No. of Recommendations: 7
The irony is, that, ignoring their personal biases, she and Rubio are two of the very few in this regime that are actually qualified for their jobs.
You say that - and Bondi certainly had the appropriate background to be qualified for that job. But she hasn't performed very well in the position, even ignoring the personal biases.
She severely mishandled the Epstein files issue. She made off-the-cuff statements that were unnecessary and turned out to be quite problematic, wasn't able to manage the logistics of complying with the special law, and generally did a poor job of managing Congress and the public.
The immigration fusterclucks in Minnesota, and to a lesser extent Chicago, were also a failure of DOJ management and execution. DOJ didn't have the staff resources in place to handle the immigration cases that flooded the federal courts, nor did they back up the lawyers that were there with adequate resources to handle the cases. In particular, those attorneys weren't given access to information and to decision-makers necessary to comply with what courts were demanding. That's the AG's responsibility, ultimately.
And the staffing issues at the US Attorney level are just getting ridiculous. Granted, this is the one area I have a little sympathy for Bondi, because it's not entirely an issue of effective administration - if Trump keeps insisting on having USA's in place without getting them Senate-confirmed, there's no solution for that. But it's still a AG-level failure at DOJ.
Again, these are tough assignments - but that's the job of the AG. I don't think she's handled it well. While she might have had the work experience to support being the AG - and I think like Rubio there was no reason not to confirm her - it looks like she might not have had the skills needed to actually do that job well, at the end of the day.
