Post New

“Trump names longtime ally Pam Bondi as his new attorney general pick hours after Matt Gaetz withdraws
Bondi, a former Florida attorney general, was part of Trump's defense during his first impeachment trial.“

https://apple.news/ToB4bzzmrSFaM2_H8SEKtaA

Pam Bondi is another baller. She’ll do a wonderful job.

Pam Bondi is another baller. She’ll do a wonderful job.

She's a solid pick. I don't agree with her politics, but she's actually qualified to be AG - decades practicing law, mostly as a prosecutor and AG, and two terms of experience running a very large state AG's office.

What got lost a bit in the sex scandal stuff surrounding Matt Gaetz was how utterly unqualified he was to actually run the AG's office. You would want that person to have at a minimum a fair amount of experience working within the judicial system, either as a practicing lawyer or judge or prosecutor or something. That wasn't Gaetz. Bondi's experience makes it pretty likely that she can capably administer the DOJ effectively. She's certainly no clown or pretender.

She should have no problems getting confirmed.

She should have no problems getting confirmed.

I thought so too.

She should have no problems getting confirmed.

I thought so too.

Clearly the way to get a competent cabinet is to reject all of his first picks, which are done for performative reasons, and go with the second choice, who is picked because they can possibly do the job.

Clearly the way to get a competent cabinet is to reject all of his first picks, which are done for performative reasons, and go with the second choice, who is picked because they can possibly do the job.

And Trump can get to claim that he tried to put in the true agents of government destruction, but was stymied by cowardly Senators.

There are two factors that concern me; competence and loyalty.

Bondi seems to be competent or are we just comparing her competence to Gaetz, an extremely low hurdle?

My biggest concern is loyalty. Of course ALL presidents value loyalty. That’s a given. But does that loyalty come before loyalty to country and Constitution or does loyalty to country and Constitution take precedence over loyalty to an individual?

Trump’s path is littered with ruined lives of those who chose the former.

You can’t fix stupid.

Even smart people can be stupid.

But does that loyalty come before loyalty to country and Constitution or does loyalty to country and Constitution take precedence over loyalty to an individual?

The fact that Bondi is a 2020 election denier alone answers that question.

Pete

My biggest concern is loyalty. Of course ALL presidents value loyalty. That’s a given. But does that loyalty come before loyalty to country and Constitution or does loyalty to country and Constitution take precedence over loyalty to an individual?

An interesting question....but what do you think "loyalty to country and Constitution" requires?

Nothing in the Constitution speaks specifically to the Department of Justice. The AG isn't mentioned in the text, and there's nothing in the document that even requires that such a department exist. It is entirely a creature of statute.

DOJ is not an independent agency. Legally, it's structured just like all the other "normal" cabinet agencies. The tradition of independents for DOJ and the AG is just that - a tradition. The President can - and very arguably should - treat the DOJ as having a measure of independence and give their AG appointment space to pursue law enforcement independently. But there's no legal requirement to do so. The Congress seriously considered making DOJ an independent agency after Watergate, but chose not to - at a time when such a move was clearly politically possible, if there was desire to do it.

It's not abundantly clear that the AG owes the "country and Constitution" any obligation other than to follow the law. If the President determines that the AG is supposed to follow the direction of the President to the same extent as any other cabinet agency head, that's within his purview. It's a political decision within the scope of the decisions the President is allowed to make. It may be an unpopular decision, and one that can cost the President support and perhaps lead to conflicts with Congress - including perhaps efforts to force the AG to act independently, either by suasion or changing the DOJ statutes. But it is a decision that lies within the President's general Executive authority.....and probably isn't up to the AG to decide for herself.

She's a solid pick. I don't agree with her politics, but she's actually qualified to be AG...

And that's how it should be. I don't really know anything about her, but if she's actually competent, I'm OK with it. Surprised the convict picked her, since he values fealty over competence. In fact, I think he wants the incompetent who don't know any better than to try to implement what he says.

It's not abundantly clear that the AG owes the "country and Constitution" any obligation other than to follow the law.

Sweet Jesus, sure, but that’s the low bar. The AG also takes the following (if I searched google correctly) oath of office:

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Im not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, but there’s a lot more than “follow the law” packed into that little paragraph.

I get the loyalty and discretion part. However, we’ve seen original textual constitutionalists create new laws out of thin air.

So please forgive me for being skeptical and taking a wait and see position.

It’s not in the Constitution, but it’s still true. You can’t fix stupid.

Im not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, but there’s a lot more than “follow the law” packed into that little paragraph

Not really. Boiled down, the oath involves an affirmation to follow and protect the Constitution and to do their duty under the law. Since the Constitution is also a law, there's really not anything more there than "follow the law."

The Constitution doesn't say anything about DOJ being independent. And the law doesn't say anything about the DOJ being independent. It's not a legally an independent agency. By tradition there has been an expectation that the DOJ would operate somewhat independent from the White House, but that's not a creation of this oath.

Every other cabinet official takes the exact same oath, and the expectation is that they will follow the policies and directives of the President. None of those other agency Secretaries are expected to exhibit "independence" from the President the way that DOJ has traditionally been expected to do so. But whatever the source of that expectation for the DOJ, it isn't from that oath.

When are we going to learn that "tradition" and "expectation" means nothing to MAGA. Biden probably should have codified some of those things into law, to prevent future abuses (or at least reduce them).

I didn't see you comment on the signing of the ERA. I though for sure you'd weigh into that one. I agree with the OP that it would be a nice way to end the Biden presidency. Apparently, it only requires one person to sign it, and it's a done deal.

I didn't see you comment on the signing of the ERA. I though for sure you'd weigh into that one.

Oh, I don't think much of the effort. The ERA by its terms says it has to be ratified within a certain time - and they missed that time frame. They've already lost in court - a federal judge in 2021 ruled that the Amendment says what it says, and it's too late. It's a gimmick effort, and one that has nothing behind it.

I do remember there was talk of a time limit. It was in the verbiage of the Amendment? I don't think a time limit is imposed by the Constitution.

Yeah, no point if it really "expired".

When are we going to learn that "tradition" and "expectation" means nothing to MAGA.

Those are "norms" so they mean nothing. Trump isn't signing ethics papers from what I've read and isn't cooperating with the Normal transition teams, and pronounced it a "hostile takeover".

Bondi seems to be competent or are we just comparing her competence to Gaetz, an extremely low hurdle?

From what I’ve been able to find, she appears to be actually competent. Probably not great, but meets the minimum qualifications for the job.

I agree that loyalty is the concern. I don’t recall seeing her in lots of the Trump circles previously, but then again, I didn’t pay much attention to that.

I guess we’ll find out over the next couple of years.

—Peter

what do you think "loyalty to country and Constitution" requires?

Pretty simple, really. It’s right in the oath of office.

Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

In some ways that could be the complete job description of the US Attorney General. There is no one else in all of government for whom that oath applies more directly - not even the President, who has multiple other items on his/her/their plate.

In practical terms, when loyalty to country and loyalty to the President come into conflict, loyalty to country must prevail.

—Peter

Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

But couldn't that be done while still investigating everyone on Trump's personal enemies list? I don't see why that would necessarily require any abdication of Constitutional principles.

The ERA by its terms says it has to be ratified within a certain time - and they missed that time frame.

On the other hand, Congress did extend the original deadline contained in the bill that sent the amendment to the states. They could pass a bill extending the deadline again, or removing it altogether. (Although that's probably not going to happen any time soon, given current political realities. But it is a thought for our grandchildren to consider should the political climate become more amenable to such things in the future.)

And we do have precedent for amendments taking a long time to be ratified by the states. The most recent amendment - #27 - was written by James Madison. Yes, that James Madison. The first Congress passed it in 1789, and it was finally ratified by a sufficient number of states in 1992. So there does not have to be a deadline for passing amendments.

--Peter

THE LOYALTY thing could cut either way.

Thus far has she done Trump's bidding and does he feel she'll continue to? YES.

However, Trump is a DISLOYAL guy and has NO loyalty around him. NONE! The current flock are leeches who praise him only for their own benefit.

My point, he picks bad friends and many of them knife him in the back.

Bondi - down the road it's quite possible she'll take care of her own (decent looking) ass and not his.

Time will tell.

I am encouraged that she was against airline mergers and HMO mergers ----that is a PLUS and frankly I'll miss Lena Khan on those kinds of issues.

But couldn't that be done while still investigating everyone on Trump's personal enemies list?

To some extent, I think so. On the other hand, continuing an invasive, public investigation while finding no evidence of any wrongdoing seems like it should be a violation of rights. I'm not enough of a law scholar to cite chapter and verse, but it feels wrong.

My guess is that if you dig down into various law enforcement investigation manuals, there is a duty to stop investigating when there is no evidence of a crime. At a minimum, it is a waste of law enforcement resources, but it can also become intrusive to those being investigated and cooperating with the investigation.


PS - Once again, I quoted the wrong oath. "Preserve, protect and defend" is unique to the President (and Veep). Most others are "support and defend". Same general idea, though, so I'll stand by my commentary even if I got the exact wording of the oath wrong.

--Peter

In some ways that could be the complete job description of the US Attorney General. There is no one else in all of government for whom that oath applies more directly - not even the President, who has multiple other items on his/her/their plate.

In practical terms, when loyalty to country and loyalty to the President come into conflict, loyalty to country must prevail.

True....but what does that mean in practice? If the President tells his AG that he wants the AG and the DOJ to follow his direction the same way as all the other cabinet Secretaries and agencies do....it's not a betrayal of the country to do so. It's not unconstitutional if the AG doesn't assert independence from the WH. Neither is it unlawful.

You can certainly come up with fanciful scenarios where the answer is obvious ("Madam AG, I want you to take these nuclear codes and sell them to the Russians for me! Mwahahaha!!"). And there's tons of scenarios where it is good policy (IMHO) for the AG to remain independent from the WH, but not (IMHO) where it would be a betrayal of the country not to be. So what are we talking about that might be inconsistent with the oath?

You can certainly come up with fanciful scenarios where the answer is obvious

I don't think we have to get too fanciful with Trump. Maybe ask the AG to tell the country there was widespread fraud in an election when there isn't. Then let that AG resign and ask the replacement acting AG to do the same thing.

That ask is inconsistent with the AG's oath. It would not be supporting and defending the Constitution to lie to the general public about election fraud in an attempt to change the result of an election. The Constitution lays out the framework for elections, but the foundation of that framework is that the elections need to be free, fair, and followed. Saying an election was not fair, when it is in fact fair, is a dereliction of your oath of office. It goes against the foundational principles of the Constitution itself.

Of course, most of the time asking the AG to do something consistent with the President's policies is going to be perfectly legal and in accordance with their respective oaths of office. And that is fine. If a President wanted to prioritize deportations over, say, enforcing tax laws, that's fine. Like every other part of government, there are limited resources to do the job, and it's not possible to do absolutely everything that falls within a cabinet department's purview. So priority decisions have to be made. (Hey, that sounds familiar, doesn't it??)

Perhaps the issue isn't being framed correctly. A mostly independent DOJ has been a norm. But I don't think that any DOJ has been completely independent of the President. They all follow the President's lead to some extent. But of all the cabinet departments, DOJ may be the one most in need of a leader with the willingness to stand up to the President and say "no" out of loyalty to the Constitution over loyalty to the President.

--Peter

The fact that Bondi is a 2020 election denier alone answers that question.

100%...
In March 2016, the Trump Foundation broke the law by giving an illegal $25,000 contribution to a political group supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Charitable foundations like the Trump Foundation are not allowed to engage in politics. Even more problematic was the fact that the contribution was given as Bondi’s office was deciding whether to take legal action related to Trumps scam University.
And just like that, poof! No more investigation. weird coincidence, eh? Pam and Donny the fry-boy have been fast friends ever since.

Are there any ethical republicans left?

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investig...

I don't think we have to get too fanciful with Trump. Maybe ask the AG to tell the country there was widespread fraud in an election when there isn't. Then let that AG resign and ask the replacement acting AG to do the same thing.

That ask is inconsistent with the AG's oath. It would not be supporting and defending the Constitution to lie to the general public about election fraud in an attempt to change the result of an election. The Constitution lays out the framework for elections, but the foundation of that framework is that the elections need to be free, fair, and followed. Saying an election was not fair, when it is in fact fair, is a dereliction of your oath of office. It goes against the foundational principles of the Constitution itself.

Or simply use innuendo to smear an opposing political figure (be it individual or organization) with statements like, "we have an ongoing investigation of which may or may not include graft, corruption, prostitution, bribery, and child molestation."

And I wouldn't put it past any "election denier" to do just that.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.