Trump AG Pick Accidentally Reveals a Dark, Ugly Truth About 2025 Plans
Jan 16, 2025
auto_awesome
Mimi Rocah, a former prosecutor and legal commentator, discusses Pam Bondi's confirmation hearing as Trump's pick for attorney general. Rocah highlights how Bondi avoided clear answers on Trump's threats to enemies, revealing her potential unreliability in upholding the rule of law. The conversation delves into the implications of this evasiveness for 2025 and the future of justice. They also touch on the challenges of maintaining judicial integrity in the face of political pressure, emphasizing the need for accountability and ethical standards.
Pam Bondi's evasive responses at her confirmation hearing raise doubts about her independence and commitment to the rule of law.
The dynamic of loyalty over qualifications in Bondi's candidacy signals potential threats to the integrity of the Department of Justice in 2025.
Deep dives
Pam Bondi's Confirmation Hearing and Apolitical Professionalism
Pam Bondi's confirmation hearing for Attorney General showcased her attempts to present herself as a neutral and professional candidate. However, during the hearing, she was evasive about directly addressing Donald Trump's intentions to prosecute his political opponents, which raised concerns about her independence. Analysts noted that her reluctance to state outright that she would not follow such orders reveals a troubling dynamic; aligning too closely with Trump could jeopardize her position. This indicates that her loyalty to Trump may overshadow her qualifications and suggests that her ability to act independently as Attorney General is questionable.
Evasive Responses on Investigations and Prosecutions
Throughout the hearing, Bondi was asked pointed questions regarding the prosecutions of critics of Trump, specifically whether figures like Jack Smith and Liz Cheney would be targets. Despite the direct inquiries, Bondi refused to provide clear answers, instead stating that decisions would be context-dependent and asserting that no one would be prejudged. This hesitation to commit to the integrity of the prosecutorial process leads to further scrutiny of her fitness for office, particularly amid fears of politically motivated prosecutions. Legal commentators expressed concern that her failure to firmly reject questionable standards for investigations could compromise the Department of Justice's integrity.
The Challenge of Maintaining Judicial Independence
Bondi's responses during the hearing also highlighted a significant issue surrounding her potential role in upholding the independence of the Department of Justice. Many legal experts argue that her inability to confront Trump's past calls for the prosecution of political adversaries demonstrates a potential unwillingness to resist improper orders. Critics argue that without a clear disavowal of unacceptable behaviors, such as maintaining an enemies list or acting on unfounded allegations, Bondi's nomination poses serious risks to the integrity of the DOJ. Ultimately, her confirmation would likely lead to a critical test of the Department's independence as it faces external pressures from a politically charged environment.
At her confirmation hearing Wednesday, Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, Pam Bondi, sought in some ways to project an apolitical aura. But Bondi also refused to answer direct questions about Trump’s threats to prosecute enemies, and dissembled about similar threats from Kash Patel, Trump’s pick to head the FBI. All this accidentally revealed something important. Bondi could not say straight out that she wouldn’t carry out Trump’s corrupt designs, because saying that could disqualify her in his eyes—which is itself the problem here. We talked to former prosecutor Mimi Rocah, who explains how Bondi exposed herself as an unreliable defender of the rule of law—and what that telegraphs about the coming hellscape of 2025.