's attorney told the FBI that all documents marked as classified had been turned in, not that Mar-a-Lago had no documents at all.

The FBI raiders brought in their own classified covers for photo ops.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom