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

[Nostra]

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.

Lies

 

[Marener]

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.

No, I have the story right. The documents recovered by the FBI while executing the search warrant were marked as classified.

Trump only let his lawyers examine the storage room, when we know for a fact that prior to their search Trump had been removing boxes from that room.

The cover pages are a nonissue.

 

[Nostra]

No, I have the story right. The documents recovered by the FBI while executing the search warrant were marked as classified.

Trump only let his lawyers examine the storage room, when we know for a fact that prior to their search Trump had been removing boxes from that room.

The cover pages are a nonissue.

Lies.

 

[Marener]

Lies.

Link.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, I have the story right. The documents recovered by the FBI while executing the search warrant were marked as classified.

Trump only let his lawyers examine the storage room, when we know for a fact that prior to their search Trump had been removing boxes from that room.

The cover pages are a nonissue.

Faking evidence is a non-issue?

We only have the claim that documents were marked classified from the DOJ/FBI.

That's the beauty of a broad investigation. Bondi can get the agents under oath and ask them if the documents were marked classified as they found them.

Reckon they'll plead the 5th? I'd lay odds they will. Any takers,

 

[Marener]

Faking evidence is a non-issue?

We only have the claim that documents were marked classified from the DOJ/FBI.

That's the beauty of a broad investigation. Bondi can get the agents under oath and ask them if the documents were marked classified as they found them.

Reckon they'll plead the 5th? I'd lay odds they will. Any takers,

Is there any basis for your allegation of faked evidence or is it just total speculation?

Did Trump’s lawyers ever claim in court the evidence was fake?

 

[Nostra]

Link.

No, I have the story right. The documents recovered by the FBI while executing the search warrant were marked as classified.

Trump only let his lawyers examine the storage room, when we know for a fact that prior to their search Trump had been removing boxes from that room.

The cover pages are a nonissue.

 

[22lcidw]

Explain how “dissent” was criminalized. That sounds outlandish.

The Constitution was established to not do things like Russiagate. And there were many other things that have happened in our history. An example of "dissent" is a parent complaining at a school board meeting after his daughter was raped in a female school restroom from a male in women's clothes allowed to be in there from the approval of the Progressive Socialist Communist ultra feminist shrews elected to the board. The law enforcement in which many Republicans approve of and need to be wary, shoved his face into the ground before removing him. "Dissent". This one was obvious.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Is there any basis for your allegation of faked evidence or is it just total speculation?

Logical inferrence.

List all evidence of classified markings that i can see for myself.

Did Trump’s lawyers ever claim in court the evidence was fake?

I dont know.

 

[Marener]

Logical inferrence.

What would be logical about believing the FBI faked the primary evidence in this case? Don’t you think that’s something that would be found out pretty easily?

I dont know.

Do you remember how the documents were briefly submitted to a special master to be sorted according to privilege? I believe Trump’s lawyers were a part of that process. There was never any claim in court that the FBI faked anything.

 

[Stann]

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.

Absolutely! No question about it. She believes the Democrats are the enemy. That tells you all you need to know. An extremist with an extreme agenda.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What would be logical about believing the FBI faked the primary evidence in this case? Don’t you think that’s something that would be found out pretty easily?

Do you remember how the documents were briefly submitted to a special master to be sorted according to privilege? I believe Trump’s lawyers were a part of that process. There was never any claim in court that the FBI faked anything.

Not sure how it would found out easily if the FBI controlled the documents. Intelligence agencies are experts at faking documents.

The Special Master only got what the FBI gave them.

We know the FBI used fake evidence to get FISA warrants on the Trump campaign. Why are you so trusting?

 

[Marener]

Not sure how it would found out easily if the FBI controlled the documents. Intelligence agencies are experts at faking documents.

The Special Master only got what the FBI gave them.

We know the FBI used fake evidence to get FISA warrants on the Trump campaign. Why are you so trusting?

Evidence is presented in court and Trump’s lawyers could contest it.

They didn’t.

Everything you’re saying here is total speculation with zero substance.

Investigations are predicated on evidence. Not speculation.

 

[Nostra]

Evidence is presented in court and Trump’s lawyers could contest it.

They didn’t.

Everything you’re saying here is total speculation with zero substance.

Investigations are predicated on evidence. Not speculation.

Lies.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Evidence is presented in court and Trump’s lawyers could contest it.

They didn’t.

Everything you’re saying here is total speculation with zero substance.

Investigations are predicated on evidence. Not speculation.

You have any issue with Bondi getting the raiders under oath?

Would you be concerned if they take the fifth?

Should they be fired if they do?

 

[Marener]

You have any issue with Bondi getting the raiders under oath?

Would you be concerned if they take the fifth?

Should they be fired if they do?

Aren’t they already fired? This administration has been destroying the careers of people who are even remotely connected to these matters.

Investigations are predicated on evidence. We still don’t have any predicate for this other than your speculation.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Aren’t they already fired?

Not that i know of.

This administration has been destroying the careers of people who are even remotely connected to these matters.

Investigations are predicated oner evidence. We still don’t have any predicate for this other than your speculation.

Should Bondi put them under oath and solve the mystery?

 

[Marener]

Should Bondi put them under oath and solve the mystery?

If there’s a basis for the investigation. Still trying to figure out what that is.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If there’s a basis for the investigation. Still trying to figure out what that is.

Really? You are not aware of how irregular that whole raid was?

But maybe Bondi wont bother with it. The DOJ/FBI is getting cleaned up, is the important takeaway.

BTW, Im interested to know your thoughts about my idea for what's left of the Democraric Party to redeem itself, disavow the lawfare and negotiate to end it?

Not that many Dem elected officials were guilty of more than believing what they were told by "career public servants" so they could survive the purge.

A few are in it up to their armpits like Schiff and Dan Goldman. Theyll have to go. But wouldnt that be worth it to restore trust and keep the ehole ship from sinking?

 

[Marener]

Really? You are not aware of how irregular that whole raid was?

I’m not aware of any irregularities. Recovery of classified documents is a pretty serious business in the DoJ.

That’s not lawfare.