If Bondi is going to punish those that promote hate speech that lead to violence, I suggest she start with Donald Trump himself with his January 06, 2001 that led to the violence and insurrection that led to 5 deaths as a result on that day. The day Donald Trump called a day of "patriotism" and "beautiful."
Cheryl I totally agree. Trump is first on the list. However far right "free speech" is my "hate speech" and to Bondi any other group's "free speech" is "violent oriented hate speech." In any case, the far right also practices "free for me, but not for thee." It is telling that people on the far right are going after Bondi's free speech threats because that means they can see a time when Trump and his ilk may no longer be in power. That time cannot come soon enough for me.
It’s the “ilk” that truly frightens me - Vance, Miller, Hegseth, the Roberts court, et. al. Their marching orders are Project 2025 - lock, stock and barrel. Things won’t change if Trump somehow disappears from the scene - scary stuff, peeps/friends.
Cathy, with JDV we also have his Tech Bro masters like Musk, Thiel, Karp, etc.... who follow Curtis Yarvin's horrific ideas, even though he is a White Christian Nationalist like the Heritage Foundation creeps, so is probably going to bring the groups closer together. Or not. All scary.
JDV and Musk are also influencing the politics in other countries by amplifying and networking with the far right groups in these countries. I wrote this piece about their connection with the AfD.
Regrettably, you are so right, Linda. Musk addressed a right-wing demonstration in London just last weekend. The unmitigated audacity and arrogance of the 🤬. And Vance had the gall to say that free speech was under threat in the UK because (thankfully IMO) we do have provisions in our free speech laws that make ‘hate speech’ and incitement to violence criminal offences. I don't believe that free speech is such an absolute and, as you said, when right-wing commentators talk about free speech they invariably mean their right to say whatever they want but absolutely not the rights of anyone who disagrees with them. Absolute free speech would be fine if everyone acted responsibly and respectfully, but, sadly, many on the political right don't (and, sadly, some on the left too, but at least far, far fewer; still, it's morally reprehensible regardless of which side of the political spectrum they're on). Quite the opposite, many right-wing commentators are deliberately and intentionally provocative. They actively seek to stoke up violence, hatred and division. They've learned that the more controversial they are, the more the social media platform's algorithms will promote their messages. Musk was addressing the 150,000 crowd of hateful xenophobes via satellite link, being the vile, repulsive, ugly coward he is. I'm no lawyer, but considering he urged his audience to “prepare for violence” I think he might well have been arrested under the incitement clauses of our laws. Much fuss was made of the size of the crowd of reprobates which was, admittedly, depressing (but it would have been depressing even if it had only been a hundred; one is one too many). However, the smallest of the pro-Palestinian marches had twice that number and the anti-war demonstrations protesting Blair's support of Bush's invasion of Iraq had nearly ten times as many (well over one million, by far the biggest protest march in UK history! Even my parents went and they are more than reticent! It was their first and probably only protest march), not to mention that the anti-Trump protests during his first state visit were far bigger (this time he avoided London, but there were protests in Windsor: a huge banner depicting Trump with Epstein). It's a sad indictment of our times that all of those events had far less attention and fuss made over the significance of their numbers than the 🤬 of last weekend did. But then, as the ancient Chinese curse has it, we live in interesting times.
This is the issue that still confused me even after Jay’s superb explanations, SCOTUS and “whatever the Pres does is Kosher” ruling: he directed a crowd to act violently. Or is it like with Clinton, parsing words? If my energy allowed, I’d read the text of what T said that day. Bondi’s extreme lack of knowledge may not be that. She has to make it look and sound in line with him even tho some MAGAts get it.
So now we all have to pay closer attention (or depend on Substack writers to do so) for all speech and how it’s decided.
The Brandenburg test requires the INTENT of the speaker to cause the violence. It is very hard to prove intent, even on trump's part, to actually urge people poop in the capitol or attack the guards. But he obviously did little to stop it all.
true. Though intent in the case of Brandenburg is particularly hard to prove. You’d pretty much have to have a contemporary trootheet saying “I’m going to get my supporters to injure people at the capitol.”
Thank you, Susan, and for the answer to Michael G. Were I differently smart, I'd have loved to study the law. It is so Talmudic! We as a country are being tested and if interested learning far more about the use of the Constitution and our laws than even I did during Watergate. Substack writers and communities are a huge help .
Some law is harder to understand than others. I’d be lost in a lot of corporate law (though not the contracts parts) and the law I practiced (surety) isn’t hard if you pay attention (it is, roughly speaking, financial guarantees). But few people encounter it so it remains a locked room mystery to many. It IS a field that requires a lot of statutory interpretation, so I got pretty good at that.
I never practiced criminal law, but I’ve learned a whole lot about it from evaluations of, say, ICE tactics. Amazing how courses from 1980 and 81 have flowed back into my ken.
But constitutional law isn’t that hard; most of the precepts are pretty well established (despite the Extreme’s stalling on deciding things via the shadow docket.) And I agree, Substack has TREMENDOUS resources. A growing number of lawyers are getting heartily pissed and speaking out.
Before I retired in Dec. 2024, I, for years, served as an expert witness in disputes in my industry - hospitality and meetings - both in arbitration and litigation. I did not have to comment on laws governing; rather on "accepted best practices." I find interpretation of laws fascinating and I compared it to the Talmud because it is a constant discussion of application. Just as SCOTUS is now interpreting in ways that surprise me, you may think it's cut and dry while I see, it as a layperson, differently. I'm so grateful for your input.
Oh, I don’t think Scotus is acting in the established tradition at ALL.
—They seem wedded to the whole Unitary Executive theory which flies directly against the separation of powers,
—they are ignoring the establishment clause in favor of religious “liberty” to discriminate and in Dobbs based their opinion on a religious belief ,
—they are making hash of long accepted standing rules (especially with Creative 303)
—They sometimes straight out lie about the underlying facts (the Bremerton coach case) and even a dissent calling them out with a freakin PICTURE of the facts doesn’t stop them.
—in considering injunctions the ignore balancing of equities: a government “interest” in deporting someone is greater than the good chance that the someone will be killed.
The base conservatives on the court are ideologs writ large and don’t let anything get in the way of how they “see” the world. Barrett and Rogers sometimes wake up to common sense when their own pet ideologies are not involved. But not often enough.
This is why ANYONE who actually paid attention to Con Law in lawschool is freaking out.
I don’t know much about the Talmud. But if this turns out to be a court sanctified “Christian nation” the motto will be “The Devil can cite scripture for his own purpose
On that topic, btw, science fiction writer and blogger John Scalzi has a marvelous essay I’ve just come across. I don’t know how the Talmud deals with Leviticus, but the Christianists sure find their own purposes in it.
Bondi is getting her marching orders from tRump via Stephen Miller...she just should have STFU and let Miller carry the speech suppression can, as he's been going nonstop since Kirk's killing.
There are so many reasons why Bondi is unqualified and unfit for the position she misuses. She should never have been confirmed but then that can be said for the rest of this Cabinet (other than Rubio, at least on paper)
And even Rubio hasn’t been up to the job. He is so obviously cowed.
Bondi is disgrace to the legal profession of which I am a proud member. This is hardly the first time she has beclowned herself. Worse, though, is her corruption. She should not only resign, she should be disbarred. She should also be impeached, but that is a pipe dream with this corrupt and compliant majority in Congress.
I assume Bondi's admitted to the Bar in FL, so disbarment is as much of a pipe dream as impeachment, but yes, she's deserving of both. She is a disgrace to the legal profession, but let's also remember that our profession counts among its members Paul Weiss, Skadden, Shearman & Sterling (by whatever name and letters they now go by), etc. Plenty of lawyers to be proud of too, but way too many to be ashamed of.
These cabinet members are the dredges of what you get with a president no one with any moral compass would work for. The few that still do have any integrity and actually want what’s best for the country and are sticking in there to try to do what they can to ‘right the ship’ are being sought after and let go. There have got to be more voices of opposition out of the Republican Party. But alas, we are finding out where the swamp creatures truly live.
Whatever Rubio's paper credentials, you can't effectively lead, especially on a large stage like the Secy of State's, w/out any self-confidence or self-regard and Rubio has neither. He works for a man who calls him "Little Marco." He works for a man who commands him to be "in the room" for photo ops but not to speak, especially in particularly embarrassing for a Secy of State situations like the Zelensky fiasco. He works for a man who commands him to do important things directly contrary to Rubio's own beliefs as represented by his voting record. This is not a man who is qualified to be in anybody's cabinet. As Kristina says, he is cowed.
Just remember, Pam Bondi is the Florida Attorney General that Trump's money bought for a paltry $25,000 to drop the state's fraud lawsuit against Trump University. Is it any wonder that she keeps blowing it here, too?
In the UK, four individuals who projected a photo of Trump and Epstein onto Windsor Castle this week have been arrested and charged with "malicious communication," an offense that does not exist in the US but that sounds a lot like "hate speech." Just a few months ago, the Trump Administration, through a speech that JD Vance gave at the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 14, criticized such laws. Vance specifically criticized the UK for what he called their "renegade" free speech laws. He urged them to allow speech that criticized government policies. Bondi is now trying to pivot the Trump Administration 180 degrees away from what Vance said in that speech.
Thank you for your legal insights into America's descent into free-speech Bondage.
The beam in Bondi's eye that even conservatives have spotted is that Trump and the GOP would never have acquired power in the first place without hate speech, and even violent speech. That was their pry-bar into the lid of the ID of the MAGA base.
It has not escaped me, however, that the word "hate" is cropping up a great deal these days as a verbal tic for Donald Trump. Anyone who even asks him a question whose answer might impugn him or his supposed accomplishments is told that their heart is full of hate, and that maybe there will have to be consequences for what they've said. His increasingly stark portrayal of the "left" is also of a group motivated wholly by "hate" of him and of the USA. This suggests to the suggestible mind that Pam Bondi is trying once again to please her mercurial boss, even at the expense of her own MAGA bona fides. It also may suggest an intention on the part of her DOJ to act upon their perception of hate speech as political intimidation even in the face of the law.
Oh yeah, Pam, and what about all those disgusting cartoons advocating lynching of the Obama family? Were those ok? Not violent enough for you? People walking around in "six million more" t-shirts and stickers? How about those?
Pam Bondi was an idiot when she was nominated to the position of AG. She hasn't gotten any smarter since.
But what's the point of playing "gotcha" with an idiot? It's shooting fish in a barrel. With a semi-automatic. IMHO it's not worth anyone's time to write or read about what stupid, wrong thing she blubbered on any given day. Who give it any credence or legitimacy or spread her words further?
Better, I think, to keep printing the names of the senators who approved her nomination, especially those on the committee.
Only the worst of the worst would even consider serving in a Trump cabinet. So Bondi’s ignorance is hardly surprising. Indeed, if she ever said anything intelligent, that would be surprising. As a great teacher once said, “everyone is dumber for having to listen to her.”
I think the key is that MAGA has little interest in free speech, just 'correct speech' whatever that may be at the moment. Much more dangerous is that the identity of the speaker seems more important than the act or speech. Rights and privileges and the application are apparently different for different groups of people. Very disturbing implications. Just like Trump being able to decree reality and requiring others to fall in line.
Absolutely in agreement here, a private person or business can absolutely choose to refuse to provide a product or service they disagree with. That should come without any governmental interference or compulsion. On the other hand, consumers and other private entities are free to make their own decisions in that regard. Don't want to make a sign or bake a cake? If it's your business, go right ahead. Some customers might boycott you for it, others might increase your custom. If you just work there, maybe you can get fired, maybe you can get promoted. None of that should be governments business, nor anyone else's outside of the people involved.
One can always move on to another print shop, and print shops can always quote a price so high the sale would wither economically. No need for pissy combat.
Appreciate this because without it, I wouldn't know that the likes of Eric Erickson joined the anti-Bondi chorus. My media diet does not usually include such figures. thanks.
And I knew Kirk’s name but in a lineup couldn’t have said who he was. They generally all spew the same. This tho like Epstein has riled MAGAts and when there is no produce or that is imported and unaffordable maybe some more head-smacking.
If Bondi is going to punish those that promote hate speech that lead to violence, I suggest she start with Donald Trump himself with his January 06, 2001 that led to the violence and insurrection that led to 5 deaths as a result on that day. The day Donald Trump called a day of "patriotism" and "beautiful."
Start with Katie Miller's husband whose entire modus operandi is extreme hate speech.
Start and end with both Miller's. They are both vile.
👆🎯Yes, that troll is evil, and is the author of most of our misery.
Cheryl I totally agree. Trump is first on the list. However far right "free speech" is my "hate speech" and to Bondi any other group's "free speech" is "violent oriented hate speech." In any case, the far right also practices "free for me, but not for thee." It is telling that people on the far right are going after Bondi's free speech threats because that means they can see a time when Trump and his ilk may no longer be in power. That time cannot come soon enough for me.
It’s the “ilk” that truly frightens me - Vance, Miller, Hegseth, the Roberts court, et. al. Their marching orders are Project 2025 - lock, stock and barrel. Things won’t change if Trump somehow disappears from the scene - scary stuff, peeps/friends.
Cathy, with JDV we also have his Tech Bro masters like Musk, Thiel, Karp, etc.... who follow Curtis Yarvin's horrific ideas, even though he is a White Christian Nationalist like the Heritage Foundation creeps, so is probably going to bring the groups closer together. Or not. All scary.
JDV and Musk are also influencing the politics in other countries by amplifying and networking with the far right groups in these countries. I wrote this piece about their connection with the AfD.
https://lindaweide.substack.com/p/the-trump-regime-interferes-in-german?r=f0qfn
Regrettably, you are so right, Linda. Musk addressed a right-wing demonstration in London just last weekend. The unmitigated audacity and arrogance of the 🤬. And Vance had the gall to say that free speech was under threat in the UK because (thankfully IMO) we do have provisions in our free speech laws that make ‘hate speech’ and incitement to violence criminal offences. I don't believe that free speech is such an absolute and, as you said, when right-wing commentators talk about free speech they invariably mean their right to say whatever they want but absolutely not the rights of anyone who disagrees with them. Absolute free speech would be fine if everyone acted responsibly and respectfully, but, sadly, many on the political right don't (and, sadly, some on the left too, but at least far, far fewer; still, it's morally reprehensible regardless of which side of the political spectrum they're on). Quite the opposite, many right-wing commentators are deliberately and intentionally provocative. They actively seek to stoke up violence, hatred and division. They've learned that the more controversial they are, the more the social media platform's algorithms will promote their messages. Musk was addressing the 150,000 crowd of hateful xenophobes via satellite link, being the vile, repulsive, ugly coward he is. I'm no lawyer, but considering he urged his audience to “prepare for violence” I think he might well have been arrested under the incitement clauses of our laws. Much fuss was made of the size of the crowd of reprobates which was, admittedly, depressing (but it would have been depressing even if it had only been a hundred; one is one too many). However, the smallest of the pro-Palestinian marches had twice that number and the anti-war demonstrations protesting Blair's support of Bush's invasion of Iraq had nearly ten times as many (well over one million, by far the biggest protest march in UK history! Even my parents went and they are more than reticent! It was their first and probably only protest march), not to mention that the anti-Trump protests during his first state visit were far bigger (this time he avoided London, but there were protests in Windsor: a huge banner depicting Trump with Epstein). It's a sad indictment of our times that all of those events had far less attention and fuss made over the significance of their numbers than the 🤬 of last weekend did. But then, as the ancient Chinese curse has it, we live in interesting times.
This is the issue that still confused me even after Jay’s superb explanations, SCOTUS and “whatever the Pres does is Kosher” ruling: he directed a crowd to act violently. Or is it like with Clinton, parsing words? If my energy allowed, I’d read the text of what T said that day. Bondi’s extreme lack of knowledge may not be that. She has to make it look and sound in line with him even tho some MAGAts get it.
So now we all have to pay closer attention (or depend on Substack writers to do so) for all speech and how it’s decided.
The Brandenburg test requires the INTENT of the speaker to cause the violence. It is very hard to prove intent, even on trump's part, to actually urge people poop in the capitol or attack the guards. But he obviously did little to stop it all.
He is a master of giving hints and indirect speaking, but not explicitly saying it. Thus sneaking around the legal definition of intent.
Learned from Mob Boss 101.
true. Though intent in the case of Brandenburg is particularly hard to prove. You’d pretty much have to have a contemporary trootheet saying “I’m going to get my supporters to injure people at the capitol.”
Thank you, Susan, and for the answer to Michael G. Were I differently smart, I'd have loved to study the law. It is so Talmudic! We as a country are being tested and if interested learning far more about the use of the Constitution and our laws than even I did during Watergate. Substack writers and communities are a huge help .
Some law is harder to understand than others. I’d be lost in a lot of corporate law (though not the contracts parts) and the law I practiced (surety) isn’t hard if you pay attention (it is, roughly speaking, financial guarantees). But few people encounter it so it remains a locked room mystery to many. It IS a field that requires a lot of statutory interpretation, so I got pretty good at that.
I never practiced criminal law, but I’ve learned a whole lot about it from evaluations of, say, ICE tactics. Amazing how courses from 1980 and 81 have flowed back into my ken.
But constitutional law isn’t that hard; most of the precepts are pretty well established (despite the Extreme’s stalling on deciding things via the shadow docket.) And I agree, Substack has TREMENDOUS resources. A growing number of lawyers are getting heartily pissed and speaking out.
Before I retired in Dec. 2024, I, for years, served as an expert witness in disputes in my industry - hospitality and meetings - both in arbitration and litigation. I did not have to comment on laws governing; rather on "accepted best practices." I find interpretation of laws fascinating and I compared it to the Talmud because it is a constant discussion of application. Just as SCOTUS is now interpreting in ways that surprise me, you may think it's cut and dry while I see, it as a layperson, differently. I'm so grateful for your input.
Oh, I don’t think Scotus is acting in the established tradition at ALL.
—They seem wedded to the whole Unitary Executive theory which flies directly against the separation of powers,
—they are ignoring the establishment clause in favor of religious “liberty” to discriminate and in Dobbs based their opinion on a religious belief ,
—they are making hash of long accepted standing rules (especially with Creative 303)
—They sometimes straight out lie about the underlying facts (the Bremerton coach case) and even a dissent calling them out with a freakin PICTURE of the facts doesn’t stop them.
—in considering injunctions the ignore balancing of equities: a government “interest” in deporting someone is greater than the good chance that the someone will be killed.
The base conservatives on the court are ideologs writ large and don’t let anything get in the way of how they “see” the world. Barrett and Rogers sometimes wake up to common sense when their own pet ideologies are not involved. But not often enough.
This is why ANYONE who actually paid attention to Con Law in lawschool is freaking out.
I don’t know much about the Talmud. But if this turns out to be a court sanctified “Christian nation” the motto will be “The Devil can cite scripture for his own purpose
On that topic, btw, science fiction writer and blogger John Scalzi has a marvelous essay I’ve just come across. I don’t know how the Talmud deals with Leviticus, but the Christianists sure find their own purposes in it.
https://whatever.scalzi.com/2004/02/24/leviticans/
Joan, just heard about Jimmy Kimmel being pulled.
https://open.substack.com/pub/deanblundell/p/abc-just-cancelled-jimmy-kimmel-thats?r=f0qfn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
It is all so crazy.
Bondi is getting her marching orders from tRump via Stephen Miller...she just should have STFU and let Miller carry the speech suppression can, as he's been going nonstop since Kirk's killing.
This is exactly what I was thinking as I read this article.
There are so many reasons why Bondi is unqualified and unfit for the position she misuses. She should never have been confirmed but then that can be said for the rest of this Cabinet (other than Rubio, at least on paper)
And even Rubio hasn’t been up to the job. He is so obviously cowed.
Bondi is disgrace to the legal profession of which I am a proud member. This is hardly the first time she has beclowned herself. Worse, though, is her corruption. She should not only resign, she should be disbarred. She should also be impeached, but that is a pipe dream with this corrupt and compliant majority in Congress.
I assume Bondi's admitted to the Bar in FL, so disbarment is as much of a pipe dream as impeachment, but yes, she's deserving of both. She is a disgrace to the legal profession, but let's also remember that our profession counts among its members Paul Weiss, Skadden, Shearman & Sterling (by whatever name and letters they now go by), etc. Plenty of lawyers to be proud of too, but way too many to be ashamed of.
I didn’t think I could be more disappointed or dislike Rubio more than before. Wrong!
He’s as crazy as the rest of Donnycon’s cabal.
Ditto. He’s become or is letting out such vile, uncontrolled hate.
These cabinet members are the dredges of what you get with a president no one with any moral compass would work for. The few that still do have any integrity and actually want what’s best for the country and are sticking in there to try to do what they can to ‘right the ship’ are being sought after and let go. There have got to be more voices of opposition out of the Republican Party. But alas, we are finding out where the swamp creatures truly live.
What few? Who? How?
The worker bees. Unknowns.
Whatever Rubio's paper credentials, you can't effectively lead, especially on a large stage like the Secy of State's, w/out any self-confidence or self-regard and Rubio has neither. He works for a man who calls him "Little Marco." He works for a man who commands him to be "in the room" for photo ops but not to speak, especially in particularly embarrassing for a Secy of State situations like the Zelensky fiasco. He works for a man who commands him to do important things directly contrary to Rubio's own beliefs as represented by his voting record. This is not a man who is qualified to be in anybody's cabinet. As Kristina says, he is cowed.
Just remember, Pam Bondi is the Florida Attorney General that Trump's money bought for a paltry $25,000 to drop the state's fraud lawsuit against Trump University. Is it any wonder that she keeps blowing it here, too?
If I remember right, she was also Florida AG when Epstein got his sweetheart deal
No. I made the same mistake. Epstein was charged in 2006 by then-state attorney Barry Krischer. Apparently his prosecutors were really inept.
In Palm Beach County, Florida.
I looked it up:
Bill McCollum was the Attorney General of Florida during the period when Jeffrey Epstein finalized his plea deal.
Ahh, that's right. Thanks Betsy
Qualifications needed to be a member of the Trump administration: Absolutely none!*
*Bonus points if you're extra stupid
Not true, there are qualifications- steadfast loyalty to the orange gibbon.
Bonus points if you enjoy kissing a$$..
In the UK, four individuals who projected a photo of Trump and Epstein onto Windsor Castle this week have been arrested and charged with "malicious communication," an offense that does not exist in the US but that sounds a lot like "hate speech." Just a few months ago, the Trump Administration, through a speech that JD Vance gave at the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 14, criticized such laws. Vance specifically criticized the UK for what he called their "renegade" free speech laws. He urged them to allow speech that criticized government policies. Bondi is now trying to pivot the Trump Administration 180 degrees away from what Vance said in that speech.
None of them know what they will say it look for consistency with others.
Thank you for your legal insights into America's descent into free-speech Bondage.
The beam in Bondi's eye that even conservatives have spotted is that Trump and the GOP would never have acquired power in the first place without hate speech, and even violent speech. That was their pry-bar into the lid of the ID of the MAGA base.
It has not escaped me, however, that the word "hate" is cropping up a great deal these days as a verbal tic for Donald Trump. Anyone who even asks him a question whose answer might impugn him or his supposed accomplishments is told that their heart is full of hate, and that maybe there will have to be consequences for what they've said. His increasingly stark portrayal of the "left" is also of a group motivated wholly by "hate" of him and of the USA. This suggests to the suggestible mind that Pam Bondi is trying once again to please her mercurial boss, even at the expense of her own MAGA bona fides. It also may suggest an intention on the part of her DOJ to act upon their perception of hate speech as political intimidation even in the face of the law.
Oh yeah, Pam, and what about all those disgusting cartoons advocating lynching of the Obama family? Were those ok? Not violent enough for you? People walking around in "six million more" t-shirts and stickers? How about those?
Camp Auschwitz t shirt an insurrectionist was wearing.
Pam Bondi was an idiot when she was nominated to the position of AG. She hasn't gotten any smarter since.
But what's the point of playing "gotcha" with an idiot? It's shooting fish in a barrel. With a semi-automatic. IMHO it's not worth anyone's time to write or read about what stupid, wrong thing she blubbered on any given day. Who give it any credence or legitimacy or spread her words further?
Better, I think, to keep printing the names of the senators who approved her nomination, especially those on the committee.
Only the worst of the worst would even consider serving in a Trump cabinet. So Bondi’s ignorance is hardly surprising. Indeed, if she ever said anything intelligent, that would be surprising. As a great teacher once said, “everyone is dumber for having to listen to her.”
I think the key is that MAGA has little interest in free speech, just 'correct speech' whatever that may be at the moment. Much more dangerous is that the identity of the speaker seems more important than the act or speech. Rights and privileges and the application are apparently different for different groups of people. Very disturbing implications. Just like Trump being able to decree reality and requiring others to fall in line.
Question- how did she get through law school?
Just a stunning level of ignorance, and arrogance, from a sitting Attorney General. Well, “Attorney General.”
Last I’ve heard no one has ever accused Ms Bondi of being a legal intellectual giant. Or have I missed something? idk 🤷🏻♂️
Interesting, isn't it, that DJT chooses his cabinet members for their (lack of) expertise.
In her case, it may be by being blonde.
Pam Bondi is certainly leading in the race to be the Official Poster Girl for DUMB BLONDES!
Apparently Trump is intimidated by intelligent people which is an explanation for his Cabinet choices!
Absolutely in agreement here, a private person or business can absolutely choose to refuse to provide a product or service they disagree with. That should come without any governmental interference or compulsion. On the other hand, consumers and other private entities are free to make their own decisions in that regard. Don't want to make a sign or bake a cake? If it's your business, go right ahead. Some customers might boycott you for it, others might increase your custom. If you just work there, maybe you can get fired, maybe you can get promoted. None of that should be governments business, nor anyone else's outside of the people involved.
One can always move on to another print shop, and print shops can always quote a price so high the sale would wither economically. No need for pissy combat.
Appreciate this because without it, I wouldn't know that the likes of Eric Erickson joined the anti-Bondi chorus. My media diet does not usually include such figures. thanks.
And I knew Kirk’s name but in a lineup couldn’t have said who he was. They generally all spew the same. This tho like Epstein has riled MAGAts and when there is no produce or that is imported and unaffordable maybe some more head-smacking.