Bondi’s Replacement Will be Just as Bad

What Democrats should ask her nominated replacement

Donald Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi for doing his bidding poorly. Her vindictive prosecutions flamed out. Her refusal to abide by the law Trump signed to require disclosure of all of the Epstein pedophile files incurred the ire even of Republicans. Trump insists that the fault for serial losses in court and scandals lies with Bondi’s lack of finesse in carrying out his orders, certainly not the underlying unconstitutionality, unreasonableness, and baseless actions he demands. He craved a more ruthless hired gun to oversee the weaponization of the Justice Department.

Bondi’s legacy will include the DOJ’s lost independence and credibility; ruined reputation in federal courts; failed, unconstitutional efforts to bully states to turn over unredacted voter files; refusal to enforce a host of white collar criminal laws; partisan firings of prosecutors who fulfilled their obligations to prosecute Jan. 6 insurrectionists; loss of thousands of qualified attorneys whose institutional memory and experience are irreplaceable (resulting staff shortages, which, among other things, threaten national security); and absurd, unreasonable, and unprofessional Office of Legal Counsel opinions justifying Trump’s whims and abuses of executive power (e.g., declaring the presidential records act unconstitutional, justifying extrajudicial killings on the high seas, authorizing Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro’s kidnapping).

It will take decades to undo the damage she has wrought. To recover, the department will need to devise new mechanisms to insulate it from partisan corruption. At the very least, the next Democratic AG must complete a top-to-bottom review of DOJ’s misdeeds, ethical violations, and lawlessness, and then pursue accountability (e.g. professional sanctions, prosecution for perjury) for miscreants.

As Trump ponders Bondi’s replacement, we should remember Republicans votes to confirm her amidst a blizzard of red flags amounted to a green light for Trump’s reign of corruption, revenge, and lawlessness. Senate Republicans who voted for her will have to answer for their votes, many as early as this year when they face the voters (e.g., Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, John Cornyn of Texas, Jon Husted of Ohio, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, Dan Sullivan of Alaska).

When it comes to her successor, Trump assuredly will only nominate an election denier fully committed to his agenda of retribution, illegality, contempt (figuratively and literally) of federal courts, and crass partisanship. By definition, then, Trump’s nominee will be grossly unfit for the office. Voting to confirm someone willing to do Trump’s malicious bidding would violate any senator’s oath.

Nevertheless, it is important for Democrats to highlight how disreputable the nominee truly is — both to hold the Republicans who vote to confirm responsible and to set the stage for subsequent accountability for this nominee. (Did he lie under oath? Did he reveal the illicit motives of prosecutions?)

Questions for the nominee should include:

• Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act requiring disclosure of all files and waiving an array of privileges. Has the Department followed the law? Will you follow the law? What do you say to the survivors about failing to release all files? Should people who lied about their association with Epstein hold public office?

• Trump insisted his political enemies such as James Comey and Tish James be prosecuted. Their cases have been thrown out. Is it a violation of law and/or your oath to pursue prosecutions because the president wants revenge for perceived wrongs? Will you insist on pursuing these cases?

• What about the investigation of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for whom the department admits it has no evidence of criminality? And the frivolous case against Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA)?

• The president is suing the Justice Department for millions for prosecutions that were terminated only because he was re-elected. Will you commit to appointing a special counsel to handle these so as to minimize the appearance of self-dealing? What would be the legal basis for awarding any damages for case that could still result in convictions?

• Every court that has ruled against Bondi’s demand for state voting files. A court has already struck down one executive order seeking to supplant states’ election operations. Where does the Constitution place the power to regulate elections? Where is there any role/power for the president in running elections?

• Trump said: “I said, ‘Look, you know, we have a thing called a war,’ or as they would rather say, a military operation. It’s for legal reasons,’ said Trump. ‘I say ‘military’ because as a military operation, I don’t need any approvals. As a war, you’re supposed to get approval from Congress. Something like that.’” How do you justify such subterfuge? Given that we have lost thirteen lives, had hundreds injured, launched thousands of punishing strikes for 5+ weeks on Iran, killed more than 1500 Iranians, and would expect Iran to treat downed airmen under the laws of war, how is this anything but a ‘war’?

• The National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7) on Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence purports to designate ‘Anifa’ a “domestic terrorist organization.” The crimes listed as “Antifa” are a list of discrete incidents for which no evidence of coordination exists. What evidence is there that Antifa is a coherent, organized entity? What authority does the president have to designate any domestic group as a terrorist threat?

• In directing that a broad array of groups espousing certain political speech association (“anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; …extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality”) doesn’t NSPM-7 violate the First Amendment? Would an order designating “election deniers” be constitutional?

• Who won the 2020 election? What specific evidence do you have to the contrary?

• In dozens of instances, courts found department lawyers misrepresented facts and/or evaded court orders. Why is this tolerated? Will these lawyers be disciplined?

• Is an exchange of money or investment in the president’s businesses in exchange for a pardon prohibited?

• A Twitter post said prospective lawyers must support the president’s agenda. Is this a valid requirement or a violation of law?

• The president has repeatedly insulted and threatened federal judges. Is this appropriate? Will you do the same? What is your reaction to Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement that such language has “got to stop”?

• Grand juries refused to indict 6 lawmakers who made a video telling military personnel to follow the law, Chicago residents charged in the ICE crackdown, the sandwich thrower in D.C., Tish James (twice) and many others. Given this unprecedented failure, shouldn’t we conclude DOJ’s bringing spurious cases? What discipline is proper for prosecutors who abuse discretion?

We should be under no illusion that the requisite number of Republicans will block Trump’s nominee. However, Democrats should use the hearing to educate the public about DOJ’s depravity, expose the spinelessness of senators voting to confirm, gather evidence to use later to exact accountability for the nominee or others (e.g., bar complaints, perjury charges), and remind federal courts this DOJ does not deserve the presumption of regularity.

Republicans must not escape responsibility for the next AG’s unethical and illegal actions.