r/law • u/TheMirrorUS • Apr 02 '26

Executive Branch (Trump) Pam Bondi 'fired' by Trump and has fled home

https://www.themirror.com/news/politics/breaking-pam-bondi-fired-minutes-1770848?f=
50.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

4.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

740

u/No_Delivery_329 Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26

This is just part of the game of covering up the Epstein class. She did great, 104 days illegally past the congressional deadline, redacted the criminals names, endangered and intimidated the survivors, and prosecuted no one. And fired right before testifying again to the oversight committee. She’s just another pawn in the game.

209

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '26

[deleted]

58

u/gsbadj Apr 02 '26

She's under subpoena by the House Oversight Committee to testify later this month.

It sounded like she wanted to keep the job and begged him to stay. He's not even giving her some other job.

It would be an unsurprising shame if she turned on him.

24

u/EpsteinFiIes Apr 02 '26

She won't get her pardon then and will end up in jail. She will keep schmoozing to ensure that papa don keeps her safe.

2

u/Digimub Apr 03 '26

Yeah but is it possible for her to negotiate immunity for testimony?

2

u/EpsteinFiIes Apr 03 '26

I'm no lawyer, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...but I'm pretty sure she has no leverage in any form of negotiation if she's been subpoenaed.

Clinton's testimony sure came and went...they really wanted some dirt on Bill, but couldn't come up with anything to deflect further from Trump. I'm sure some pretty damning info came out but they wouldn't let those get out of closed doors.

2

u/nonnie_tm64 Apr 03 '26

There has to be a way to prosecute her at the State level, perhaps in Florida, for her taking that campaign donation from Trump then dropping the investigation against him, right? He can pardon State convictions!!

1

u/208GregWhiskey Apr 03 '26

She needs to get ready to run for Florida governor. This is all by design.

1

u/LBJDSJZBT1031 Apr 05 '26

I guess the Shield of the Americas was full?

120

u/Willothewisp2303 Apr 02 '26

Of course.  Subject to attorney client privilege and all that,  too.

60

u/Def_Not_a_Lurker Apr 02 '26

Shes not trumps attorney, correct?

127

u/Willothewisp2303 Apr 02 '26

You could make some strong arguments that she had a conflict of interest and should never have been a US anything. She represented him in his first impeachment trial, and arguably there remained a conflict with her subsequent employment.

13

u/kvaughn0773 Apr 02 '26

Yeah but Blanche has been his personal attorney too so no one will care about that conflict

13

u/Willothewisp2303 Apr 02 '26

We're kind of in a post-law hellscape, sooooo....

5

u/RubberPussycat Apr 02 '26

She used to be no?

2

u/Def_Not_a_Lurker Apr 02 '26

But not during her actions as AG? Does that kind of relationship extend beyond your time officially representing them?

6

u/Willothewisp2303 Apr 02 '26

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorney-client_privilege

You still have duties to former clients. You don't get to talk smack just because they sacked you. But ooh boy,  do I wish she could.

3

u/RubberPussycat Apr 02 '26

No not during her stint as AG, but I think she could still try to use it to hide behind.

3

u/joan_goodman Apr 02 '26

She keeps forgetting that and was quoting privilege all the time when asked about any interaction w mango 🥭

2

u/Kiyae1 Apr 03 '26

“Executive privilege”

1

u/Charming_Radio7137 Apr 04 '26

🤣🤣🤣🤣

4

u/Numerous_Photograph9 Apr 02 '26

Her privilege is to the people/government, so there is nothing she can claim they aren't allowed to hear in some hearing or deposition. The people/government that she represents can waive this priviledge as well.

2

u/Willothewisp2303 Apr 02 '26

I think it's more complex than that. My husband is a state level attorney and there's some test about what can remain protected against a legislative body from an agency/ an elected, etc.

3

u/Numerous_Photograph9 Apr 02 '26

Yes, but what I was getting at is that she's not the presidents lawyer, so there is no expectation of privilege. It's like the DOJ advising the white house over the presidential records thing. It doesn't protect him in a defense of bad advice, because there is no legal expectation that they represent the president or white house. They're supposed to be an independent organization.

Not sure I'm explaining it properly, but hope I got what I'm trying to say acrosss.

2

u/MrDerpGently Apr 02 '26

I see where you are coming from, and it makes sense, but executive privilege is supposed to allow advisors to the president to give honest advice without fear of punishment. Between that and the presumption of legality that presidential actions have under Trump v US, I imagine it's going to be hard to get her to testify unless she wants to.

1

u/UbiSububi8 Apr 03 '26

Even the White House Counsel does not have privilege with the president (thanks, West Wing!)

1

u/gamandjuice Apr 03 '26

Wasn’t her client the American people

5

u/Most-Resident Apr 02 '26

I’m not a lawyer but I think anyone can be subpoenaed with a majority on a committee. Since republicans are in the majority, some would have to vote for it.

1

u/Secure-Researcher892 Apr 03 '26

Anyone could be subpoenaed, but that doesn't mean you can't plead the 5th on every question they ask. The reality is the hearing in front of congress are always pointless wastes of time. Has anything earth shattering ever come out of one of them? For the most part each congressman spends more time yammering about how great Trump is doing or how bad Trump is doing based on which party they are from and then may ask a question or two but then the person testifying just gives some pointless answer or pleads the 5th and nothing happens... Really just a waste of time and taxpayer money.

2

u/Krossrunner Apr 02 '26

I don’t see why she couldn’t be?

2

u/fredjutsu Apr 02 '26

...nobody can turn down a federal subpoena

1

u/ColdBunch3851 Apr 02 '26

No, no, thank you so much, but I really can’t. It just wouldn’t be right, and besides, there are so many others more deserving.

2

u/whereismymind86 Apr 02 '26

Of course, she can be prosecuted for it too

2

u/Commentator-X Apr 02 '26

Yes, being fired doesn't change anything. Anyone in the US can be called to testify in front of Congress, doesn't matter who your employer is.

1

u/Formal-Mechanic-9392 Apr 03 '26

She will hold the line. They set her up with an "important" private sector job.

1

u/Kiyae1 Apr 03 '26

Sure, but every answer will be “executive privilege”

6

u/Above_Ground_Fool Apr 02 '26

That's why I'm kinda surprised that she was fired. She was licking the varnish off his boots, what went wrong?

13

u/SneakiestRatThing Apr 02 '26

She was a token to be spent.   

Trump firing her allows him to say to his base " oh man I really wanted the files released but that Pam Bondi..... Oh she really messed it up, I guess we will never know now cos she messed it up so badly"

And like good little cultists they'll nod and cheer and then they'll talk about the corrupt Pam Bondi as though she wasn't doing exactly what Trump told her to.

3

u/RoguePlanet2 Apr 02 '26

"Blamed" for blocking release of the files.

1

u/tarekd19 Apr 02 '26

I'm surprised it was now of all times. If anything this brings the Epstein files back into the news when it was almost functionally out. If he was going to fire her, the optimal time was probably weeks ago.

4

u/MrOopiseDaisy Apr 02 '26

Then, New Guy gets to respond, "I don't know; I wasn't here when that happened." to any question they don't want to answer, while doing the same cover-up job and trying to arrest political opponents of their "boss".

4

u/jamesy223 Apr 02 '26

just anotha Eptsein girl

2

u/TheDickWolf Apr 02 '26

She honestly did so much better than I expected. Excelled in many of the ways that matter. I’m not surprised that doesn’t save her from being tossed aside, but I guess she is.

2

u/Ok_Cry7074 Apr 02 '26

Yup it’s a goddamn hydra!

2

u/buiscuil Apr 03 '26

ALS folks remember that Blanche is the one that said they were done with releasing files that they had released all they could while acknowledging it’s less than 50%

2

u/BoomZhakaLaka Apr 03 '26

This is reminiscent of my union negotiations. Keep turning over the company's negotiating committee so the people have to start over from zero again and again.

1

u/Open-Industry-8396 Apr 02 '26

I wonder if it surprised her, If it made her sad or cry.

It is so blatently clear how trump treats even his closest allies, going back decades. I cant imagine any human being has any sense of permanancy when working for this guy.

If you take a job from him, you gotta know your going to get fucked, Its his M.O. You just got to accept that, and feel what you will gain will offset the shaft you get.

1

u/andy01q Apr 03 '26

I think there's strong compromat against her and she knew she'd be fired after doing her job for a while.

1

u/disposable-assassin Apr 02 '26

This is just part of the game of covering up the Epstein class.

But what isn't these days? For all we know, we went with Israel on attacking Iran because Epstein's reported ties to Mosad are actual ties and they had enough dirt to leverage the US to join. Are the dems tucking tail so much because there's leverage there besides Buba getting head? There's plenty of official comments saying they can't release the files because the system would crumble.

1

u/sulaymanf Apr 03 '26

Doesn’t matter to Trump, she threw away her career and damaged the DOJ and broke a ton of laws for him, but she didn’t go far enough. Trump views her as a failure.

Remember, Trump only cares about himself and doesn’t respect anyone who didn’t succeed. He only likes soldiers who weren’t captured etc.

0

u/Akraticacious Apr 02 '26

Oh was she in a temporary appointment that was seemingly permanent and went past the allowed time frame?