Pam Bondi Covers Up Foreign Influence Peddling and Lying to the FBI

Before you watch this superb CPAC performance by the woman paid to enforce the law in the United States, peek ahead to this spoiler.

Eric Adams’ lawyers — Alex Spiro (the lawyer the Mayor shares with Elon Musk) and Bill Burck (the lawyer the Mayor shares with Trump Organization) — sent Judge Ho a letter celebrating the kind of improper out-of-court public statements they were wailing about in December.

We are writing to alert the Court to recent out-of-court statements by Attorney General Pam Bondi and her chief of staff that constitute admissions of a party opponent under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). The Attorney General described the indictment in this case as “incredibly weak,” and said that the charges against the Mayor were so weak she doubted prosecutors could secure a guilty verdict. “That,” she said, “is the weaponization of government.” Her statements followed similar statements by her chief of staff on Wednesday, February 19, 2025. See, e.g., Chad Mizelle, @ChadMizelle47, X (Feb. 19, 2025 12:42 PM), https://x.com/chadmizelle47/status/1892268416267911251?s=46 (“The case against Mayor Adams was just one in a long history of past DOJ actions that represent grave errors of judgement.”); id. (“Dismissing the prosecution was absolutely the right call.”). The Acting Deputy Attorney General has similarly recognized that this “case turns on factual and legal theories that are, at best, extremely aggressive.” Dkt. 125-2 at 7.

When Damien Williams posted a website barely mentioning Adams, Spiro deemed it a dangerous attempt to influence a legal outcome. But when AG Bondi went to a raging conference featuring Nazi salutes to give this error-riddled screed, Spiro and Burck proclaimed it federal evidence.

And perhaps Quinn Emanuel’s prominence makes them sluggish. But they posted this more than two hours after Judge Ho issued his order appointing Paul Clement as amicus, seemingly mooting this kind of stunt lawyering.

With that in mind, I give you a woman who claims to want to take on drug cartels but seems scared to take the A train uptown:

Ted Cruz: So, so Pam, the media are going crazy about New York Mayor Eric Adams and the charges that were dismissed against him.

Pam Bondi: So glad you brought that up.

Ted Cruz: Um, tell us what the story is, what happened there, and why were the charges dismissed?

Pam Bondi: Sure. And Emil, who has done an incredible job, he worked on this case, he looked at this case.

It was an incredibly weak case filed to make deportation harder. That’s why they did it. They took one of the biggest mayors in the country off the playing field in order to protect their sanctuary city. This case, it was so incredibly weak. It was about increases in airline tickets, uh, upgrades in airline tickets in his official capacity without getting into all the details of, of the fact, I don’t even think it could survive a verdict.

Excuse me. Incredibly weak case. That is the weaponization of government. That’s lawfare. When you’re filing, that’s lawfare. When you’re filing cases like that to keep someone who criticized Joe Biden who said — they took away his security clearance — So he could not get the details, so he could not help enforce the deportation efforts in New York.

And, you know, these people are going after him. Ride a subway in New York. It’s not safe. Violent crime is at an all time high, and that’s what they’re doing? So it’s not about weaponization, it’s about ending their weaponization of the government and fighting violent crime and enabling cities like New York and mayors like Eric Adams to enforce Donald Trump’s immigration policies. [emphasis mine]

So much garbage here.

No, Teddy Cancun. The charges have not yet been dismissed — that’s not how this works.

No, Pam, violent crime is not at an all-time high–under Joe Biden violent crime went down. Murders, at least, are down in NYC. Subway crime was already down — and then it came down further after congestion pricing went into effect, something your boss is trying to reverse, something your Department will have to litigate in court and on which you have now demonstrated bias.

How the hell does the Attorney General [pretend not to] know this?

I have requested comment about Ms. Bondi’s misrepresentations from DOJ.

But it’s Bondi’s misrepresentation of the crimes charged against Adams — and the charges that Emil Bove’s intervention staved off — that facilitates corruption.

Whereas her Chief of Staff, Chad Mizelle (in misleading screed also shared by Spiro and Burck) dismissed the four counts of the indictment that pertain to straw and illegal foreign donations by claiming they were just the campaign donations of a successful politician:

But all successful politicians, no matter the party, receive campaign contributions.

Bondi simply found a different way to hide the allegations that that Mayor Adams has been on the take from Türkiye.

She claimed that, “It was about increases in airline tickets, uh, upgrades in airline tickets in his official capacity.” Whereas Mizelle claimed this was only about campaign contributions (even the foreign ones of which he treated as legal), Pam Bondi claimed it was only about airplane upgrades.

The indictment debunks the Attorney General’s claim that this was just about official travel. Just one of Adams’ Turkish trips was treated as an official trip would have been, with full transparency.

10. In 2015, ERIC ADAMS, the defendant, took two official trips to Turkey. His first trip, in August 2015, was arranged by the Turkish Consulate General in New York City (the “Tm-kish Consulate”) and paid for in part by the Turkish Consulate and in pa1t by a for-profit educational conglomerate based in Istanbul (the “Turkish University”). The second trip, in December 2015, was airnnged by the Turkish Official and a Turkish entrepreneur (the “Promoter”) whose business includes organizing events to introduce Turkish corporations and businesspeople to politicians, celebrities, and others whose influence may benefit the corporations and businesspeople, For both trips, ADAMS received free business class tickets on the Turkish Airline. Unlike ADAMS ‘s subsequent travel with the Turkish Airline, ADAMS reported his 2015 travel to Turkey on financial disclosure forms filed with the New York City Conflict of Interest Board (the “COIB”), as he was required to do annually at all times relevant to this Indictment.

As the indictment alleges, for his other trips facilitated by Türkiye, at times routed awkwardly through Istanbul so he could avail of these benefits, Adams hid the benefits.

ADAMS did not disclose the travel benefits he had obtained in annual financial disclosures he was required to file as a New York City employee. Sometimes, ADAMS agreed to pay a nominal fee to create the appearance of having paid for travel that was in fact heavily discounted. Other times, ADAMS created and instructed others to create fake paper trails, falsely suggesting that he had paid, 0r planned to pay, for travel benefits that were actually free. And ADAMS deleted messages with others involved in his misconduct, including, in one instance, assuring a co-conspirator in writing that he “always” deleted her messages.

But contrary to the Attorney General’s misrepresentation, this is not just about airplane upgrades (or luxury hotels in Türkiye).

The indictment describes how Adams repeatedly laundered Turkish donations through straw donors in the US. Both Bondi and Mizelle keep suggesting to their audience that … none of this matters, none of this — charged as foreign donations exceeding $25,000 in both 2021 and 2023 — compromises New York City governance and US security.

b. On June 14, 2018, the Turkish Official exchanged messages with the Adams Staffer, asking “how much can companies donate?” 1 The Adams Staffer explained that only individuals could donate to the 2021 Campaign.

c. On June 22, 2018, ADAMS attended a fundraiser for the 2021 Campaign. The Airline Manager, among others, organized and attended the event. Following the event, the Turkish Official messaged the Adams Staffer, asking for the “list of the participants of the June 22 meeting,” The Adams Staffer then sent the Turkish Official ”The list for 6/22/18,” which included the names of various persons who donated to the 2021 Campaign in the preceding days or who donated in the following days, raising in excess of $15,000.

d. A promotional flyer for the June 22, 2018 fundraiser listed as one of the fundraiser’s hosts a friend of the Airline Manager who owned an airport transportation business (“Businessman-2”), In a series of messages exchanged with the Adams Staffer, Businessman-2 stated that he had facilitated a straw donation through an associate, Records from the CFB show that the associate ultimately donated $3,000 in his own name and described himself as unemployed.

[snip]

20. ERIC ADAMS, the defendant, also sought to arrange for his campaigns to receive unlawful contributions from Turkish nationals, which would be routed through U.S.-based straw donors.

a. On June 22, 2018-the same day as the fundraising event just describedthe Adams Staffer and the Promoter discussed by text message a possible trip by ADAMS to Turkey. The Promoter stated, in part, “Fund Raising in Turkey is not legal, but I think I can raise money for your campaign off the record.” The Adams Staffer inquired, “How will [ADAMS] declare that money here?” The Promoter responded, “He won’t declare it … Or … We’ll make the donation through an American citizen in the U.S …. A Turk … I’ll give cash to him in Turkey … Or I’ll send it to an American … He will make a donation to you.” The Adams Staffer replied, “I think he wouldn’t get involved in such games. They might cause a big stink later on,” but “I’ll ask anyways.” The Adams Staffer then asked, “how much do you think would come from you? $?” The Promoter responded, ”Max $100K.” The Adams Staffer wrote, “100K? Do you have a chance to transfer that here? … We can’t do it while Eric is in Turkey,” to which the Promoter replied, ”Let’s think.” After this conversation, the Adams Staffer asked ADAMS whether the Adams Staffer should pursue the unlawful foreign contributions offered by the Promoter, and contrary to the Adams Staffer’s expectations, ADAMS directed that the Adams Staffer pursue the Promoter’s illegal scheme.

b. In November 2018, Businessman-1-the wealthy Turkish national who owned the Turkish University, a for-profit educational conglomerate in Turkey, and whom ADAMS met there in 2015-visited New York City. ADAMS and the Adams Staffer met with Businessman-1 at Brooklyn Borough Hall. At the close of the meeting, Businessman-1 offered to contribute funds to the 2021 Campaign. Although ADAMS knew that Businessman-1 was a Turkish national who could not lawfully contribute to U.S. elections, ADAMS directed the Adams Staffer to obtain the illegal contributions offered by Businessman-1. Following up on this directive, ADAMS wrote to the Adams Staffer that Businessman-1 “is ready to help. I don’t want his willing to help be waisted [sic].” As ADAMS directed, the Adams Staffer maintained contact with Businessman-1 through intermediaries, culminating in ADAMS accepting straw donations of Businessman-1’s money, discussed below.

[snip]

b. On July 11, 2021, the Adams Staffer asked the Promoter how much would be donated, explaining in a message that she needed to “tell [ADAMS] a net number.” When the Promoter estimated between $35,000 and $50,000, the Adams Staffer replied that the Promoter earlier “had mentioned 200K.” When the Promoter explained that the requisite number of straw donors could not be gathered, the Adams Staffer offered to help with that aspect of the scheme. The Promoter responded, ”Hnnnm then great,” and when the Adams Staffer then wrote “From what I gathered you’ll distribute the money,” the Promoter responded “Yes.” The Adams Staffer later told ADAMS that the estimated total amount of the foreign donations would be $45,000.

c. In August 2021, the Promoter, the Adams Staffer, and the president of the Turkish University’s American campus (the “University President”) exchanged messages and voice notes explicitly discussing the plan to funnel Businessman-1 ‘s contribution to the 2021 Campaign through the Turkish University’s U.S.-based employees. The Promoter assured the Adams Staffer that those employees are “[U.S.] citizens and green card holders.” The Adams Staffer told ADAMS about the plan to funnel Businessman-1 ‘s contribution through U.S.-based straw donors, and ADAMS approved the plan, knowing that Businessman-1 was a Turkish citizen.

[snip]

b. The Adams Fundraiser suggested that the true foreign donors make their contributions through straw donors considerably in advance of the event at which ADAMS would meet the true foreign donors, so that the event did not appear connected to the contributions. As the Adams Staffer explained to the Adams Fundraiser in a text message regarding the planned attendees, “Mayor knows most of them from turkey[.] The People who has business here as well.” The Adams Staffer and the Promoter agreed to execute this plan, which ADAMS approved.

c. The Adams Fundraiser, the Promoter, and the Adams Staffer scheduled an event for September 20, 2023 in a private room at a Manhattan hotel. To conceal the event’s true purpose, the Promoter provided a PowerPoint presentation billing the event as a dinner hosted by “International Sustainability Leaders” with the subject “Sustainable Destinations” and an attendance price of $5,000. The event was not publicized or listed on ADAMS’s public calendar. The Adams Fundraiser entered the event on ADAMS’s private calendar as a “Fundraiser for Eric Adams 2025,” with the host listed as the Promoter, a goal of”25k,” and the note “Total Submitted before the event: $22,800.”

d. Prior to the scheduled fundraiser, the Promoter collected payments of $5,000 or more from attendees, many of whom were foreign nationals. The Promoter then used a portion of the attendees’ payments to make straw donations to the 2025 Campaign, by sending cash from the foreign national donors to the Adams Staffer. The Adams Staffer then distributed $2,100 in cash to at least three straw donors who each made an online $2,100 contribution to the 2025 Campaign

In other words, to sustain her claims of weaponization before the braying mob, the Attorney General of the United States completely dismisses the import of public officials secretly being on the take of foreign powers.

And all that’s before the efforts to lie to the FBI and destroy evidence with which SDNY was poised to charge the Mayor, before Emil Bove intervened just in time, a planned indictment about which Bondi had personal notice.

As you know, our office is prepared to seek a superseding indictment from a new grand jury under my leadership. We have proposed a superseding indictment that would add an obstruction conspiracy count based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI, and that would add further factual allegations regarding his participation in a fraudulent straw donor scheme.

In her first big public appearance, in her public effort to substantiate her claims of weaponization, Pam Bondi lied. She lied about threats to America. She lied about foreign influence peddling. She lied to cover up lies to the FBI. She even lied — or perhaps simply confessed a white non-resident’s terror — about the New York Subway.

In her first big public appearance, Pam Bondi lied to cover up the true nature of allegations charged against a corrupt Democrat.

Share this entry
58 replies
    • William K Ellwin says:

      When you have had a ton of animal farm waste dumped on you in just a few weeks, how much more can any of us take?

      • Rayne says:

        We can take at least as much as Russians have taken. The question is how long before we lose our way, lose sight of who we truly wish to be as a people.

        That will only happen if we also lose our values and ethics.

  1. Barringer says:

    “It was an incredibly weak case filed to make deportation harder.“ AKAIK, Adams had done nothing to help deportation efforts before the indictment. What effect on doing nothing was an indictment going to have?

    I am having a hard time imagining Merrick Garland spouting similar baseless partisan crap publicly, but having an easy time imagining the outrage if he had.

    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      Not to mention the impossibility of Garland (or any AG who respects the law) delivering an institution-wrecking, lie-riddled screed at a partisan political conference — for the sole purpose of whipping up mob support for a clearly corrupt dismissal request.

      It doesn’t just boggle the mind, it blows the credibility of the Bondi DOJ out of the water and into the stratosphere. As our bloghost mentions above, the comments will likely be used against her going forward, and Ho certainly already has taken note of them, as has Paul Clement, I assume.

      I’m wondering if this might change Ho’s posture on the case?

      I also wonder, speculatively of course, if Clement, as a result of the conservative USAs that resigned, might have pitched himself to Ho after all.

      • emptywheel says:

        I’m trying to figure out how to get Bondi’s comments, at least, presented to Ho as a violation of the local rules.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          As to rationales for presenting the speech: the provable lies and obfuscation of the court documents she made and you laid out above, indicate a malign intent with respect to the disposition of the case, no? And her presentation of those lies in a public political forum indicates a strategy for getting those lies accepted by enough people to create an expectation of outrage when they are debunked in court.

          In that sense, doesn’t that constitute an assault on the integrity of the court?

          It screams to
          my ears of the need for an IC going forward.

          It’s my well known habit here to get out over my skis at times, and I know you don’t think an IC is in the cards, but does Bondi’s CPAC coverup of the gist of Adams’ charges warrant consideration of a rethink about that?

        • SteveBev says:

          Re violation of Local Rules

          Local Criminal Rule 23
          https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local_rules/rules-2018-10-29.pdf
          Local Criminal Rule 23 pp94 et seq

          “Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Free Press-Fair Trial Directives

          (a) It is the duty of the lawyer or law firm, and of non-lawyer personnel employed by a lawyer’s office or subject to a lawyer’s supervision, private investigators acting under the supervision of a criminal defense lawyer, and government agents and police officers, not to release or authorize the release of non-public information or opinion which a reasonable person would expect to be
          disseminated by means of public communication,
          •in connection with pending or imminent criminal litigation with which they are associated,•[1]
          •if there is a substantial likelihood• [2]
          that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial
          •or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice.•[3]”

          1 “pending or imminent criminal litigation” encompasses any and all proceedings within a criminal case from before the instigation of the case until the conclusion of the case.

          2 LR23.1 (d)
          (d)
          “Statements concerning the following subject matters
          presumptively involve a substantial likelihood
          that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trial
          or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice
          within the meaning of this rule:”

          LR23.1(d) (7)
          “(7) Any opinion
          as to the accused’s guilt or innocence
          or as to the merits of the case
          or the evidence in the case.”

          3 “or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice”
          Is the broad basis for findings of contempt, thus justifying either instigating criminal contempt proceedings, or the court in appropriate case dealing with the matter as civil contempt (ie coercively) in addition to or instead of criminal contempt.

          The extra judicial statement by Mizelle on 19 Feb 2025 12:42 is not only a general violation of LR 23 but also violates Ho’s order of 18 Feb 2025 :
          “The parties are further ORDERED to appear before the Court for a conference on February 19, 2025, at 2:00 pm… The parties shall be prepared to address, inter alia, the reasons for the Government’s motion, the scope and effect of Mayor Adams’s “consent[] in writing,” ECF No. 122 at 1, and the procedure for resolution of the motion.”

          As Spiro and Burke note and argue the Mizelle statement is an admission by a party opponent thus has an effect on the outcome, over and above the presumption under LR 23

          Bondi’s statements similarly breach LR 23, Ho’s Order of 18 Feb 2025, his order at the close of the hearing 19 Feb 2025 that he was reserving judgment on the matters considered at the hearing, and (depending on the timings) Ho’s order of 21 Feb 2025 specifying further proceedings and motion practice.

          Arguably, the contempts could be dealt with by Ho under a summary process pursuant to 18 USC s402 (para 3rd -exception to requiring criminal prosecution of contempt ) though LR 23, FRCP R42, and multiple authorities restrict summary contempt.
          Nevertheless, there remains, as a possibility criminal contempt recommendations, as provided for by
          Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure R42 (a) and (2)
          (a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice.
          ….
          (2)Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

        • SteveBev says:

          #2 Re violations of LR 23

          I appreciate that appointment of special prosecutor to prosecute contempt is, according to Steve Vladek “on life support post the Donziger case” (and see also https://nyulawreview.org/case-comments/donziger-v-united-states/)

          However, the point here is that Ho is engaged in determining what is in the interests of justice under Rule 48, and further he is entitled to investigate for himself the good faith and propriety of the behaviour of the DOJ in their conduct of proceedings before him, as a separate matter and as it bears upon Rule 48; and what is presumptively contemptuous is a standard against which he may assess that conduct whether or not he wants to initiate contempt proceedings.

          So eg he could say, ‘without making any definitive determination as to contempt, the conduct at issue skirts it so closely, that I doubt their good faith, and I do not accept as truthful their explanations, and insofar as the DOJ claims reliance on a presumption of regularity, the presumption is displaced.’

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          Regarding Donziger: Kavanagh joined in Gorsuch’s dissent to the denial of cert in that appeal. It’s also interesting that Brett was on Ken Starr’s IC team, and back in ’98 he wrote this paper for a Georgetown Law symposium on the subject:
          https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2018_0628_kavanaugh_1998_president_independent_counsel.pdf

          Here’s the first sentence of that paper:
          “Officials in the Executive Branch, including the President and the Attorney General, have an incentive not to find criminal wrongdoing on the part of high level executive branch officials.”

        • SteveBev says:

          #3 addition
          Re “ …..and I do not accept as truthful their explanations * …”

          * and/or that the conduct and their explanations are consistent with good faith pursuit of the true interests of justice

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          And back to that Georgetown Law piece that Kavanaugh wrote, pages 7&8:

          “*2145 3. Outside Federal Prosecutors are Necessary in Some Cases
          American legal history has clearly demonstrated the necessity of a mechanism to appoint an outside prosecutor to conduct certain sensitive investigations of executive branch officials. In light of this consistent historical practice, it would take an extraordinarily compelling justification for Congress to turn its back on history and common sense by eliminating all mechanisms for appointing a prosecutor from outside the executive branch.

          Such a case has not been made—nor has anyone really attempted to make it. And although there is no scientific answer to the question, it is rather untenable as a matter of common sense to contend that an outside prosecutor is never necessary—that an ordinary Justice Department prosecutor should always preside over a Justice Department investigation. Whatif the allegation of wrongdoing is directed against the Attorney General herself?”

          I love that that last sentence has the AG as female, though he was referencing Reno at the time. “What goes around comes around”?

        • Spencer Dawkins says:

          I came to the comments to ask if it was possible for Bondi’s statement to end up in front of Judge Ho. I knew you’d be way ahead of me, and I celebrate you for that. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

  2. Zinsky123 says:

    DOJ. Barbie is a joke. Incompetent, bombastic and shallow as a kiddie pool. Trump thinks she is cute and wants to ogle her in Cabinet meetings. If he gets her alone in a room, forced kissing and groping will ensue. He said he would on the Hollywood Access tapes. She apparently is OK with that. That is the extent of her qualifications for this position. Sad.

    • emptywheel says:

      I beg of you. Do not underestimate Bondi bc she’s blonde. This borders on grotesque. And it also badly underestimates her.

        • emptywheel says:

          Not at all. She’s far more experienced. That’s one reason I’m so furious that people are being sexist about her. Stupidly underestimating a very dangerous person bc she’s a woman.

        • David F. Snyder says:

          Totally agree with Marcie. There should be no downplaying of Bondi’s dangerousness. Merely addressing CPAC signals the politicization of DOJ yet to come.

      • Rayne says:

        That. She’s more dangerous for the visual gloss which may cause folks to forget her education and experience as a prosecutor, asst. state attorney general, and elected state attorney general.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Bondi has done a lot of learning on the job–learning on jobs that allowed her to obtain if not mastery of a field, at least sufficient grasp to exploit its (the justice system’s) weaknesses. She is competent and crafty.

        But she’s not brilliant. When your arguments boil down to lazy qualifiers like “incredible” and “incredibly,” you have nothing meaningful to say. Those are Bondi’s equivalents of Trump’s incessant “strong,” “strongly,” “very strongly,” and “very strong.” Trump has fallen back on such filler words more as he has lost general acumen. Bondi? She’s never shown me that she has that much acumen in her (presumed) prime.

        She is, still, dangerous.

        • RipNoLonger says:

          A term that may apply is “foxy”.

          You don’t have to be terribly smart in a general knowledge type of way. Just to know how to capitalize on weaknesses (or appeal to the powers). How to get into the hen-house and wreak havoc.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        Let’s also remember Trump University where Bondi was (IIRC) the only state AG that dropped the charges after she was paid a contribution to her political campaign. I really do not think anything is off the table for Bondi if Convict-1 wants it.

        To EW’s point, she’s not stupid but more calculating. I don’t see Bondi doing anything without something to benefit herself.

        OT: I see the purge has hit the DoD, and while the optics are quite bad I don’t think someone makes it to three stars by being a dunce. Caine is there to be a lackey, and what I see with all of these ‘anti-woke/DEI’ actions is a retooling of the DoD into a military more aligned with Convict-1’s vision. I would look next at how the force posture in the Western Pacific is defined. I think it will be modified to leave Taiwan hanging in order to appease Xi.

        It won’t help the already problematic recruiting goals but perhaps all of the jobs to be lost in the red states will mean a larger pool of soldiers wanting to eat.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Of course Caine will resign from all his non-military duties and take no outside income as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a post he appears unsuited by experience, temperament and conflicts of interest to perform. But I don’t suppose Senate Republicans will notice.

        • harpie says:

          Rugger, in case you’re interested, I’ve been commenting about that
          at the Fridays with Nicole Sanders post.

        • David F. Snyder says:

          Title 10 of the United States Code requires the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be a combatant commander, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the highest uniformed officer in one of the six military service branches. Not that GOP Senators will care. But hey he’s perfect for incompetently starting or green-lighting WW III.

        • gmokegmoke says:

          The removal of the JAGs for every service except the Marines seems like a red flashing warning light to me and I’d appreciate the legal minds here would comment on it sometime.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I couldn’t agree more with EW. Pam Bondi may have adopted the sweet young thing with the Breck Girl hair look, presumably to elicit the sort of superficial underestimate of her that you made as well as to persuade vain wealthy men to hire her.

      But she is no Judge Cannon. She’s a dragon lady, who could dominate any family or enterprise in Hong Kong.

      • emptywheel says:

        When I was 16 I got contacts. I went from being a bookish geek to being far prettier than I had any understanding. 3 years later, I still had no fucking clue that I was considered VERY conventionally pretty (facebooked by all the guys in college, akin two two professional models, one quite prominent).

        It’s really hard to describe what becoming beautiful (in the eyes of others) overnight is like–the change in the way people perceive you, the different KINDS of people who perceive you at all.

        It was … a lesson.

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Odd how that Hare & Burke, um, Spiro and Burck, can’t tell the difference between obvious propaganda and an accurate description of the merits of a legal case. If they hadn’t resigned or been fired already, Adams’s prosecution team would have resigned in protest against it. But, yes, let’s see if Bondi actually files something – in the case before Ho – that says the same thing. No penalties for press announcements. Severe ones for lying to a judge.

    • ShadeSeeker says:

      What about the Attorney General’s public comments on Mayor Eric Adams legal case? Is that a potential violation of professional conduct? She commented that it’s a very weak case. How serious is that?

  4. MsJennyMD says:

    Country where criminals are pardoned, MAGA AG/DOJ covering for the Agent Orange dictator and law enforcement is punished.

    “the Fascist game plan: a single party, speaking with one voice, controlling every state institution, claiming to represent all people, and labeling the entire sham a triumph of the popular will.”
    ― Madeleine K. Albright, Fascism: A Warning

  5. Bay State Librul says:

    Wait until Trump decides to use the false
    $55B DOGE savings and give everyone a refund.
    Would you accept the refund?
    In any case, every dumb voter would put him on Mount Rushmore.
    Carlin and the Onion are two friendly faces of reality.

    • neetanddave says:

      Smercomish tore up the guy that came up with the “Doge Dividend” as he called it. the guy has no clue. we’re out of money, anything given back to the gov should go to the debt. if they hand out checks, that’s just more debt.

      • xyxyxyxy says:

        Debt is the last thing they care about when they do it.
        The measly dividend check (a share of the $55 billion supposed savings) will sidetrack the uneducated from the huge tax cuts for the wealthy ($5 trillion give or take).

    • Wild Bill 99 says:

      If I get a check for $5000, my thought would be: keep $1500 for the coming tax liability and donate the rest to family relief and/or liberal lawyers fighting the fight.

  6. Half-assed_steven says:

    Among other things Bondi should be asked:
    If the Adams charges were so grotesquely misbegotten, why is DOJ not seeking dismissal with prejudice?

    The more they talk, the harder it’s gonna be to keep their story straight.

  7. Benji-am-Groot says:

    So yeah, Bondi is a dangerous, lying part of the “Vance, Bondi, and Patel Team Coup”* – yet qualified scumbag of a Lawyer – I get that. There is actual danger here that our country could face before the mid-terms. Ready to lie for the cause.

    *https://www.thebulwark .com/p/trump-now-has-his-election-denial-dream-team-patel-bondi-vance

    But since we’re talking about ‘Foreign Influence Peddling and Lying’ am I OT to ask if any of the legal minds here see any traction to or chink in the armor of The Felon Guy with respect to the phrase “Trump Krasnov” – or is that an overblown talking point?

    I can only hope that his supporters who have been devastated by these egregious EO’s and by President Leon’s wood chipper theatrics will realize how badly they miscalculated and have been blindsided by the time the newly pardoned SA shows up to give them a tune-up for doubting. So. Much. Winning.

    Maybe it is not too late, but I wonder.

    Anyone else here think that Tarrio, Rhodes et al are not going to be Deputized sooner rather than later to give them and their orcs cover to ‘keep the peace’ and maintain ‘order’?

    Thank you all.

  8. Leslie HR Mulkey says:

    I’ve been riding NYC subways since September last year. The people have been respectful, courteous, sometimes smiling when something happens nice. My 15-year-old, who loves long walks, travels alone day and night, exploring the city. He’s had nothing but great and funny stories for months. Next month we return to New Mexico so, living these days between two blue islands in America’s ongoing heilstorm.

  9. Hoping4better_times says:

    Eric Adams is in deep trouble no matter how Judge Ho (with the help of Paul Clement) rules. The trump DOJ prefers dismissal without prejudice so they could re-instate the charges again IF Adams does not help trump’s deportation efforts. IF Judge Ho eventually dismisses the indictment with prejudice, then trump’s DOJ could threaten Adams with another indictment for conspiracy to obstruct unless he co-operates with them, another quid-pro-quo. Adams has to face the NYC voters soon, in the primary and the November election. Those voters could boot him out of office. At that point, Adams has zero bargaining chips. And his fate is uncertain.

    • hippiebullsht says:

      Ukraine your neck to try to see the good in people, but too often they’re Russian 2 4get we are in this together.
      But take a Poland you will see how Syria’s lee far this Congo.
      She and Egypt US but we know their North Korea is over.

  10. earthworm says:

    OT
    today it is reported that our donald is claiming to have won, “like nobody’s ever seen,” the 2026 midterm elections — which have not taken place yet.
    my extreme anxiety is that Lizard Man has figured out a way, or is on retainer to figure out a way, to flip them technologically, “like nobody’s ever seen before.”
    the 2024 presidential pennsylvania results seem to have mooted some unresolvable questions.

    our donald proclaimed in 2024 campaign we were never going to have to vote again. as many here warned, when he makes these pronouncements, take him at his word.

    • P J Evans says:

      I don’t think President Musk or The Felon Guy really understand that elections are run by states and lower jurisdictions.

      • ShadeSeeker says:

        Don’t forget Congress tried to take it out of the States hands and if that fails the Supremes have helped out in the past

Comments are closed.