"At the NYT yesterday, for example, first Erica Green, Glenn Thrush, and Alan Feuer described it (competently) in procedural terms. It was a tired Trump strategy of projection, it might stall release of files to Congress, gosh it'll make things hard for Jay Clayton. 30-some ¶¶ in, it briefly turned to politics, in the form of quotes from Robert Garcia (Ranking Member of Oversight) and Don Bacon."
"One reason she did so, no doubt, is that DOJ literally told Judge Currie that the unlawful means Bondi used to turn Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer into US Attorney was a mere "paperwork error," Pam Bondi's fuck-up. And so, in an attempt to salvage the fuck-up DOJ is attributing to the Attorney General, she may have inserted herself into what appear to be serious Fourth Amendment violations, among other things."
Media reaction to the exchange between Donald Trump and Pam Bondi remained procedural, emphasizing process and potential consequences for officials. Initial New York Times coverage framed the exchange as a tired Trump projection, suggesting it could delay files to Congress and complicate SDNY US Attorney Jay Clayton's position. Later reporting shifted to local SDNY focus on legal jeopardy for Clayton and referenced Maurene Comey's firing and NDNY handling. Bondi publicly ratified Lindsey Halligan's indictment of Jim Comey despite prior failure of due diligence. DOJ told Judge Currie the unlawful method used to install Halligan amounted to a "paperwork error," and Bondi may have inserted herself into possible Fourth Amendment violations.
Read at emptywheel
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]