In her confirmation hearings, Pam Bondi, Trump's nominee for Attorney General, would not promise not to prosecute Jack Smith, Merrick Garland or Liz Cheney, as Trump has threatened.
Pam Bondi won't promise not to weaponize the DOJ
- Thread starter Politruk
- Start date
HumpDayHoratio
Slightly Aged
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Posts
- 7,132
Good! What she did say she would do is bring back faith in the justice system. If Jack, Merrick or Lizzy haven’t done anything wrong…they’ve nothing to worry about. Ol’ Pudd’n Head has floated pardons for them heading out the door…that doesn’t sound like they’re innocent…now does it?
It’s duly noted after four years of lawfare and the total weaponization of the justice system, you Radicalized democrats are all of sudden worried about what might be coming. Possibly getting just what you’ve done to the opposition.
It’s duly noted after four years of lawfare and the total weaponization of the justice system, you Radicalized democrats are all of sudden worried about what might be coming. Possibly getting just what you’ve done to the opposition.
You are an idiot.
kevinj3636
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2024
- Posts
- 198
I’ve always found that people get personal or name call when they do not have an intelligent response
Anyone is an idiot who thinks Trump has been a victim of "lawfare."
kevinj3636
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2024
- Posts
- 198
Thank you for revealing your intelligence level
jomar
chillin
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Posts
- 27,527
But she did say she accepts that Biden is president even though she saw “many things” going in Pennsylvania at the time of the 2020 election, so that’s good right?
And she’ll have no hit list at the DOJ. Is that different from a revenge list?
And she’ll have no hit list at the DOJ. Is that different from a revenge list?
Last edited:
Rebel5soul
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2024
- Posts
- 4,756
He displays it incessantly in thread after thread all day long.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 66,985
Democrats are worried the new DOJ won't address their illegal lawfare against Trump. They are worried that Bondi will go after federal employees who broke the law in their quest to destroy Donald Trump.
Anyone is an idiot who thinks Trump has been a victim of "lawfare."
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 66,985
Yes there is.
Rebel5soul
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2024
- Posts
- 4,756
More than that they are more or less trying to extort a commitment from her NOT to prosecute a priori in return for their approval, which she'll never get anyway.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 66,985
That too. Senate Democrats are despicable people.
HumpDayHoratio
Slightly Aged
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Posts
- 7,132
The Senate was supposed to be the more distinguished of the two chambers. Having the more sober members and adhering strictly to senate rules. If this is what passes for genteel, democrats have sadly lost their way.
This is made for TeeVee. Grandstanding ex-lawyers attempting to coerce a “sound bite” moment. It’s despicable honestly and doesn’t move our republic forward one inch by undermining the hearing process.
If I ran this mans army…I’d have these behind closed doors, no cameras allowed and that would take the piss outta these lizards like Adam Shitt….
BTW, Bondi kicked their collective assess yesterday. At least from the soundbites I saw.
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
HOPE NOT!!
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 66,985
Why should she if they broke federal law in their conspiracy to destroy Donald Trump?
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,656
Heh, she walked right into that trap at her coronation hearing yesterday. She was asked by a Democratic senator (Durbin, I believe) if she maintained an "enemies list" of people she wanted to single out for "special treatment". Of course not, she bristled. That would be WRONG!
She was then asked a followup question as to whether she would tolerate someone reporting directly to her having an "enemies list"....and it was priceless watching her blink and then her eyes widened in terror as she realized she was being asked to disavow Kashyap Pramod Vinod "Kash" Patel, the political hack that the elderly felon had nominated to head the FBI.
Patel has repeatedly mentioned his "enemies list" and has indicated he will use the full force of the federal government to exact vengeance on the elderly felon's many political opponents.
A stream of word salad gibberish ensued from Bondi. Damned near Bobo-class incoherent dissembling.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 66,985
All people who broke the law. He would be remiss in not investigating their unlawful behavior. OH, and that question didn't shake Bondi she knew it would be asked. She will be confirmed as well.
Jack Smith's report has been released. It is now undeniable, and even RWs should agree, that Trump should be behind bars, not about to start his second term.
What law?
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 66,985
I said "federal law" dumb ass. If they broke the law they should be investigated and prosecuted if necessary. That's her duty.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 66,985
Jack Smith’s Report Proves The Media Were Always Lying About J6 ‘Insurrection’
Smith dismantled the argument that Trump was involved in an ‘insurrection’ after helping launder the lie through the media.
By: Breccan F. Thies
January 15, 2025
Several pages of the 174-page long report, released Tuesday, deal directly with 18 U.S.C. § 2383, or, the Insurrection Act, and how nothing on Jan. 6 could have been construed to be an insurrection.
The thrust of Smith’s argument that Trump could not have been successfully prosecuted for insurrection under the act is the actual definition of insurrection, and the fact that his office would have had to provided evidence that such a thing occurred. “Generally speaking, an ‘nsurrection is a rising against civil or political authority[] — the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state,'” the report stated.
“The Office would first have had to prove that the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,’ and then prove that Mr. Trump ‘incite[d]’ or ‘assist[ed]’ the insurrection, or ‘g[ave] aid or comfort thereto,'” Smith wrote. “As to the first element under Section 2383 — proving an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof’ — the cases the Office reviewed provided no guidance on what proof would be required to establish an insurrection, or to distinguish an insurrection from a riot.”
Smith then went through multiple instances where courts had used the word “insurrection” in Jan. 6 prosecutions, but each time did not use the Insurrection Act to define it or have it based in anything other than, seemingly, rhetoric.
Much more here on the folly of Jack Smith:https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/1...edia-were-always-lying-about-j6-insurrection/
The left in attendance here on Lit would like to accept as true something none of them would ever except in a case involving themselves, a pronouncement of the prosecutor that they were guilty on his word alone. Every prosecutor who brings a case, assuming they are honest, believes their case is solid only to be disavowed of that belief by a Judge or a jury. There was no jury in this case only a hate-driven assertion of guilt by a politically motivated prosecutor on the instructions of his superiors. He dared to bring a case without any historical precedent, no real evidence, only manufactured evidence and perjured testimony, developed by an illegally constituted committee of Congress. It was a pathetic effort from the beginning.
Last edited:
Rebel5soul
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2024
- Posts
- 4,756
That they are and they are going to pay.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 66,985
Fmr House J6 Panelists Privately Seek Biden Pardons
By Eric Mack
The now-long-defunct Jan. 6 House select committee's members are reportedly privately talking potential pardons with President Joe Biden in the final hours of his administration, hoping to protect themselves from legal accountability from the incoming administration under President-elect Donald Trump.
Former Chair Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., is among the leading House members fearing accountability from Trump, who has been talking about criminal destruction of evidence, including that which would exonerate Trump against former special counsel Jack Smith's ceased cases, Punchbowl News reported Tuesday morning.
"I believe Donald Trump when he says he's going to inflict retribution on this," Thompson said on Monday night. "I believe when he says my name and Liz Cheney and the others. I believe him."
Biden has wide pardon power before he officially leaves office Monday, and Thompson is talking with White House legal counsel about preemptive pardons to shield him from criminal charges, like Trump has alleged with the destruction of evidence and the House Oversight report has alleged with witness tampering on behalf of former Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney.
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/j6-joe-biden-preemptive/2025/01/14/id/1194994/
They know they're guilty.
Similar threads
