Should Congress hold Pam Bondi in contempt for not fully and timely releasing the Epstein files as required by law?

[Anonymous]

"It’s an understatement at this point to say that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress aren’t happy with how Attorney General Pam Bondi is “complying” with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It’s not just the botched production of documents; it’s also her failure to comply with deadlines, the incomplete production, and the heavily redacted releases, which seem to be offering protection to some of the powerful men who spent time with Jeffrey Epstein, which the Act explicitly prohibits."

[abc3643]

Let's think this through and you will understand a fundamental problem with the US Federal Government.

As Attorney General, Pam Bondi is the head of the Justice Department. Now, which part of the Federal Government enforces the law and charges people with violating crimes? Hint: It's the Justice Department.

So, even if Congress held Bondi in contempt, so what? Congress has no teeth. This was a fatal flaw in the creation of the Constitution.

[Asker]

Actually, if you read a bit further, you will find out that Congress has a lot of power in this regard. For instance, they can fine her a certain amount each day, and they have done this to people before who didn't appear before them or didn't cooperate with their subpoenas. This particular power has not been used since the 1930s, but it's still available.

[abc3643]

Congress does but so what. Suppose Bondi doesn't pay it and ignores it? What's Congress going to do? Fine her more? Congress can't arrest anyone. Congress can only make suggestions to the Justice Department that charges should be looked into. (For example, look at the final report of The January 6 Committee. Good luck finding it since Congress is now run by the GOP and they've suppressed public access to it.) The only thing Congress can really do is impeach and then hold trial. Upon conviction in an impeachment trial, the person is instantly removed from office, but that's it.

[Asker]

She is also potentially vulnerable relative to her law license. I don't know what state she's licensed in, but I do know that if the things that you suggest do occur, Congress is likely to refer these matters to the Bar Association in whatever state she's licensed in, and they are perhaps likely to take an action on her license. They don't have the same constraints that federal agencies have or that Congress has relative to Trump. In the end, however, the circumstances that you suggest are not unrealistic by any means, and they may very well wind up prevailing anyway.

[Asker]

If she were to lose her law license she quite literally could not work as a lawyer at all anywhere. At least for a long time and possibly forever. That is a very heavy penalty. Probably something she would not want to risk.

[jshm2]

No. She needs to be strung upside by her boot straps, on a lamppost outside of congress, instead.

The fucking clown is under qualified to even be a cleaner at the DoJ. But it's the people who put her there: that need a good kicking, and prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Considering we know they had thousands of employees working overtime back in March trying to protect Trump, it's baffling they still weren't ready. It's more than mere incompetence, especially with the excessive redactions. There should be some accountability for sure but this administration avoids that all the time.

[NoDecision]

She is just probably doing what Trump tells her to.

[Asker]

Yes, she probably is, but she is a grown-up human being, and she can say no if she wants to.

[NoDecision]

Not and keep her cushy job. Trump has lots of "yes"
people around him.

[Asker]

That's true; she would lose her job at an instant. But losing that job might be the best thing that ever happened to her.

[Asker]

I think it would be better for her to lose her job than to lose her law license, and that is probably what is going to be on the line here.

[blackeagle007]

How about this, she tells Trump to f-off and goes to work somewhere else. Losing her license to practice law isn’t worth making orange idiot happy

[Asker]

@blackeagle007 I have serious doubts that her judgment is anywhere near as good as yours is. I fully expect her to get into a lot of trouble over this if it actually happens.

[Twalli]

I'm honestly not surprised that she's doing this. I'm not saying that she's protecting Trump, but there's no reason to still be reviewing documents if she really did it before now. Apparently, she did, earlier, enough to tell Trump he was in it. Then I guess she just stopped. I get that she needs to redact anything and everything related to ongoing cases, but if Trump was ever serious about releasing those files, Bondi could have redacted the necessary parts and released all of them already.

[blackeagle007]

she could lose her law license by prosecuting people over vindictive nonsense by her boss

[Asker]

She definitely could lose her while license her without or be penalized in other ways. She's thinking big risks in order to please Trump and I think they're going to backfire on her. I hope they do because she deserves that and we deserve some honesty.

[Sal_Monella]

Both Democrat and Republican politicians had been slow walking requests for decades. What makes this situation any different?

[Asker]

What makes the situation different is that Congress directed her to produce those documents by a certain date and she failed to produce them. Further, she redacted many things from those documents that should have been left in apparently and would have gone a long way toward clearing up the questions that people have regarding them. In other words, she did everything she possibly could to make sure that nobody would discover much of anything from those documents and what they did discover they would discover quite a bit later. All that defied the subpoena that she got

[Asker]

From Congress and that is the reason why Congress is either going to impeach him or take some other action against her. Hopefully. Does that clear things up for you sufficiently?

[Sal_Monella]

nobody else ever did this

[Asker]

It was the first time for everything. The ability to do it exists for a reason. That reason seems to exist at this point.

[Asker]

Try to remember that there is a first time for everything and because something is being done for the first time that does not make it invalid.

[exitseven]

No but she should be fired because almost a whole year has gone by and not one single democrat has been convicted. Even Comey who would have been easy to convict was released on a technicality that a first year law student should have seen.

Former US Attorney Andrew Lelling would have been a better fit.

[Asker]

Unfortunately for you, the people that Trump has appointed have been mostly incompetent. Additionally, you can't actually convict people when they haven't committed any crimes. I know you would like to convict people for being Democrats, but that's not going to happen. Not yet, anyway.

[exitseven]

Comey was low hanging fruit, so is Adam Schiff. Trump hired a couple of real dogs for AG in his last term. He has a blind spot for AG.

[Asker]

Neither Comey nor Schiff has committed any crimes, other than being Democrats. I realize that in your world, being a Democrat is a criminal offense, but in my world and the world of the rest of us, it isn't.

[exitseven]

they both lied to congress.

[Asker]

Prove it or stop saying it.

[exitseven]

do your own research. There are many videos on You tube showing them lying.

[Asker]

You asserted it. You prove it. I don't think you can I am not your research assistant.

[exitseven]

I found this in 30 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYY3Bhvtg8A

[blackeagle007]

Grand juries rejected charges against Loretta James. Not happening 😆😆

[Asker]

Yes, you found another YouTube video. It has no credibility whatsoever and if you were thinking a little bit you would know that. It's kind of pathetic that you have to reach for this sort of thing to provide what you believe is evidence.

[exitseven]

@blackeagle007 They did it on a technicality without prejudice. We will see in another attorney will refile charges.

[blackeagle007]

That’s correct that there’s leave to represent a case. But a grand jury rejected a recent on Loretta James. They know all this was doj being weaponized

[Asker]

@blackeagle007 there are some things that are just so obvious that the technical results cannot be achieved by the party that wants it. This is one of those things.

[blackeagle007]

If I were Pam bonding, I’d be feeling very nervous right now about losing my law license.

[blackeagle007]

Bondi

[Asker]

@blackeagle007 I would be worried about that too, but I don't have a law license. I do, however, have a medical license, and if I were in a similar situation, which I would never put myself in, I would be exceedingly worried and talking to lawyers about it.

[blackeagle007]

Exactly, education won’t matter of shit if you don’t have a license

[Asker]

It is important to remember, however, that if Pam Bondi has a conscience, which is not at all clear, then she has probably suffered pretty significant moral injury from this situation. On the one hand, I have to assume that she knows the difference between right and wrong. On the other hand, I further assume that Trump has pressured her to the extent that she either does what he wants or she loses her lucrative and important job. I think she has been told to do things that she has to know are improper and perhaps illegal.

If she does those things, she breaks the law and probably breaks whatever ethical code she might have and may lose her law license.

If she does not do those things, she loses her job. Either way, she is in a terrible situation. This is the essence of moral injury.

[blackeagle007]

Go practice law somewhere else, fuck Trump

[Asker]

@blackeagle007 you are correct. One cannot work without a proper license. It's also important to remember that, at least in my profession, one cannot really work without malpractice insurance. When you commit crimes that involve your license, you can no longer get such insurance. I think this is true for attorneys as much as it is for doctors and other professionals.

[Asker]

@blackeagle007 As a practical matter, I suspect that in the medium term, and perhaps even the short term, her law license is worth a lot more monetarily and socially than working for Trump is. As I wrote that, I just had the fantasy that perhaps she might appear before Congress, admit all of her wrongdoing, and throw herself upon their mercy. I think that at least some Congresspeople might be inclined to show her some mercy if she did this. I have no hope that she ever would do this, however, I think her fear of the consequences and her fear of Trump combined would be too great to allow her to do anything even close to this.

[blackeagle007]

I know it’s a good $ professions but there comes costs, huge risks. My buddy is a radiation oncologist, his malpractice costs a shit load &

[Asker]

@blackeagle007 so does mine, but you know, when a case settles, it settles for a ton of money, usually, because we can do a lot of damage with our mistakes. This is why I am so careful to not make those kinds of mistakes ever. The last thing I ever want to do is harm another person.

[DryGermanGuy]

As Dargil has repeatedly stated: „See you at the midterms!“

[Asker]

That is if there are any midterms and Trump doesn't cancel them because of some fake national security thing.

[888theGreat]

She should be impeached

[Asker]

I think she probably will be impeached. I don't think there is a scenario in which she actually resigns, which would be the right thing for her to do.

[beefcakebradybatson]

YES !!!