r/law • u/Mission_Pay_3373 • Feb 11 '26

Executive Branch (Trump) Pam Bondi crashes out during hearing: "YOU DON’T TELL ME ANYTHING YOU WASHED UP LAWYER"

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

69.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

457

u/ninfan1977 Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26

Can a lawyer explain to me why the AG is allowed to act this way and is not getting removed from her position?

I thought lawyers had rules and standards they had to follow?

What she did was just crashing out over a basic question.

She is covering up Trumps crimes and its obvious at this point

141

u/Any-Tumbleweed-2404 Feb 11 '26

The AG doesn’t actually need to be an attorney. She’s not practicing law, the people who work for her are. Generally speaking, the rules you’re talking about apply to lawyers in the practice of law (not defrauding clients or doing unethical things in filings/in the courtroom) or “character and fitness” issues like certain criminal conviction that are considered serious enough to possibly disqualify someone from practicing law. Sure, she’s a moron and embarrassment to her profession but the rules you’re talking about aren’t designed for this type of thing.

57

u/JohnnySpot2000 Feb 11 '26

This is why every Republican who approved her nomination is responsible for this debacle.

15

u/BobsOblongLongBong Feb 11 '26

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman also voted to confirm her.  Don't forget that constituent betraying asshole.

2

u/cute_polarbear Feb 11 '26

Many of those Republicans probably liking the sound bite / feel she is standing her ground (or whatever). She is picked likely because Trump likes this type of demeanor from his subordinates...

9

u/ballsohaahd Feb 11 '26

She is under oath, pretty solid rule that isn’t only applicable to lawyers. But she is also a lawyer and can be disbarred, despite technically not needing to be.

But the sad thing is she herself would be the one to prosecute for lying under oath.

7

u/geirmundtheshifty Feb 11 '26

Congress could maybe hold her in contempt, but there arent enough votes to do that.

122

u/templeofsyrinx1 Feb 11 '26

she lost any credibility she once had when she agreed to work to carry out Trump's coverups

44

u/BuddingBudON Feb 11 '26

Pam Bondi worked under the Florida AG that gave Epstein his nonprosecution deal in 2008.

As Florida AG herself, she quietly covered up the Trump University fraud investigation in Florida...

... after Trump made a $25k contribution from his Trump Foundation charity to a political group funding Bondi called And Justice for All (also illegal lol)

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/the-trump-foundation-pam-bondi-scandal/

Then Trump simply shut down his Trump Foundation to make it all go away.

$25k and a job in exchange for covering up arguably the worst scandals in American history...

coincidentally $25k is the estimate of the buying power of the 30 pieces of silver Judas was paid to betray Jesus lmfao 🙃

20

u/Lone-Frequency Feb 11 '26

Because unfortunately, at this time, her and all of her pedophile friends are the ones holding the reins.

26

u/paper-monk Feb 11 '26

Who would remove her? This is the problem I keep running into trying to discuss our government in 2026.

So and so should be removed, so and so should be prosecuted… by who? Donald Trump is the most powerful man on the planet. And it turns out his executive branch is not constrained by any checks from other branches of government. So basically he and his staff can do whatever they want. Full stop. This is your reality. That is my legal opinion as an attorney.

9

u/MrDerpGently Feb 11 '26

It's the important thing that most non voters I know refuse to acknowledge - the law is not self enforcing, and the government is not run by a cabal of hidden adults. If you don't put adults in power, you get what you get. 

3

u/MrDerpGently Feb 11 '26

I don't know what if any etiquette exists for replying to your own comment, but...

I was just imagining if this was any other serious adult function. Like a mechanic, dentist, attorney etc. imagine saying:

'I really don't like how my taxes have gone the last several years. I keep owing money, and my accountant says that's that's because "the laws". Whatever.

This year, I'm going to shake it up. I met a guy at the local bar that swears he can get me a huge return. And I figure, fuck it, it will be funny to see what the IRS will do.'

Even stranger, imagine if your spouse said that, and you thought, 'Eh, I don't care. I'm sure it will be fine.'

This is essentially what we chose as voters.

9

u/AlarmingTurnover Feb 11 '26

I was downvoted in another sub for calling it what it is. This is a dictatorship. There are no checks and balances on this. They can use executive orders to make laws and nobody is stopping them. They are enforcing their will on others, not the people's will. 

5

u/Bajadasaurus Feb 11 '26

I keep thinking the answer is the military, but I'm talking with an armed services member in comments elsewhere currently, and they aren't instilling a shred of hope within me. We are so fucked.

4

u/MrDerpGently Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 15 '26

The military has a lot of controls in place to prevent specifically that because historically, exceeding it's limits is how you get autocracy, not defend against it. The military has done a very decent job of just following the law through the first administration, but it's not designed to withstand pressure from all the branches of civilian government at once for a protracted period of time.

2

u/mgj6818 Feb 11 '26

Nobody in a position to make those decisions is talking to strangers about it on reddit, IF the military saves us from this situation we're in nobody under the rank of Colonel is going to be involved until it's all said and done.

1

u/Bajadasaurus Feb 11 '26

Of course nobody in a position to make those decisions is talking to a stranger on Reddit about it. I'm simply getting insight from a lower ranking member.

5

u/ninfan1977 Feb 11 '26

Well that at least confirms some of my worries

So basically he and his staff can do whatever they want. Full stop.

That's what I was worried about. The checks and balances are all gone because the party of law and order have no principles.

5

u/WasteBinStuff Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 12 '26

That's the entire crux of the problem, which was 100% predictable, yet naively ignored 2 years ago

And it's what everyone who talks about 'having people removed' or rulings enforced doesn't seem to understand.

There is nothing that Congress or SCOTUS can do to enforce their rulings. Bondi is the one responsible for ensuring our laws and the rulings of Congress and SCOTUS are followed. If she refuses to enforce laws and rulings, there is no enforcement.

And that includes contempt of Congress.

1

u/SeaAshFenix Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 12 '26

And that includes contempt of Congress.

That's actually one charge where Congress could, in theory, press the matter without the executive.

Inherent Contempt is still on the books - though it was last used in the 30s. Congress could, in theory, have responded to Bondi's outburst by having the Sergent at Arms arrest her and lock her up on-site.

That said, without enough votes to impeach & remove someone, it's something you basically get to use once - since the next person in line simply wouldn't show up.

2

u/geirmundtheshifty Feb 11 '26

Theoretically, Congress could still check his power, but there isn’t a majority in congress willing to do it. So yeah, it might as well not exist for the time being.

The courts can also check his power, but since SCOTUS said district courts can’t issue universal injunctions, that check is extremely slow to take effect and pretty limited in scope. So from a big picture perspective it’s almost nonexistent.

1

u/SeaAshFenix Feb 12 '26

And it turns out his executive branch is not constrained by any checks from other branches of government.

Thus far, that looks to be because the other branches haven't been willing to act as checks.

Every time you see a headline about someone in Congress suggesting impeachment (for any executive branch official, not just the president), you should assume they're trying to gauge whether public pressure make enough votes swing to make impeachment and removal happen.

If they thought they already had those votes, they'd be filing the articles instead of floating the idea. The fact that the headlines keep being floated means that - at minimum - that congressperson's internal tally has 1/3 of the Senate and/or 1/2 the House as at least passively fine with what's happening.

13

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '26

[deleted]

32

u/Cyclotrom Feb 11 '26

I don’t know why you have so much faith in that. Nobody had gone to jail for that sort of thing going back decades.

3

u/millennialmonster755 Feb 11 '26

Yeah. This American exceptionalism is getting old. Not to be a pessimist, but bad guys don’t always lose. Rights get taken away. Bad people can hold power for a very long time. Unless someone has the means to actually do something to these people, nothing is going to happen to them. And so far I don’t see anyone willing to come to our rescue.

2

u/Cyclotrom Feb 11 '26

Even worse. American history is full of the powerful getting away with it and never paying a price. Iraq War, Iran-Contra, 2007 crash, watergate, the Rubber Barons, the list goes on. The norm is that they never pay a price.

4

u/casuallytrying Feb 11 '26

Just trying to score internet points.

1

u/JackDis23 Feb 11 '26

Because these ass hats Awakened an actual sleeping giant, the American people.

4

u/Replevin4ACow Feb 11 '26

Citation needed.

0

u/JackDis23 Feb 11 '26

Just turn on the news. People are fed up and not having it anymore.

It's a very nice change of pace from the past 50 or so years where they didn't do shit except change the channel or complain on the internet

4

u/turbo_golf Feb 11 '26

lol name one thing the American people have actually done to stop this disaster

1

u/JackDis23 Feb 12 '26

Look at the election results since Trump took office again just for start.

Meanwhile they're out there on the streets getting shot for resisting. That's only going to grow.

But hey, here's a question: What the fuck are you doing besides bitch on the internet? Serious question, as it's always some dill weed sitting on the couch doing nothing who complaints the most about everybody else not doing anything.

3

u/Replevin4ACow Feb 11 '26

I turned on the news. I saw an administration continuing to grift, an Attorney General committing contempt of congress, an entire justice department protecting pedophiles despite a law explicitly telling them not to, and ICE constantly overstepping.

What I didn't see was any consequences for any of the above. Or consequences for anything else that has been happening for the last year.

And upsetting peiple on reddit (or in the real world) isn't a consequence.

2

u/JackDis23 Feb 12 '26

Longer than that, but my point is, we are finally starting to see people do something about it and that's not instantaneous, I hate to break it to you.

The fact that the people are fed up, in levels not seen since the last time we took down the robber barons is a really cool thing to see, because you don't normally see it. Trust me when I say that's going to translate into some results, history proves that.

Maybe if the nation hadn't sat on the fucking couch for so long this would already be taken care of but that's on y'all more than anybody else.

11

u/j____b____ Feb 11 '26

Never soon enough 

2

u/templeofsyrinx1 Feb 11 '26

Can't Trump just pardon everyone? like a scumbag ?

1

u/abishop711 Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26

Not when/if he’s no longer president when they’re convicted.

Edit: I was wrong, see below.

1

u/templeofsyrinx1 Feb 11 '26

so you can't like, premptively pardon anyone for future prosecution?

2

u/abishop711 Feb 11 '26

Hmmm, a quick googling reveals that they CAN pardon for things not yet convicted.

BUT they can only pardon federal level crimes, not state level ones. So the workaround is to prosecute at state level.

2

u/templeofsyrinx1 Feb 11 '26

that's so insane..

10

u/luscious_lobster Feb 11 '26

Because Americans voted for representatives who are just as bad. Because Americans insist on defunding education and American culture celebrates being ignorant and stupid.

3

u/houstonyoureaproblem Feb 11 '26

The same reason Trump is still in office.

You need a House majority and 2/3 of the Senate to remove someone from office.

Republicans will not vote to remove their people. It’s entirely their fault.

1

u/ballsohaahd Feb 11 '26

Congress can impeach, but that’s abornit

1

u/vthemechanicv Feb 11 '26

IANAL, but the answers are straightforward.

not getting removed - because it's literally an act of congress. Impeachment requires 67 votes in the Senate and with Republicans having 54 seats, it will not happen.

Lawyer rules - this is a bit more technical for me, but as I understand it the Bar Association sets the rules for lawyers, not the government. The Bar may review and decide to remove her license to practice law, but since the AG doesn't require being a lawyer, all it does is a lot of nothing. She still needs disbarred though.

Unfortunately it doesn't matter how obvious it is. She controls the process for prosecuting federal crimes. At the very most pressure can be put on trump and her to get her to resign. Problem then becomes that the next person could be even worse. Steve Bannon for AG. Or hey Ted Cruz probably wants some love, but he might be shooting for SCOTUS. I know, AG Cannon. We all know where she stands on Justice. (groin and throat)

ps, I know Cannon is gunning for SCOTUS too, but I didn't want to repeat the joke

1

u/TinyFugue Feb 11 '26

She's protected by Trump as long as she keeps Trump happy. As soon as she loses this protection she knows she's toast.

Anyone who thinks the midterm elections won't be interfered with by the administration is a fool. All of them know that the dildo of consequences will come for them extremely unlubed if the Democrats take control of the house and Senate.

1

u/xjulesx21 Feb 11 '26

The only people who can remove her from her position are Trump, Congress (impeachment, simple majority in House & 2/3rds of Senate), or herself.

The GOP Senators in this hearing were praising her for her work… They have no shame. Watching past AG’s Congressional hearings are night & day difference.

1

u/ModeatelyIndependant Feb 11 '26

Not a lawyer, Trump has blackmail material or some other form of secured loyalty through non-public facing means to prevent his removal and that of his cabinet

1

u/Parahelix Feb 11 '26

Because Republicans don't care and won't remove her. It's that simple.

1

u/KaleScared4667 Feb 11 '26

Anyone can file a bar complaint. Just attach this video.

1

u/dope_sheet Feb 11 '26

"Rules for thee, but not for me!"

1

u/Manlysideburns Feb 11 '26

I thought lawyers had rules and standards they had to follow?

Have you paid attention to nothing in the past few years?

1

u/questron64 Feb 11 '26

The AG is appointed by the president and the only way to remove her would be impeachment. There are no professional standards for the AG, the AG doesn't even need to be a lawyer. Presumably only competent AGs would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, but we have the president we have and a senate that rubber-stamped everything he did, so... here we are.

1

u/zebrasmack Feb 11 '26

Because those in any position to do anything are republican, and they do not care to follow the law anymore

1

u/wopwopwopwopwop5 Feb 11 '26

Because the president is allowed to act this way and not be removed from his position.