Pam Bondi - new nom for AG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the qualifications for DOJ nominee need to be:
NOT from Florida
NOT having ever representing Trump in a legal matter. Isn't that as blatant a conflict of interest as it could possibly be? Not only that, it was in one of his impeachment trials (although of course she didn't have to actually do anything.)
NOT have skeletons pertaining to dogs or sex.
NOT have a law degree from the school ranked 98th.

No, that’s just a list of cheap attacks at Pam Bondi. Can you give the name of one Republican you would support or at least tolerate for AG? If not, that puts your attacks on Bondi in context.

Crickets

I knew you couldn’t provide a name. You would lob silly attacks at whomever Trump appoints.

We know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that whomever trump nominates for any position in his cabinet that their loyalty is to trump not to the Constitution of the United States of America. We know that he is not using the FBI to vet his choices which screams there must be a lot to hide in his appointees this far.

"First rate people surround themselves with first rate people. Second rate people surround themselves with third rate people.". (Leo Rosen) Trump proves this by his choices.

You are incredibly misguided. I won't frustrate us both by debating you, but I will just say that I am so happy that your view of President Trump was so strongly rejected by the American people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the qualifications for DOJ nominee need to be:
NOT from Florida
NOT having ever representing Trump in a legal matter. Isn't that as blatant a conflict of interest as it could possibly be? Not only that, it was in one of his impeachment trials (although of course she didn't have to actually do anything.)
NOT have skeletons pertaining to dogs or sex.
NOT have a law degree from the school ranked 98th.

No, that’s just a list of cheap attacks at Pam Bondi. Can you give the name of one Republican you would support or at least tolerate for AG? If not, that puts your attacks on Bondi in context.

Crickets

I knew you couldn’t provide a name. You would lob silly attacks at whomever Trump appoints.

We know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that whomever trump nominates for any position in his cabinet that their loyalty is to trump not to the Constitution of the United States of America. We know that he is not using the FBI to vet his choices which screams there must be a lot to hide in his appointees this far.

"First rate people surround themselves with first rate people. Second rate people surround themselves with third rate people.". (Leo Rosen) Trump proves this by his choices.

You are incredibly misguided. I won't frustrate us both by debating you, but I will just say that I am so happy that your view of President Trump was so strongly rejected by the American people.

DP. Every single media outlet is reporting the felon’s words that he wants loyalty. So how is that misguided? Why didn’t he keep Pence as VP? Because he said Pence wasn’t loyal and the felon didn’t care if he was hanged for it.

Can you elaborate how your understanding of his choices is different what the felon himself actually said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the qualifications for DOJ nominee need to be:
NOT from Florida
NOT having ever representing Trump in a legal matter. Isn't that as blatant a conflict of interest as it could possibly be? Not only that, it was in one of his impeachment trials (although of course she didn't have to actually do anything.)
NOT have skeletons pertaining to dogs or sex.
NOT have a law degree from the school ranked 98th.

No, that’s just a list of cheap attacks at Pam Bondi. Can you give the name of one Republican you would support or at least tolerate for AG? If not, that puts your attacks on Bondi in context.

Crickets

I knew you couldn’t provide a name. You would lob silly attacks at whomever Trump appoints.

We know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that whomever trump nominates for any position in his cabinet that their loyalty is to trump not to the Constitution of the United States of America. We know that he is not using the FBI to vet his choices which screams there must be a lot to hide in his appointees this far.

"First rate people surround themselves with first rate people. Second rate people surround themselves with third rate people.". (Leo Rosen) Trump proves this by his choices.

You are incredibly misguided. I won't frustrate us both by debating you, but I will just say that I am so happy that your view of President Trump was so strongly rejected by the American people.

The final count according to The Nation. Trump won but did not get 50%. He received 49.94 and Harris received 48.26. he won by 1.68 percent and this, poor deluded one, is not a mandate.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/donald-trump-vote-margin-narrowed/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is making a mockery of this position. Two very unserious candidates whose main qualification is loyalty.

I’m not going to get anyone I actually like. But Bondi ran the Justice Department in a large state so she’s definitely qualified, and she hasn’t totally disrupted her workplace or been credibly accused of sexual misconduct with teenagers, so this is going to have to do.

She did a quid pro quo though. I’m not ready to settle.

So who would you like Trump to appoint?

Someone professional, ethical, and apolitical. Someone who isn’t interested in being on tv. Someone calm, thoughtful, and serious who takes public service and law and order seriously.

Jeff Wall would be a good pick. I don’t agree with him on anything but he’s a smart guy and not totally corrupt and didn’t spread blatant falsehoods about the election. I could probably come up with some more.
Trump had a 9th circuit judicial nominee that got shot down that would be better than Bondi.
The fact that PP thinks that there are no conservative lawyers who didn’t take a bribe to drop a case or didn’t go around the country lying about the 2020 election is pretty sad. Is PP really suggesting we should all be happy so long as they can scrape up someone who isn’t a sex offender? Surely y’all can do better than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the qualifications for DOJ nominee need to be:
NOT from Florida
NOT having ever representing Trump in a legal matter. Isn't that as blatant a conflict of interest as it could possibly be? Not only that, it was in one of his impeachment trials (although of course she didn't have to actually do anything.)
NOT have skeletons pertaining to dogs or sex.
NOT have a law degree from the school ranked 98th.

Oh, come on. Stop being an elitist. That's ridiculous. She passed the same Florida Bar exam as anyone who graduated from Yale or Harvard. I don't like Trump, but I am glad he is getting outside this snobby, snooty, elitist bubble for all the people who paid $200k for a law degree and getting paid the same for those who paid $65k at the regional university.

I’d have less issue with it if she went to UF. She didn’t. She went to an expensive private law school that was not very good and was affiliated with the southern baptists. That suggests to me she didn’t do very well at UF as an undergrad and that she prioritizes her religion in her legal views.

[Amiregisteredyet]

Whether anyone here believes she is qualified or not, all Trump's picks will be based on loyalty to him, not the constitution or to the department they were hired for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time we had a hot AG

Agree!

Cute cute cute!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time we had a hot AG

Agree!

Cute cute cute!

LOL

[Anonymous]

There is literally no end to the corruption

https://www.levernews.com/trump-ag-pick-linked-to-musks-fraud-lawyer/

GOP, formerly the party of "law and order" has simply fallen off the cliff. The only question is what remains of our once great country when this is over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time we had a hot AG

I'll just go for one that doesn't weaponize the DOJ.
Garland has been a joke. So glad he did not make it to SCOTUS.

For as many things as I hate The Turdle about, him keeping Garland off the court goes a long ways in his favor.

Yeah, because Gorsuch was such an outstanding choice! McConnell's Supreme Court will live in infamy!

Thanks to Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

[Anonymous]

Amiregisteredyet wrote:Whether anyone here believes she is qualified or not, all Trump's picks will be based on loyalty to him, not the constitution or to the department they were hired for.

Biden didn’t pick people who he thought would be loyal to him and his agenda? Seems like that’s the first criteria for any President when selecting their cabinet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Amiregisteredyet wrote:Whether anyone here believes she is qualified or not, all Trump's picks will be based on loyalty to him, not the constitution or to the department they were hired for.

Biden didn’t pick people who he thought would be loyal to him and his agenda? Seems like that’s the first criteria for any President when selecting their cabinet.

Did Biden tell newspapers he wanted loyalty first? Was every single one of Biden's appointments to his cabinet sexual predators, grifters, or incompetent because they pledged loyalty. Did Biden try to overthrow the election and would he be happy to see Kamala hanged? Expertise, or a strong working relationship, is not the same as loyalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time we had a hot AG

Agree!

Cute cute cute!

A 59 year old bottle blonde?

Whatever floats your boat I guess.

[Anonymous]

With all of these Florida appointees, will MAr-a-Lago become as it was built to be - the Southern White House?

You folks with senior government positions moving to Palm Beach soon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the qualifications for DOJ nominee need to be:
NOT from Florida
NOT having ever representing Trump in a legal matter. Isn't that as blatant a conflict of interest as it could possibly be? Not only that, it was in one of his impeachment trials (although of course she didn't have to actually do anything.)
NOT have skeletons pertaining to dogs or sex.
NOT have a law degree from the school ranked 98th.

Oh, come on. Stop being an elitist. That's ridiculous. She passed the same Florida Bar exam as anyone who graduated from Yale or Harvard. I don't like Trump, but I am glad he is getting outside this snobby, snooty, elitist bubble for all the people who paid $200k for a law degree and getting paid the same for those who paid $65k at the regional university.

I’d have less issue with it if she went to UF. She didn’t. She went to an expensive private law school that was not very good and was affiliated with the southern baptists. That suggests to me she didn’t do very well at UF as an undergrad and that she prioritizes her religion in her legal views.

Stetson is not particularly religious like Liberty U.