Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
February 12, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/democrats-want-to-turn-the-tables-on-pirro-following-failed-indictment-effort
MaddowBlog-Democrats want to turn the tables on Pirro following failed indictment effort
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described this week’s circumstances as “a constitutional crisis.” There’s every reason to believe he was right.
The DOJ tried to charge sitting members of Congress, who’d done nothing, with felonies that would’ve sent them to prison for decades.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-02-12T16:53:14.847Z
Despite the gambit's failure, Schumer characterized the effort itself as “a constitutional crisis.†I don’t think that’s hyperbolic. www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/democrats-want-to-turn-the-tables-on-pirro-following-failed-indictment-effort
This marked the latest in a series of embarrassments for Pirro and Donald Trump’s unraveling Justice Department, but the “no bill” failure, overseen by prosecutors with unfortunate backgrounds, did not close the book on the fiasco.
On the contrary, some of the targets of this ridiculous gambit appear eager to turn the tables on those who went after them. Politico reported:
A week earlier, after Sen. Elissa Slotkin told the Justice Department that she wouldn’t cooperate with its baseless investigation, the Michigan Democrat’s lawyers also requested that Pirro preserve all documents related to the matter for “anticipated litigation.”
Time will tell what, if anything, comes of this, but it’s also worth pausing to appreciate the larger context. After the grand jury dismissed the case as nonsensical, it was easy to mock Pirro and her assigned prosecutors over their humiliating failure, but let’s not miss the forest for the trees: Federal prosecutors wanted to bring serious felony charges against sitting members of Congress who’d done nothing wrong. If successful, the charges would have sent lawmakers to prison for many years.
That’s more than just bonkers. It’s also a dangerous step down an authoritarian path.
.....“I say to my Republican colleagues, if the executive branch can merely attempt to prosecute members of the legislative branch for simply exercising free speech, that is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem, it is a constitutional crisis,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.
On the contrary, some of the targets of this ridiculous gambit appear eager to turn the tables on those who went after them. Politico reported:
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) on Wednesday demanded U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro preserve all evidence related to her unsuccessful effort to bring charges against him and five other Democratic lawmakers. […]
In a letter sent Wednesday to Pirro’s office, Abbe Lowell, Crow’s attorney, called the effort to indict Crow and the other Democrats involved in the video ‘a breathtaking and unprecedented level of prosecutorial overreach and misuse of power.’
A week earlier, after Sen. Elissa Slotkin told the Justice Department that she wouldn’t cooperate with its baseless investigation, the Michigan Democrat’s lawyers also requested that Pirro preserve all documents related to the matter for “anticipated litigation.”
Time will tell what, if anything, comes of this, but it’s also worth pausing to appreciate the larger context. After the grand jury dismissed the case as nonsensical, it was easy to mock Pirro and her assigned prosecutors over their humiliating failure, but let’s not miss the forest for the trees: Federal prosecutors wanted to bring serious felony charges against sitting members of Congress who’d done nothing wrong. If successful, the charges would have sent lawmakers to prison for many years.
That’s more than just bonkers. It’s also a dangerous step down an authoritarian path.
.....“I say to my Republican colleagues, if the executive branch can merely attempt to prosecute members of the legislative branch for simply exercising free speech, that is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem, it is a constitutional crisis,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.
February 12, 2026
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/todd-blanche-fired-new-york-prosecutor-donald-kinsella-law-constitution
Deadline Legal Blog-How Todd Blanche's 'You are fired' post against a New York prosecutor ignores the law
The former Trump defense lawyer and current high-ranking DOJ official made a legal statement that risks misleading the public.
How Todd Blanche’s ‘You are fired’ post against a New York prosecutor ignores the law www.ms.now/deadline-whi... The former Trump defense lawyer and current high-ranking DOJ official made a legal statement that risks misleading the public.
— timethiefmedia - Canadian foreverðŸconservative never (@timethiefmedia.bsky.social) 2026-02-12T20:41:19.058Z
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/todd-blanche-fired-new-york-prosecutor-donald-kinsella-law-constitution
The Trump Justice Department’s second-ranking official, Todd Blanche, wrote Wednesday night on social media: “Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella.”
https://x.com/DAGToddBlanche/status/2021777972215062787
....It’s true that judges aren’t generally involved in the appointment of U.S. attorneys. The typical process is that those top prosecutors are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
But the Trump administration has tried to avoid that normal process, instead seeking to string together temporary stints of loyalists eager to carry out the president’s plans without Senate approval. That has led judges to get involved by way of a federal law that says that when an appointment expires, “the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.”
So, contrary to the implication of Blanche’s post, judges sometimes do have a role to play — not because they’re randomly intervening, but because the law says so.
Now, what’s this about Blanche’s reference to Article II of the Constitution?....
But looking at the text of that constitutional provision, it says that Congress “may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Applying that text to the federal law giving judges appointment power when there are U.S. attorney vacancies, Congress would seem to have given that power to the courts in this situation.....
Also, judges in other districts have used that power to appoint prosecutors who were initially backed by Trump, including Jay Clayton in the Southern District of New York, whom Attorney General Pam Bondi tasked with investigating Democrats’ ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, the administration might not want to upend that judicial authority completely, even if it can.
Zooming out, all this appointment drama stems from the administration’s inability or unwillingness to pick lawyers who can get through the confirmation process. As with much else these days, a more measured approach to start with would make drawn-out litigation unnecessary. But that’s not how this administration rolls, as it prioritizes attempting to use the DOJ as another one of the president’s personal tools.
https://x.com/DAGToddBlanche/status/2021777972215062787
....It’s true that judges aren’t generally involved in the appointment of U.S. attorneys. The typical process is that those top prosecutors are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
But the Trump administration has tried to avoid that normal process, instead seeking to string together temporary stints of loyalists eager to carry out the president’s plans without Senate approval. That has led judges to get involved by way of a federal law that says that when an appointment expires, “the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.”
So, contrary to the implication of Blanche’s post, judges sometimes do have a role to play — not because they’re randomly intervening, but because the law says so.
Now, what’s this about Blanche’s reference to Article II of the Constitution?....
But looking at the text of that constitutional provision, it says that Congress “may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Applying that text to the federal law giving judges appointment power when there are U.S. attorney vacancies, Congress would seem to have given that power to the courts in this situation.....
Also, judges in other districts have used that power to appoint prosecutors who were initially backed by Trump, including Jay Clayton in the Southern District of New York, whom Attorney General Pam Bondi tasked with investigating Democrats’ ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, the administration might not want to upend that judicial authority completely, even if it can.
Zooming out, all this appointment drama stems from the administration’s inability or unwillingness to pick lawyers who can get through the confirmation process. As with much else these days, a more measured approach to start with would make drawn-out litigation unnecessary. But that’s not how this administration rolls, as it prioritizes attempting to use the DOJ as another one of the president’s personal tools.
February 12, 2026
Mike Luckovich-Epstein files have been surrounded
— Mike Luckovich (@mluckovich.bsky.social) 2026-02-12T22:02:01.297Z
February 12, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/justice-department-accused-of-surveilling-lawmakers-epstein-files-search-history
MaddowBlog-Justice Department accused of surveilling lawmakers' Epstein files search history
As the dust settled on the partisan circus, there was a new controversy that had nothing to do with Bondi’s antics and everything to do with her notes.
Justice Department accused of surveilling lawmakers’ Epstein files search history. As the dust settled on the partisan circus, there was a new controversy that had nothing to do with Bondi’s antics and everything to do with her notes. www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
— (@jwwcan.bsky.social) 2026-02-12T16:24:12.203Z
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/justice-department-accused-of-surveilling-lawmakers-epstein-files-search-history
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s unusually chaotic appearance before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday was notable in large part because of what the Florida Republican said during the proceedings. But as the dust settled on the partisan circus, there was another element to the larger controversy that had nothing to do with Bondi’s antics and everything to do with her notes. CBNC reported:
In recent days, many members of Congress have gained access to Epstein materials that are not available to the public, though the limitations are significant. Lawmakers have to physically go to the Justice Department and review the records in a private space, without staff or recording equipment. Members have to rely on DOJ computers while being supervised by DOJ officials.
At that point, they can begin searching the documents as part of the ongoing congressional investigation.
Bondi’s notes, however, captured by a Reuters photographer, pointed to an element we weren’t aware of: The DOJ is apparently surveilling what documents among the Epstein files members are looking for.
Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, was not pleased.
“Not only has the Department of Justice illegally withheld documents from Congress and the American people. Not only has Attorney General Bondi failed to bring a single indictment against a single co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. But now Bondi and her team are spying on Members of Congress conducting oversight in yet another blatant attempt to intrude into Congress’s oversight processes,” the Maryland Democrat said in a statement.
Raskin added, “It is an outrage that DOJ is tracking Members’ investigative steps undertaken to ensure that DOJ is complying with the Epstein File Transparency Act and using this information for the Attorney General’s embarrassing polemical purposes. DOJ must immediately cease tracking any Members’ searches, open up the Epstein review to senior congressional staff, and publicly release all files — with all the survivors’ information, and only the survivors’ information, properly redacted — as required by federal law.”....
The Epstein files have constituted their own scandal for quite a while, but this new controversy related to the files is just getting started. Watch this space.
Attorney General Pam Bondi at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday seemed to have a printout of Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s history of searches of the Department of Justice’s database of documents related to the notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Photos of a black binder that Bondi had at the hearing showed the words ‘Jayapal Pramila Search History’ and a list of documents whose numbers coincide with the number of Epstein files.
In recent days, many members of Congress have gained access to Epstein materials that are not available to the public, though the limitations are significant. Lawmakers have to physically go to the Justice Department and review the records in a private space, without staff or recording equipment. Members have to rely on DOJ computers while being supervised by DOJ officials.
At that point, they can begin searching the documents as part of the ongoing congressional investigation.
Bondi’s notes, however, captured by a Reuters photographer, pointed to an element we weren’t aware of: The DOJ is apparently surveilling what documents among the Epstein files members are looking for.
NEW: A page from Bondi's burn book. This is a list of the searches by Rep Jayapal of the unredacted Epstein files. That means the DOJ grabbed her search terms from the computers they set up for members of congress to view the Epstein files to use as ammunition. The photo is from Reuters.
— Mueller, She Wrote (@muellershewrote.com) 2026-02-11T23:36:23.833Z
Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, was not pleased.
“Not only has the Department of Justice illegally withheld documents from Congress and the American people. Not only has Attorney General Bondi failed to bring a single indictment against a single co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. But now Bondi and her team are spying on Members of Congress conducting oversight in yet another blatant attempt to intrude into Congress’s oversight processes,” the Maryland Democrat said in a statement.
Raskin added, “It is an outrage that DOJ is tracking Members’ investigative steps undertaken to ensure that DOJ is complying with the Epstein File Transparency Act and using this information for the Attorney General’s embarrassing polemical purposes. DOJ must immediately cease tracking any Members’ searches, open up the Epstein review to senior congressional staff, and publicly release all files — with all the survivors’ information, and only the survivors’ information, properly redacted — as required by federal law.”....
The Epstein files have constituted their own scandal for quite a while, but this new controversy related to the files is just getting started. Watch this space.
February 12, 2026
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/12/politics/mark-kelly-pentagon-lawsuit-ruling
Judge says Pete Hegseth is unlawfully retaliating against Sen. Mark Kelly over 'illegal orders' video
This ruling makes me smile. I am looking forward to reading this opinion
Judge says Pete Hegseth is unlawfully retaliating against Sen. Mark Kelly over ‘illegal orders’ video
— Fascinating News 🇺🇸 (@fascinating-us.bsky.social) 2026-02-12T17:42:01.123Z
https://fascinating.news/r/hRS2CmPg
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/12/politics/mark-kelly-pentagon-lawsuit-ruling
A federal judge on Thursday shut down Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attempts to punish Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly over his urging of US service members to refuse illegal orders, ruling that the Pentagon chief’s actions were unconstitutionally retaliatory.
The decision landed two days after a grand jury in Washington, DC, declined to approve charges sought by federal prosecutors against the Arizona senator and several other Democratic lawmakers who taped a video last year warning that “threats to our Constitution” are coming “from right here at home,” and repeatedly implored service members and the intelligence community to “refuse illegal orders.”
Together, the grand jury declination and ruling from senior US District Judge Richard Leon represent major impediments to efforts by aides of President Donald Trump to use the levers of government to punish Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, over his participation in the video.
Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote in a scathing, 29-page ruling that Hegseth was trampling over the First Amendment rights of Kelly and that his moves are an impermissible form of government retaliation.
The decision landed two days after a grand jury in Washington, DC, declined to approve charges sought by federal prosecutors against the Arizona senator and several other Democratic lawmakers who taped a video last year warning that “threats to our Constitution” are coming “from right here at home,” and repeatedly implored service members and the intelligence community to “refuse illegal orders.”
Together, the grand jury declination and ruling from senior US District Judge Richard Leon represent major impediments to efforts by aides of President Donald Trump to use the levers of government to punish Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, over his participation in the video.
Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote in a scathing, 29-page ruling that Hegseth was trampling over the First Amendment rights of Kelly and that his moves are an impermissible form of government retaliation.
February 12, 2026
Here is link to the opinion
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26953150-order-in-mark-kelly-case/
Judge says Pete Hegseth is unlawfully retaliating against Sen. Mark Kelly over 'illegal orders' video
Source: CNN
A federal judge on Thursday shut down Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attempts to punish Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly over his urging of US service members to refuse illegal orders, ruling that the Pentagon chief’s actions were unconstitutionally retaliatory.
The decision landed two days after a grand jury in Washington, DC, declined to approve charges sought by federal prosecutors against the Arizona senator and several other Democratic lawmakers who taped a video last year warning that “threats to our Constitution” are coming “from right here at home,” and repeatedly implored service members and the intelligence community to “refuse illegal orders.”
Together, the grand jury declination and ruling from senior US District Judge Richard Leon represent major impediments to efforts by aides of President Donald Trump to use the levers of government to punish Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, over his participation in the video.
Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote in a scathing, 29-page ruling that Hegseth was trampling over the First Amendment rights of Kelly and that his moves are an impermissible form of government retaliation.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/12/politics/mark-kelly-pentagon-lawsuit-ruling
Here is link to the opinion
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26953150-order-in-mark-kelly-case/
February 12, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/save-act-elections-house-republicans-trump-johnson-voter-id
There is no evidence of the type of voter fraud that the SAVE Act would prevent. It takes time and effort to get US citizens to go vote and so non-citizens are not going to risk arrest just to vote. The GOP and other groups have been looking for years for proof of non-citizens voting and have not found any such proof. The SAVE Act is a solution looking for a problem.
MaddowBlog-Targeting elections, House GOP advances the SAVE America Act, a solution in search of a problem
The original SAVE Act was an indefensible step backward, and the revised version is worse. It passed the Republican-led House anyway.
Targeting elections, House GOP advances the SAVE America Act, a solution in search of a problem www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
— Philly Joe (@joehick58.bsky.social) 2026-02-12T00:19:32.092Z
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/save-act-elections-house-republicans-trump-johnson-voter-id
A couple of years ago, House Speaker Mike Johnson made a pilgrimage of sorts to Mar-a-Lago to kiss Donald Trump’s ring and hold a joint news conference with the then-former president. It was not, however, a simple photo-op: The Republicans unveiled a proposal they appeared to be rather proud of.
The GOP duo pitched legislation that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. The absurdity of watching two notorious election deniers pretend to be deeply concerned with the integrity of elections was a detail the political world was apparently supposed to overlook.....
The original SAVE Act was an indefensible step backward, and the revised version is worse:
The proposal is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Republicans have spent years desperately searching for evidence of systemic fraud in vote-by-mail systems, for example, and they’ve come up empty. The same is true about the supposed need for voter ID laws: In reality, there is simply no national scourge of people trying to cast ballots while pretending to be someone else.....
What’s more, as The Associated Press reported, state elections officials — from both parties — have expressed practical concerns about how these costly proposed procedures would be implemented and paid for. The same article added: “Voting rights groups have said married women who have changed their name could have trouble registering under the SAVE Act because their birth certificate lists their maiden name.”
Despite all of this, the bill passed the House anyway.
The proposal now heads to the Republican-led Senate, where it will need to overcome a 60-vote threshold, which seems exceedingly unlikely. That said, Politico reported this week that GOP leaders are so desperate to fundamentally alter how Americans vote that they’re exploring potential procedural changes that would make it possible to pass the regressive legislation, despite existing cloture rules.
The GOP duo pitched legislation that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. The absurdity of watching two notorious election deniers pretend to be deeply concerned with the integrity of elections was a detail the political world was apparently supposed to overlook.....
The original SAVE Act was an indefensible step backward, and the revised version is worse:
All Americans would be required to prove their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.
Voters would be required under federal law to present identification when casting ballots in person or by mail, even in states that do not have voter ID laws.
Republicans are eyeing new restrictions on Americans who want to vote by mail.
The proposal is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Republicans have spent years desperately searching for evidence of systemic fraud in vote-by-mail systems, for example, and they’ve come up empty. The same is true about the supposed need for voter ID laws: In reality, there is simply no national scourge of people trying to cast ballots while pretending to be someone else.....
What’s more, as The Associated Press reported, state elections officials — from both parties — have expressed practical concerns about how these costly proposed procedures would be implemented and paid for. The same article added: “Voting rights groups have said married women who have changed their name could have trouble registering under the SAVE Act because their birth certificate lists their maiden name.”
Despite all of this, the bill passed the House anyway.
The proposal now heads to the Republican-led Senate, where it will need to overcome a 60-vote threshold, which seems exceedingly unlikely. That said, Politico reported this week that GOP leaders are so desperate to fundamentally alter how Americans vote that they’re exploring potential procedural changes that would make it possible to pass the regressive legislation, despite existing cloture rules.
There is no evidence of the type of voter fraud that the SAVE Act would prevent. It takes time and effort to get US citizens to go vote and so non-citizens are not going to risk arrest just to vote. The GOP and other groups have been looking for years for proof of non-citizens voting and have not found any such proof. The SAVE Act is a solution looking for a problem.
February 12, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pardoned-jan-6-rioter-convicted-on-child-molestation-charges-adding-to-pattern
MaddowBlog-Pardoned Jan. 6 rioter convicted on child molestation charges, adding to pattern
Trump’s pardons for Jan. 6 rioters were already indefensible. That so many of them ended up committing additional crimes makes the move look even worse.
Trump’s pardons for Jan. 6 rioters were already indefensible.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-02-12T13:44:41.719Z
The fact that so many of those who received pardons went on to commit additional crimes, including many felonies, makes the move look so much worse.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pardoned-jan-6-rioter-convicted-on-child-molestation-charges-adding-to-pattern
At a White House event in October, a reporter asked Donald Trump for his reaction to the arrest of a pardoned Jan. 6 rioter after he allegedly threatened to assassinate a congressional leader. “You have thousands of people that we’re dealing with and, you know, if one goes haywire,” the president said, before changing the subject midsentence.
If he were right, and just one of the Jan. 6 criminals he pardoned had ended up in legal trouble again, Trump’s reaction might have been defensible. But the growing list isn’t limited to one name. NPR reported:
Johnson will be sentenced next month. A local prosecutor confirmed to NPR that he “faces up to life in prison.”
Complicating matters for the White House, however, is the familiarity of the circumstances surrounding pardoned Jan. 6 rioters who’ve been re-arrested after receiving clemency from Trump.
Last week, for example, another pardoned Jan. 6 rioter, Christopher Moynihan, who was arrested after threatening to assassinate House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated harassment as part of a plea agreement.....
To be sure, when making a list of the worst things the president has done since returning to power, the competition is fierce, but his decision to pardon Jan. 6 rioters, including violent felons, is near the top. But the fact that so many of these recipients went on to commit additional crimes makes Trump’s move look even worse.
If he were right, and just one of the Jan. 6 criminals he pardoned had ended up in legal trouble again, Trump’s reaction might have been defensible. But the growing list isn’t limited to one name. NPR reported:
A Florida handyman who received a pardon from President Trump for storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, has been convicted of multiple state charges of child molestation and exposing himself to children, prosecutors told NPR. Andrew Paul Johnson, the pardoned rioter, attempted to bribe one victim with money he claimed he would receive as part of restitution for Jan. 6 defendants, police reported. The conviction is the latest case of a pardoned Capitol rioter committing new crimes after receiving a pardon.
On Tuesday, a jury in Hernando County, Fla., found Andrew Paul Johnson guilty of five charges, including molesting a child under 12 and another under 16, as well as lewd and lascivious exhibition. Johnson was acquitted of one charge of sending sexual material to a child.
Johnson will be sentenced next month. A local prosecutor confirmed to NPR that he “faces up to life in prison.”
Complicating matters for the White House, however, is the familiarity of the circumstances surrounding pardoned Jan. 6 rioters who’ve been re-arrested after receiving clemency from Trump.
Last week, for example, another pardoned Jan. 6 rioter, Christopher Moynihan, who was arrested after threatening to assassinate House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated harassment as part of a plea agreement.....
To be sure, when making a list of the worst things the president has done since returning to power, the competition is fierce, but his decision to pardon Jan. 6 rioters, including violent felons, is near the top. But the fact that so many of these recipients went on to commit additional crimes makes Trump’s move look even worse.
February 12, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/white-house-pam-bondi-epstein/
White House 'less than thrilled' with Pam Bondi's handling of Epstein matter: CNN reporter
Bondi was playing to an audience of one person. I thought that Bondi was very unprofessional and went too far. It seems that trump may not be happy with the public backlash to Bond's antics
White House 'less than thrilled' with Pam Bondi's handling of Epstein matter: CNN reporter
— John Dandridge (@jonthetherapist.bsky.social) 2026-02-12T15:29:35.678Z
www.rawstory.com/white-house-...
https://www.rawstory.com/white-house-pam-bondi-epstein/
CNN's Kevin Liptak revealed the White House was unimpressed with Attorney General Pam Bondi's fiery performance before the House Judiciary Committee.
President Donald Trump's attorney general lashed out at Democrats, hurling insults and highlighting various crimes back in their home districts that she pulled from a tabbed binder, and refused to answer questions about the Jeffrey Epstein case, but CNN's senior White House correspondent revealed what he's hearing about her from insiders.
"It was almost a Trumpian appearance from the attorney general," Liptak told "CNN News Central," "and I think that particular aspect of it will probably have gone over fairly well. But, listen, the White House has made no secret that it is less than thrilled at how the attorney general has handled the Epstein matter. You know, Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, who is ostensibly one of Pam Bondi's friends, said that she had whiffed the entire thing, which I think sort of embodies how the West Wing has viewed this generally, and so when she went out into that hearing room to engage in this really sort of bitter theatrical appearance, I think it did reflect an attorney general very much under fire for how she's handling all of this."
"You know, she came armed with these personalized insults for anyone who asked about anything she didn't want to talk about, which was virtually anything having to do with Jeffrey Epstein," Liptak added. "She really shrugged off questions from Democrats about why none of Epstein's co-conspirators had been indicted. She blamed that on the Biden administration. She refused to apologize to Epstein's victims, who were sitting in the very room where she was, for how some of these files had been redacted or not redacted, as the case may be showing to the general public some of the victims names and faces. That was the line of questioning from [Rep.] Thomas Massie (R-KY), who was kind of the only Republican in the room to ask her about any of this."
President Donald Trump's attorney general lashed out at Democrats, hurling insults and highlighting various crimes back in their home districts that she pulled from a tabbed binder, and refused to answer questions about the Jeffrey Epstein case, but CNN's senior White House correspondent revealed what he's hearing about her from insiders.
"It was almost a Trumpian appearance from the attorney general," Liptak told "CNN News Central," "and I think that particular aspect of it will probably have gone over fairly well. But, listen, the White House has made no secret that it is less than thrilled at how the attorney general has handled the Epstein matter. You know, Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, who is ostensibly one of Pam Bondi's friends, said that she had whiffed the entire thing, which I think sort of embodies how the West Wing has viewed this generally, and so when she went out into that hearing room to engage in this really sort of bitter theatrical appearance, I think it did reflect an attorney general very much under fire for how she's handling all of this."
"You know, she came armed with these personalized insults for anyone who asked about anything she didn't want to talk about, which was virtually anything having to do with Jeffrey Epstein," Liptak added. "She really shrugged off questions from Democrats about why none of Epstein's co-conspirators had been indicted. She blamed that on the Biden administration. She refused to apologize to Epstein's victims, who were sitting in the very room where she was, for how some of these files had been redacted or not redacted, as the case may be showing to the general public some of the victims names and faces. That was the line of questioning from [Rep.] Thomas Massie (R-KY), who was kind of the only Republican in the room to ask her about any of this."
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 177,089