Why Pam Bondi’s first day as the lawyer was such a mess

On By Littum

When Merrick Garland was sworn in as the American law lawyer, he spent the office of the Ministry of Justice, which made sense, considering that it was the agency he was ready to lead. When Loretta Lynch was sworn to the same office, the ceremony was held in the same room at Main Justice. When Eric Holder became a lawyer, the scene was the same.

But when Pam Bondi was sworn in as the latest court lawyer she took oath In the oval office – With Donald Trump nearby and looked over her shoulder as the Supreme Court’s righteousness Clarence Thomas monitored the case.

There seemed to be a symbolic meaning to the scene, as if the president wanted to leave little doubt that he thought Bondi was an extension of his White House. Of course, this was not just a matter of symbolism: as Washington Post reportedThe lawyer, during the opening hours of her tenure, made her focus clear.

Attorney General Pam Bondi spent her first day at work on Wednesday redirect of the Ministry of Justice’s significant law enforcement authority against tackling President Donald Trump’s complaint with the agency, making her allegiance to his agenda ready in a series of heavily formulated directives.

The nation’s new head of law enforcement issued 14 “first -day” directives, but Politico highlighted One of the more ridiculous orders.

Bondi instructed the “Weapon” group to investigate former specialist adviser Jack Smith, who brought the two federal criminal cases against Trump. … and she instructed the group to investigate “Federal cooperation with the weapon” of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Latvitia James.

The rice attorney said the working group would be responsible for reviewing cases of what she characterized as “politicized justice.”

At first redness, it can be tempting to just roll one’s eyes on such an endeavor. Congress Republicans spent two years overseeing a related “weapon” investigation “, and the GOP legislators’ investigation turned out to be an embarrassing dud. If Bondi and her team want to waste time on a similar meaningless probe, is it perhaps best to simply shrug your shoulders and move on?

Maybe, but it might not be that simple.

First, the Ministry of Justice is to investigate its own former special adviser an unprecedented abuse. There is literally no evidence that Smith has ever engaged in any wrongdoing, making it impossible to defend such a probe. (If Bondi is looking for actual wrongdoing, I can recommend that she draw attention to the convicted criminal whose alleged crimes Smith pursued.)

Secondly, the existence of a “weapon working group” in Main Justice seems to be intended to perpetuate the absurd myth that federal law enforcement became weapons during the bite administration. It wasn’t. The lie may well make Republicans feel better over the crimes that Trump was indicted for, but goes to war against the recent past is shoveling.

Third, Bondi’s endeavor is not only targeted at federal law enforcement. Obviously, Trump’s Ministry of Justice is also targeting state and local prosecutors that the president sees as villains, which further strengthens what seems obvious: Trump’s so -called revenge tour is ongoing, and the lawyer wants to help promote the campaign.

But I’m also worried about where all this is likely to end. If the “weapon work group” recognizes reality and concludes that there was no actually “politicized justice” during the Presidency of Joe Bid, will it suffice? Or is it more likely that Trump and Bondi will decide that the answer should match the question in a politically satisfactory way, even if it means drawing conclusions that are not supported by the evidence?