Tag: Pam Bondi

Posted on

In a Country Riven by Polarization, There is Astonishing Bipartisan Consensus That Pam Bondi is a Moron

The Guardian, Pam Bondi faces rightwing backlash for saying she’ll target ‘hate speech’ after Kirk killing: People across political spectrum, including prominent US conservatives, criticize attorney general’s comments

The Guardian writes,

US attorney general Pam Bondi’s pledge that the Trump administration will “absolutely target” people who use “hate speech” in the wake of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has prompted criticism of the idea from across the political spectrum, including from prominent conservatives.

Bondi said on a podcast hosted by Katie Miller, the wife of the rightwing White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, that there is “free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society”.

Legal experts and conservative pundits have condemned the comments because there is no “hate speech” exception in the first amendment right to speech and as such, targeting people for their charged rhetoric would be unconstitutional.

There is no unprotected category of speech in the constitution or in the case law called ‘hate speech’,” said Heidi Kitrosser, a Northwestern University law professor. “By being so vague and by talking about speech that doesn’t fit into any legal category, she is basically opening the door for taking action against anyone who engages in speech that the president or the Department of Justice or Stephen Miller doesn’t like.”

Kirk, the founder of the powerful rightwing youth activist group Turning Point and a close ally of Donald Trump, was killed on 10 September at Utah Valley University during one of his signature events in which he debated students.

The murder was part of a wave of political violence in the United States, including attempted assassinations of the US president and the assassination of Melissa Hortman, the Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, and her husband.

While some people on both sides of the aisle have spoken about the need for respectful dialogue, Trump and others in his administration have continued to largely blame the violence on the left and warned of a “vast domestic terror movement” prompting fears he plans a broad crackdown on his political opponents.

JD Vance guest-hosted Kirk’s podcast this week, during which the vice-president urged people to call the employers of people celebrating Kirk’s murder and said that the administration would “work to dismantle the institutions that promote violence and terrorism in our own country”.

When asked about Bondi’s comments on Tuesday, Trump told an ABC News reporter: “We’ll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they’ll come after ABC.”

Bondi also threatened to prosecute an Office Depot employee who reportedly refused to print flyers for a vigil for Kirk.

But people on the right who normally strongly support Trump have condemned Bondi’s comments and called for her ouster.

Conservative pundit Matt Walsh, who said after Kirk’s death: “We are up against demonic forces from the pit of Hell,” posted on Twitter/X of Bondi: “Get rid of her. Today. This is insane. Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone. We won that fight. Now Pam Bondi wants to roll it all back for no reason.”

Erick Erickson, a conservative commentator, also wrote on X: “Our Attorney General is apparently a moron. ‘There’s free speech and then there is hate speech.’ No ma’am. That is not the law.”

And Savanah Hernandez, a commentator with Turning Point, described those words from Bondi as “most destructive phrase that has ever been uttered … She needs to be removed as attorney general now.”

Commentators also pointed to Kirk’s own comments from 2024 concerning the idea of hate speech.

“Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech,” Kirk wrote. “And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”

Bondi’s talk of targeting people who use “hate speech” is not legal because the “first amendment creates very, very strong protections from punishment for speech that’s offensive or for speech with which people disagree. The bar for punishing speech based on content, and especially based on viewpoint, is extremely, extremely high,” Northwestern’s Kitrosser said.

Following the backlash, Bondi, who already faced calls to resign for how she handled files related to sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, appeared to try to walk back her comments on Tuesday.

“Freedom of speech is sacred in our country, and we will never impede upon that right,” Bondi said in a statement to Axios. “My intention was to speak about threats of violence that individuals incite against others.”

Kitrosser, however, said she remained “very concerned as to how broadly they are going to define what is an illegal threat and as to what other loopholes they may try to carve out from existing free speech case law”.

She added: “I think that we all need to remain very vigilant.”

Posted on

Pam Bondi, Emil Bove, Danielle Sassoon, and the Thursday Afternoon Massacre

Pictured above is Emil Joseph Bove the Third, formerly criminal defense lawyer for Donald Trump and currently Acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General. Would you buy a used car from this man?

But I digress.

Many—including the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board—have applauded the actions of Danielle Sassoon,Hagan Scotten, and Justice Department attorneys who walked out the door last week, rather than sign their names to a bullshit legal filing. See, for example,

WSJ Editorial Board, The Trump Trial of Danielle Sassoon, The young prosecutor behaved well in resigning, not so her bosses at the Justice Department

Eric Lach (The New Yorker), Danielle Sassoon’s American Bravery: A conservative prosecutor in New York makes the first bold move against Donald Trump’s rampaging Presidency.

Ross Douthat (N.Y. Times), Why Picking a Fight with Danielle Sassoon Has a Downside for the Trumpists

But let me give you one lawyer’s perspective. Yes, courage and cowardice, political expediency, and common sense versus stupidity are all part of this. But, ladies and germs, there are also some rules.

On the One Hand …

The President appointed, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, one Pamela Jo Bondi to be United States Attorney General. The Senate duly advised and consented to Ms. Bondi’s appointment, and she is now the head of the Justice Department. 

In that role, it is reported that she has reminded all of her subordinate lawyers that they have an ethical duty to represent their client zealously, within the bounds of the law. 

Now, at this point, kindly quibble me no quibbles about who “the client” is—Donald Trump poisonally, the “Office of the President,” or “the American people.” 

For the fact is that Attorney General Bondi has the right to set the legal policy of the Justice Department. And the subordinate attorneys have nothing that prevents them from leaving if they have—for whatever reason—a strong personal antipathy for arguing “zealously, within the bounds of the law,” in support of the positions they are directed to advance. 

A side note for context: Attorneys are encouraged to take unpopular causes, and to represent those causes “zealously, within the bounds of the law.” But there is no legal requirement to take on causes that are personally repugnant—for one thing, because if the cause is so damn repugnant, we probably would not do a bangup job advancing it. 

But, if we do take on a cause, then we have a duty to advance that cause “zealously, within the bounds of the law.”

So, score one for Attorney General Bondi. 

For Example …

The Attorney General might order a subordinate attorney to argue that United States v. Wong Kim Ark (Supreme Court, 1898), confirming birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, was wrongly decided and should be reversed. It would then be the subordinate’s duty EITHER to develop arguments to overrule the Wong case, whether or not the attorney thought those were persuasive arguments OR to seek other employment.

Litigators often advance argument which they do not personally believe. That is the core of the rule of legal ethics that requires us to represent our clients zealously, within the bounds of the law. 

On the Other Hand …

There is that part about “within the bounds of the law.”

For Example …

Although you can and should urge the judge to focus on the facts that favor your side and to place less importance on facts favorable to the other side, you cannot misrepresent the facts. For example, if you’re a Justice Department lawyer in a case where the judge has issued an injunction against shutting down the Department of Education, you cannot tell the judge that the government is obeying the order when the government is actually violating the order. 

Nor can you tell a judge that a case you cite stands for proposition X when the case does not stand for proposition X, it stands for something else. 

In the Thursday Afternoon Massacre situation, Emil Joseph Bove the Third order Danielle Sassoon and others to declare that the dismissal of the Eric Adams criminal prosecution was something other than a corrupt political deal. When in fact it was exactly that: a corrupt political deal. 

To Cut to the Chase …

If your boss tells you to do something grossly unethical or highly stupid, then it’s a good idea to walk out the door.

But if your boss tells you that you have to do an illegal act yourself, then you had really, really better skedaddle, and that right quickly. Because you are at risk not only of being sanctioned by your friendly local bar association, you are at also in danger of prosecution for criminal obstruction or justice or criminal contempt of court.