Post

Grassley kicks things off by saying Republicans recognize that Biden won the 2020 election -- something the leader of his party has never in fact been able to bring himself to admit

Durbin: "Ms Bondi, you are one of four Trump personal lawyers that he has already selected for top positions in the DOJ. You joined Mr Trump is working to overturn the 2020 election. You repeatedly described investigations and prosecutions of Mr Trump as 'witch hunts.'"

DURBIN: Are you prepared to say under oath without reservation that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election? BONDI: President Biden is the president of the United States. There was a peaceful transition of power. (That's not really a yes)

"I was an advocate for the campaign, and I was in Pennsylvania, and I saw many things there" -- Bondi suggests Trump had the 2020 election stolen from him Durbin points out that Bondi didn't really affirm that Trump lost during her word salad.

Bondi says she hasn't listened to the infamous tape of Trump trying to bully Georgia officials into stealing the 2020 election for him but suggests (falsely) he was taken out of context

Whitehouse to Bondi about Kash Patel: "I'm questioning you right now about whether you'll enforce an 'enemies list' that he announced publicly on television" "There will never be an 'enemies list' within the DOJ," Bondi replies.

Bondi under questioning by Whitehouse: "I said that on TV. I said prosecutors will be prosecuted, to finish the quote, 'if bad.' Investigators will be investigated ... let me give you a really good example of a bad lawyer with the Justice Department. A guy named Clinesmith."

Under questioning by Klobuchar, Bondi vows that "politics will not play a part" in her work if she's confirmed (bookmark this one)

258 reposts1.3K likes

Considering none of your rules and laws mean anything anymore, he probably will. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if he declared dictatorship and they just let it happen

Correct. Changing the Constitution is too hard. Trump can simple seek a reinterpretation from SCOTUS, despite the 22nd Amendment being very clear. After all, any court that can make up Presidential immunity... I mean, do women really have the right to vote? The 19th doesn't say "women".

Was definitely hoping someone would ask this question. Not that it’ll stop him (And I’m sure she’ll be long gone by then) but it’s at least worth planting that flag now, not 2 years from now when he starts talking about running again.

It is also an open question whether Trump can run as technically the vice-president to a nominee who openly says they would resign immediately

SCOTUS ruled that only Congress could enforce 14th Section 3 to prevent Trump from running in 2024 - and Congress did not. Who enforces the 22nd Amendment and what prevents Trump from running in 2028.

I’m sure he’s going to try to do that. Let’s hope there’s enough people out there who are honest enough and care about this country enough to not allow the changes to the constitution

Whilst a president cannot directly change the Constitution, he can influence public opinion and rally support for an amendment. Many Supreme Court justices already interpret the Constitution in a way that aligns with Trump’s policies, indirectly shaping its application without formal amendments.

What a waste, these liars have no reason to be truthful. They’ve positioned themselves to piddling in their cult members faces and tell them it’s nectar from God😩

Remember when Trump floated this idea during his first term: "Some countries elect their leaders for life." He was testing the waters to see how people would react. Now that he's in, he won't be leaving.

It's wild to me so many libs are like "we just have to make it through the next 4 years" like The Party hasn't made it super clear they don't care for rules and will change them to suit their fascist needs.

Thank you! have been saying this since the day after the election. Can we all recognize that at this point the constitution is just an old piece of paper that can easily be ripped up? They will make any new “rule” they need to make sure they have absolute power.

Oh, boy. That answer is loaded with possibilities. It's not the "no" that she's putting forth. It's a "no" with a qualifier right after. Keep in mind, she exhibits every trait that most of us greatly dislike in lawyers. That pause before her answer was her mind assembling the "right" take on the q.

COONS: Would you be willing to resign if ordered to do something improper? BONDI: I wouldn't work at a law firm, I wouldn't be a prosecutor, I wouldn't be AG if anyone asked me to do something improper and I felt I had to carry that out. Of course I would not do that.

I couldn’t remember if Pam Bondi was the one Rudy Giuliani farted on in court, so I Googled it, and then chuckled at what a wonderful timeline in which we live. By the way, it was not Pam. That doesn’t mean Rudy NEVER farted on Pam Bondi, just not in the instance I was recollecting.

Coons should have responded by asking about why she didn’t prosecute Trump in Florida for the Trump University fraud after receiving a $25k donation to her campaign from him. Wouldn’t that be “wrong”? Did any Democrat ever bring that up? Man this country is so f’d we are never coming back from this

COONS: Let's imagine Trump issues a directive or order to you that is outside the boundaries of ethics or law. What will you do? BONDI: I will never speak on a hypothetical, especially one saying that the president would do something illegal (Trump was sentenced on 34 counts less than a week ago)

“The president was literally convicted on 34 felony counts with another 40-something charges pending the end of his term. I think you can stretch your little bleach-blonde imagination to entertain the thought that yeah, he MIGHT do something illegal again...” For the love of God, PUSH HER!!!!

I'm so sick of people dodging questions by referring to them as "hypotheticals." They are being confirmed for a job that they have not yet performed - nearly *every* is question will be a "hypothetical" because it will be a variation of "What would you do if...?"

She again, like everyone else, is showing fealty to a man and not the constitution or citizens of this country. My bet, they have already had a discussion on this topic. These hearings won't change a thing because Dems won't do a thing if they lie here.

Right. AFTER the violent attempted coup on the 6th. I suppose she missed that too, along with missing his attempted corruption of the AG in Georgia to “find” him some votes, and his calling convicted rioters “hostages.” She can f*ck right off.

Why didn’t i think to tell the licensing board that all the questions on my professional engineering exam were hypothetical and i wasn’t going to answer them

What an absolute useless question. Who needs to be fired here? The senators or their staffers? These hearings have been pathetic, aside from the one brilliant question about asean. Imagine that! Asking a question that applies to their job, AND one you know they didn’t “prep an answer for”.

She isn’t truthful and doesn’t have to be. Truth and accountability are the enemy of the GOP, Maga at large. The President Felon elect has made truth and facts a poisoned position. I’m so worried about our young people…especially the ones who will no nothing of the norms and upholding truth.

Repulicans will say anything to get power be it the Supremes (“Roe v Wade is settled law”). Or be it Trump (“I’ll bring prices down so fast and end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours”). D’s do not seem able to hold them accountable or make them pay at the ballot box.

I just can't with these people. It's total cosplay on all sides. I have no idea why journalists and these people continue to ask the question, "Will you vow to do X in the future". (Will you say you uphold the election results, etc. etc." How is it not always yes?? So ridiculous.

Yes, but...when Se. Schiff asked Bondi whether there was a factual basis for investigating Liz Cheney, instead of giving any sort of answer, Bondi took a slap at him, making some claim about the "crime rate" in Caliofornia. She knew that Trup would be watching and that Trump HATES Schiff. Why?

Full disclosure: The video of then-Rep. Adam Schiff's closing argument takes 26 minutes, and it flays the skin off Trump and the lawyers who defended him in the first impeachment. Schiff also told the Senate that Trump never would change.

What always did really disturbs me is that these people so brazenly lie. There is no way that this woman would have been put forth by Donald Trump unless she made a commitment to do exactly what he wants her to do. That's not just her, that's anyone.

Bondi doesn’t have an honest bone in her body. Her vow means nothing. Much like Trump treated Barr like his personal attorney, he will certainly expect Pam Bondi’s absolute loyalty. In case she doesn’t know what that means, that’s playing politics.