Tag: james comey
Sycophant's Reward: Bondi Dumped As Attorney General With Zeldin In Wings

Sycophant's Reward: Bondi Dumped As Attorney General With Zeldin In Wings

President Donald Trump has fired Attorney General Pam Bondi after he was apparently displeased with her performance in using the Department of Justice to pursue his personal vendettas.

Trump is reportedly planning to replace her with current Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, a Trump loyalist known for pursuing a pro-pollution agenda.

Bondi wasn’t Trump’s first pick to serve as attorney general. The original plan was to install former Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, but a sex-trafficking scandal pushed him out, forcing Trump to pivot to Bondi.

Under Bondi, attempts have been made to pervert the criminal justice system to go after Trump’s ideological enemies. Charges were filed against figures like New York Attorney General Leticia James—who successfully prosecuted Trump—and former FBI Director James Comey—who exposed Trump’s role in the pressure campaign that led to his first impeachment.

But those cases have faced roadblocks from skeptical judges and grand juries who stand in the way of Trump using the court system as his plaything.

Bondi has also been a disaster while serving as the most public face attached to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. She touted Trump’s line early on, hinting that disclosures about the accused sex trafficker and his reported client list would be exposed. But Bondi quickly became the leader of Trump’s refusal to come clean about the lurid details of Epstein’s operation and his victims. Testifying before Congress, she was repeatedly defiant about the administration’s efforts to hide the Epstein files from the public.

The suddenly dumped attorney general has operated as a loyal foot soldier for Trump, pushing to silence his critics and rushing to defend his allies like racist billionaire Elon Musk. But like ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem—another woman in Trump’s Cabinet who has been pushed out—Bondi has apparently outlived her usefulness.

House Oversight Committee Democrats issued a warning to Bondi after news of her firing broke.

“Attorney General Pam Bondi has been leading a White House cover-up of the Epstein files,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.

Garcia said that Bondi weaponized the DOJ to protect Trump in the Epstein case, accusing her and Trump of putting survivors in harm’s way by exposing their identities.

“She must answer for her mishandling of the Epstein files and the special treatment she has given [Epstein accomplice] Ghislaine Maxwell,” he added.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was also Trump’s personal lawyer, will operate as interim attorney general. Blanche has demonstrated his willingness to use the publicly funded DOJ as a tool of Trump’s personal interests.

Meanwhile, during his time in Congress, Zeldin was a zealous defender of Trump. And after a failed bid for New York governor, Zeldin was appointed to the EPA, where he has pushed for relaxing rules meant to keep environmental resources clean—endangering the lives of millions of Americans.

But whether he chooses Blanche, Zeldin, or another sycophant, Trump has made it clear that his priority is to bend the justice system to his will to continue his cover-ups and corruption.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was also Trump’s personal lawyer, will operate as interim attorney general. Blanche has demonstrated his willingness to use the publicly funded DOJ as a tool of Trump’s personal interests.

Meanwhile, during his time in Congress, Zeldin was a zealous defender of Trump. And after a failed bid for New York governor, Zeldin was appointed to the EPA, where he has pushed for relaxing rules meant to keep environmental resources clean—endangering the lives of millions of Americans.

But whether he chooses Blanche, Zeldin, or another sycophant, Trump has made it clear that his priority is to bend the justice system to his will to continue his cover-ups and corruption.

Bad news: Daily Kos’ revenue is down.

Good news: You are a big part of the solution, and small donors have never let us down.

Donating $5 today can help us out in a big way so we can continue to bring you the coverage you enjoy most!

One-timeMonthly$5$15$25Other$ORDonate withDonate with PayPal button7 tags#Corruption#DOJ#DonaldTrump#PamBondi#LeeZeldin#ToddBlanche#EpsteinFiles1 group republished

Was this story worth reading?

Recommending and sharing stories helps us decide which stories are most
important to show our readers.Recommend Story293ShareMen Can’t Get Enough of These Cozy Linen ShortsWalkergrey|SponsoredBest walking shoes for seniors with balance issuesveloraea|SponsoredComfy Orthopedic Walking Shoes for Seniorsveloraea|SponsoredMemory Loss Linked to a Food Millions ConsumeThe Modern Health Report|SponsoredThis Popular Food May Be Influencing Memory Retention In Every ServingDaily Health Report|SponsoredWhy Your Rotator Cuff Won’t Heal (What Most Doctors Miss)Shoulder Relief News|SponsoredThere are no unread comments at this time.245 CommentsClose SettingsAuto refreshCollapse on load
Keyboard navigation:
  • ( L ) Recommend
  • ( r ) Reply
  • ( p ) Parent
  • ( o ) Open/Close
  • ( j ) Next
  • ( k ) Prev
  • Show all hotkeys...
CathyMApr 02, 2026 at 02:20:28 PM

YES!! 😄😄😄😄

Now — some lawsuit to PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE against her so we can prosecute when sanity returns!! THANKS for the good news!

tmseattleCathyMApr 02, 2026 at 02:30:11 PM

It won’t make a bit of difference. She did exactly what Trump wanted, and was fired because she got backlash for following his orders. He’ll just find another sycophant to replace him, unless the Senate blocks him.

ktoztmseattleApr 02, 2026 at 02:32:18 PM
unless the Senate blocks him

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Like that’s going to happen.

AstronutktozApr 02, 2026 at 02:50:31 PM

The Senate Guardians Of Pedophiles are probably already shivering with delight at the prospect of handing Dear Leader what he wants.

alterego55AstronutApr 02, 2026 at 04:05:57 PM

It’s Trump’s fault because he never told Blondi that releasing the Epstein files was nothing more than a campaign lie. She thought she had the holy grail in her and Trump would appreciate her initiative. He’d shower praise all over her. But now he blames her.

That’s how Trump operates.

Noodlesalterego55Apr 02, 2026 at 06:09:22 PM

She made him look bad. “Sorry, now you have to go, that's the ultimate crime”. Also she probably complained. Trump doesn't need any nattering like that.

SpancosktozApr 02, 2026 at 03:04:13 PM

Otherwise, let the cavalcade of 120-day rotating, interim, acting AGs commence!
Nothing good can come of the good that’s just occurred.
Zeldin, a practicing lawyer for THREE years before entering politics.
Truly a shitshow in a rolling dumpster fire in a fourteen-ring circus.

SimnsaysSpancosApr 02, 2026 at 04:44:06 PM

...with a demented Ring Leader!

niemanntmseattleApr 02, 2026 at 02:56:58 PM

That seems to be the pattern:

Sell your soul to Donald Trump for power and money.

He throws you under the bus anyway.

They never learn that, for Trump, loyalty is a one-way thing.

RenderBotniemannApr 02, 2026 at 03:08:58 PM

In announcer her kick to the curb, Trump said she will be going to “the private sector”, which suggests his friends may have set up a sweet, golden job for her so she doesn’t … talk.

Should we expect anything less here?

PissedGruntyRenderBotApr 02, 2026 at 03:16:47 PM

Or that he’s just making up shit. He does frequently.

TRsCousinPissedGruntyApr 02, 2026 at 03:34:04 PM

Apparently Bondi will start at the important new job in “two to three weeks.” We know what “in two weeks” usually means.

PissedGruntyTRsCousinApr 02, 2026 at 03:47:55 PM

What is “never”?

RenderBotPissedGruntyApr 02, 2026 at 03:58:38 PM

As many other comments in this post have said, Trump or his handlers would want Pambi to go quietly and obediently. She knows some things about him, going way back and Epstein-deep. What better way than to prearrange a cushy landing for her? I am just speculating, no inside knowledge of how this exit was structured.

PissedGruntyRenderBotApr 02, 2026 at 04:01:03 PM

I’m not saying its impossible. I’m just conditioned to assume with a 90% confidence that anything he says is a lie, unless he’s promising to hurt innocent people.

FiresidemanPissedGruntyApr 02, 2026 at 08:24:07 PM

What is: “A good bet?”

for 💯

RepublicanAirPollutionRenderBotApr 02, 2026 at 05:50:43 PM

"She knows some things about him"

Yeah and now watch her get her revenge!

ILoveBatsRepublicanAirPollutionApr 02, 2026 at 06:38:31 PM

Another one who needs a secret safe-deposit box to be opened in the event of her death.

MadLibrarian9RepublicanAirPollutionApr 03, 2026 at 12:38:29 AM

Awaiting the race. Who gets ahold of Bondi first, Faux Newz or Mother Jones? You can guess which I’d prefer.

Too ShyRenderBotApr 02, 2026 at 11:11:27 PM

Does anyone else think that she’s made copies of every single epstein file, but she never told tfg?

walkshillsRenderBotApr 03, 2026 at 12:05:00 AM

As a former Florida AG, I bet she know a lot of shit about a lot of people aside from Trump and his gang. Florida is rather notorious for its range of crimes.

RepublicanAirPollutionRenderBotApr 02, 2026 at 05:48:49 PM

Everyone in Trump's orbit goes down to the private sector.
Trump's "private sector” that is (meaning kissing his ass)😘

Desert ScientistniemannApr 02, 2026 at 04:27:13 PM

Bingo! And some of his MAGA buddies are starting to realize that! One reason his polls are going into the toilet. He should have stayed out of the 2024 race, if he wanted ti actually not get caught in his own lies!

Too ShyDesert ScientistApr 02, 2026 at 11:12:57 PM

He ran in the 2024 race in the first place so that he wouldn’t go to prison.

Blue Choir SingerniemannApr 02, 2026 at 04:28:44 PM

I Guess She Failed to Indict Senator Schiff,

I guess super-loyalist Bondi “failed” to appease “Dear Leader” because she failed to indict Senator Adam Schiff my fine junior Senator. I’m sure anyone else who takes her place will be just as wacko. But again, it couldn’t have happened to a nicer person.

SimnsaysniemannApr 02, 2026 at 04:49:33 PM

I keep trying and trying and trying to figure out why these folks who are willing to debase themselves on international TV, never think he will throw them under his bus. It’s like the women who think the married men who cheated on their wives with them won’t cheat on them too. It’s seems like a type of arrogance where they think they are some kind of special so the same thing won’t happen to them.

poalcat51niemannApr 02, 2026 at 07:18:22 PM

Yep. The scuttle is that Bondi and Trump got into a heated argument last week and despite her begging him to keep her job, she was out the door and on her way back to Florida by the time he stood in front of the TV cameras last night.

These folks just don’t seem to grasp the fact that if you agree to go to work for DJT you had better be good at knowing how to cover up for him and make him look good, because he sure as hell isn’t going to take the blame if anything goes wrong (which it usually does).

They just don’t get it.

Desert ScientisttmseattleApr 02, 2026 at 04:23:59 PM

Exactly! Siding with T***p doesn’t keep you safe. He demands loyalty, but never gives it. He sees the world like most extreme narcissists, as composed of enemies and fools.

NickyZCathyMApr 02, 2026 at 03:07:48 PMgiphy-Snoopyhappydance.gifskippppppApr 02, 2026 at 02:21:48 PM

So Trump is mad at her for releasing too much from the Epstein files?

abydenusskippppppApr 02, 2026 at 02:29:26 PM

It is hard to say. From what I heard Trump wanted to his please his Qanon base by releasing even more of the Epstein files. At the same time the Epstein files made Trump look bad and so he wanted Bondi to release less of them. It was basically a Schrodinger’s Epstein Files. Bondi was given an impossible task, obviously failed, and was canned for not being able to complete a contradictory and impossible mission.

Kevo2007abydenusApr 02, 2026 at 02:52:38 PM

How to please Trump enough in this job to not get fired:

Good: Redacting Trump from files and releasing them. This one is risky because sleuths could determine the subject to be Trump.

Better: Selectively releasing the files that Trump is not in and releasing all the files where he does not appear.

Best: Rewrite the files and make up fake files using AI to incriminate Democratic policitians and anyone that Trump considers an enemy.

Because Bondi was unable to perform to Trump’s demands (best), she is gone. It didn’t help that she said “Fifty thousand DOLLARS”.

abydenusKevo2007Apr 02, 2026 at 03:03:22 PM

The problem is that Trump’s supporters are morons (that is why they are Trump supporters). They were convinced that the unedited Epstein Files would vindicate Trump and convict the “perverted Dummicrats”:

The fact that Bondi did not release all the Epstein files made them conclude that she was too stupid to realize this or worse was evil and had been corrupted by the Dummicrats:

Basically good tsar, bad boyars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_tsar,_bad_boyars

In other words, Trump is wonderful and everything that goes wrong is because of his bad Cabinet. The doublethink is mind-boggling...2nd balconyabydenusApr 02, 2026 at 03:46:33 PM

yeah, bad boyars…whatcha gonna do? anyway, although you invoke uncertainty, or indeterminancy, you also intimate that the maga version of the copenhagen interpretation is to just put a pinch between the cheeck and gum. j’approuve.

LeftleanerabydenusApr 02, 2026 at 02:55:26 PM

What she was probably supposed to do was to replace the idiot with Clinton, or better yet Obama, and then release them.

niemannabydenusApr 02, 2026 at 03:03:16 PM

She didn’t know that Trump is the only person who is allowed (for some reason) to get away with brazenly lying and claiming two completely contradictory things at the same time.

MammadiquattroniemannApr 02, 2026 at 06:06:26 PM

You forgot machine gun lips who can lie with impunity even better than her felon boss!

skippppppabydenusApr 02, 2026 at 05:01:08 PM

That sounds about right.

Sort of like how we’ve already won the war, yet we still have to get the job done.

And shame on NATO allies for not helping us win a war that we don’t need their help winning.

mungleyskippppppApr 02, 2026 at 02:30:53 PM

I read on RawStory that it was over Bondi telling Congressperson Swalwell that they are reopening an investigation about his fundraising.

(An alleged Chinese spy helped him raise funds. Orig investigation was dropped because there was no “there” there.)

CathyMmungleyApr 02, 2026 at 02:44:44 PM

I doubt that was the real reason; either she said something he took wrong, or some other toady (Blanche?) convinced him to replace her, or his dementia just took hold and he’s lashing out randomly.

I want to know what bribe (job) she got — is it big enough to keep her quiet? She’s got a lot on him… does he have enough on her to keep her from monetizing her knowledge? Stay tuned.

TKO333CathyMApr 02, 2026 at 02:59:29 PM

She took the bribe for the Trump University thing in Florida, but I heard she may have been involved with Trump and Epstein before that. I always figured the bribe in Florida was her primary qualification for this job, but I do not know if there is more in her history.

AstronutCathyMApr 02, 2026 at 03:01:08 PM

Or is he just getting rid of women? I heard that Tulsi Gabbard may be next. Or not; she’s as clearly a puppet for Putin as T**** and he’d need Pooty’s permission.

mungleyCathyMApr 02, 2026 at 03:10:47 PM

As with Noem there is no traditional TACO “I’ve never met the woman/she’s dead to me” bluster.

He said “transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector.”

Bondi has to have enough dirt on TACO to bury him. He’ll have to keep her happy.

A Noah CountmungleyApr 02, 2026 at 06:13:07 PM

“Bondi has to have enough dirt on TACO to bury him. He’ll have to keep her happy.”

On the other hand, he sees himself as being just like a mafia Don. He may well have “made her an offer she couldn't refuse”, if she has any ideas about getting even with him, if you know what I mean.

Too ShyA Noah CountApr 02, 2026 at 11:29:33 PM

I’m sure she has a HUGE insurance policy set up so that doesn’t happen. Just like Ghislane Maxwell.

A Noah CountToo ShyApr 03, 2026 at 08:35:09 AM

I’d love it if she not only showed up for her appearance before Congress on the 14th, but she also “spills ALL the beans” on the Pumpkin Pinochet when she’s there.

That would be SOOOO sweet!

NYVeganmungleyApr 02, 2026 at 03:04:37 PM

Meidas just published this:

Attorneys for Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., sent a formal cease and desist letter to FBI Director Kash Patel on Sunday, demanding he immediately halt any effort to publicly release a decade-old investigative file related to the congressman — and threatening to haul him into federal court if he refuses.
... It was copied to Attorney General Pamela Bondi and FBI General Counsel Sam Ramer — a deliberate, public paper trail that signals Swalwell’s legal team is prepared to escalate fast.
The three-page letter alleges Patel directed the FBI to dig up and release the file on Swalwell, who is currently a leading candidate in California’s June 2 gubernatorial primary. Swalwell’s lawyers say the file relates to a counterintelligence matter in which the congressman cooperated with and assisted the FBI — and that he was never accused of any wrongdoing.
skippppppmungleyApr 02, 2026 at 05:00:15 PM

Why would Trump fire her over that?

I would bet he directed her to open the investigation.

mungleyskippppppApr 03, 2026 at 12:55:39 AM

She allegedly tipped Swalwell off. TACO wouldn’t like that.

Too ShymungleyApr 02, 2026 at 11:20:06 PM

They just wanted to dirty him up, because he spoke out against the kleptocrats.

nilaskippppppApr 02, 2026 at 02:50:31 PM

Donny fired her because she’s weakening the brand...but Pam did her best with the hair...he should use it, Bondi’s hair is better than his at half the cost

Roger MexiconilaApr 02, 2026 at 03:15:46 PM

No, no, no — She needed long extensions, draped down the bosom, and “work” on her lips, eyebrows, and face in general. Plus higher heels. So she just didn’t fit in with Drumpf’s ideas about “beautiful.” Failure.

Brian3nilaApr 03, 2026 at 08:21:25 AM

Should have used a better dye.

gfpskippppppApr 02, 2026 at 03:19:27 PM

Did he consult with Laura Loomer before making this decision?

Methinks They LieApr 02, 2026 at 02:22:10 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Oh no! Does this mean she has to go back to chasing ambulances???????

CathyMMethinks They LieApr 02, 2026 at 02:45:24 PM

No — he’s set her up in a “private sector job” — paying her off somehow. Media needs to get on this and find the job…

MemoryCellsMethinks They LieApr 02, 2026 at 02:50:41 PM

She got paid big money by Qatar to be a lobbyist. Maybe Iran might need to hire someone connected to Trump to hash out the bribes?

eyesoarsMemoryCellsApr 02, 2026 at 05:40:27 PM

I gather they’re trying to get their beautiful 747 back. Maybe they can pay her to do that, but it might not sit well with Hair Furor.

RenderBotMethinks They LieApr 02, 2026 at 03:12:39 PM

She still has a Congressional subpoena to answer to, that should be fun.

A Noah CountRenderBotApr 02, 2026 at 04:31:01 PM

Even if she complies with the subpoena, she’ll just do her Junior High School mean girl shit.

Roger MexicoMethinks They LieApr 02, 2026 at 03:18:04 PM

Huh? I thought only excitable pooches do that.

exlrrpApr 02, 2026 at 02:23:06 PM

The only bad thing about Bondi getting the boot is her replacement (Lee Zeldin? Todd Blanche??) will be worse. Trump's giving her the boot because--unbelievably-- she wasn't fascist enough.

TomPaineEsqexlrrpApr 02, 2026 at 02:25:37 PM

It’s Blanche, at least temporarily.

NepentheRisingTomPaineEsqApr 02, 2026 at 02:58:09 PM

Get him to testify under oath!!!

tightlikethatexlrrpApr 02, 2026 at 02:27:10 PM

Or at least she was not effective enough at imposing fascism...

exlrrptightlikethatApr 02, 2026 at 02:29:11 PM

Maybe wouldn't let him grab her whatever

SpaceElevatorexlrrpApr 02, 2026 at 02:37:54 PM

She has been at tRump’s side for a long time; odds are pretty good they have ‘bumped uglies’ in the past. She adores Fat Donnie.

barneydoggSpaceElevatorApr 02, 2026 at 02:47:19 PM

Just lost my lunch.

Will Smirk 4 FoodSpaceElevatorApr 02, 2026 at 03:30:18 PM

Jesus did you have to say that?? I was reading this while eating. Now I have to scrape chip dip off my computer screen!!!

A Noah CountWill Smirk 4 FoodApr 02, 2026 at 04:33:59 PM

You’ve been here long enough that I would think that you’d know by now this can be a “dangerous” place.

; ]

Too ShyA Noah CountApr 02, 2026 at 11:41:32 PM

LOL

tmseattleexlrrpApr 02, 2026 at 02:32:24 PM

She was plenty fascist. She was just unable to make the Epstein files go away and get retribution on Trump’s enemies, thanks to the remaining ethical judges in the justice system.

KarmalaexlrrpApr 02, 2026 at 02:34:06 PM

Plus that upcoming April 14 Oversight Committee deposition, though I didn’t really think she’d appear. There are plenty of law firms that will hire her at a much higher salary.

CathyMKarmalaApr 02, 2026 at 02:58:11 PMwww.theguardian.com/…1h ago13.33 EDT

Maxwell Alejandro Frost, a Democratic representative from Florida, released a statement noting that Bondi is still expected to testify before the House oversight committee, noting that her ouster “does not get her out of that bipartisan, lawful subpoena. We will see her soon.”

CathyMCathyMApr 02, 2026 at 02:59:17 PMsame post: 2h ago13.27 EDT

...Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House oversight committee, welcomed Bondi’s ouster and said that she led “a White House cover-up of the Epstein files”.

..Today, Garcia said that he still expects the ousted attorney general to testify.

“She will not escape accountability,” he said. “She must answer for her mishandling of the Epstein files and the special treatment she has given Ghislaine Maxwell.”

...“If they think we are moving on because they were fired, they are gravely mistaken,” Garcia said of the Democrats’ ongoing investigations into the former officials.

KarmalaCathyMApr 02, 2026 at 03:04:41 PM

I’m skeptical that she will show.

Saint StephenKarmalaApr 02, 2026 at 04:03:39 PM

As well all know, rules and laws don’t apply to Republicans.

quiet thoughtCathyMApr 02, 2026 at 03:09:31 PM

She should show up to the hearing and throw Trump under the bus. He’s earned it.

RenderBotquiet thoughtApr 02, 2026 at 03:14:52 PM

Then goodbye cushy job “in the private sector” for Pam.

CathyMRenderBotApr 02, 2026 at 07:55:35 PM

Sadly… as long as they think they are safer together, no one will rat on the other…

DartagnanApr 02, 2026 at 02:23:09 PM

Nancy Mace is a lickspittle idiot.

“Bondi handled the Epstein Files in a terrible manner and made this situation far worse than it had to be for President Trump,” Mace said.

“Far worse than it had to be?” Exactly how much worse should it have been?

PissedGruntyDartagnanApr 02, 2026 at 02:37:11 PM

“Life in prison” worse, though I doubt Mace agrees with me.

gfpDartagnanApr 02, 2026 at 03:27:30 PM

Because the most important consideration is not justice or closure for the survivors or accountability among the guilty, but whether it makes things better or worse for Trump.

They aren't even trying to pretend to care any more.

A Noah CountgfpApr 02, 2026 at 04:37:45 PM

When she flat out refused to acknowledge the Epstein victims seated right behind her showed she didn’t care one bit.

ClytemnestraApr 02, 2026 at 02:24:20 PM

What position in the “Shield of the Americas” will she now inhabit?

DurabilityClytemnestraApr 02, 2026 at 02:26:19 PM

Car Shield

Roger MexicoDurabilityApr 02, 2026 at 02:37:41 PM

I hear that car shields can be easily replaced, eh? Says so on TV.

Don DumitruClytemnestraApr 02, 2026 at 02:26:37 PM

The bleet had her being dumped into the private sector.

Olds88Don DumitruApr 02, 2026 at 02:31:11 PM

A “much needed” private sector job.

She must be hard up. Guess she didn’t charge enough to her brother’s pardon clients.

Roger MexicoOlds88Apr 02, 2026 at 02:38:50 PM

Floor mop girl at a Taco Bell. It’s a sort of living.

shabbedolleRoger MexicoApr 02, 2026 at 06:47:14 PM

“Floor mop girl at a Taco Bell” — its a honest job (that I’ve done — my roommates made me change out of the uniform on the porch tho). Much more honest and less “ewww” than covering for Trumpstein, i.e., changing his diapers.

BobRROlds88Apr 02, 2026 at 02:40:18 PM
A “much needed” private sector job.
She must be hard up. Guess she didn’t charge enough to her brother’s pardon clients.

My local Wal Mart is hiring. $20 an hour to start, $23 an hour for the optical department, no experience necessary.

Too ShyBobRRApr 02, 2026 at 11:46:38 PM

Where is your Walmart? My husband has been there for 15 yrs, and he’s making less than that.

BobRRToo ShyApr 03, 2026 at 01:32:35 AM
Where is your Walmart? My husband has been there for 15 yrs, and he’s making less than that.

It’s in Kona, Hawaii. Of course, the cost of living is higher here. Hawaii’s minimum wage is $16 an hour, and will be $18 an hour in 2028.

I’m sure the pay is also higher because the available work force is smaller.

Too ShyBobRRApr 03, 2026 at 02:24:33 AM

Probably. We live in the eastern part of the state, and the town is all about the service industry. Snowing in the winter (when we get snow) and the snooty rich valley people come up here during the summer to escape the heat.

Too ShyToo ShyApr 03, 2026 at 02:52:09 AM

btw. the minimum wage is $15.50 in arizona. Years ago, when I worked at Walmart, arizona raised its minimum wage to $9/hr. I had been at Walmart for about 10 years, and I was really aggravated that the new cashiers were making 50cents/hr less than me. You would think that if they were going to follow the new minimum wage policy of the state that they would adjust other people’s wages. Walmart is way too cheap to do that. It might hurt the corporate profits.

CathyMDon DumitruApr 02, 2026 at 02:47:19 PM

Some kind of bribe job… or maybe somewhere she’ll be watched closely. I shudder to think of the treachery involved in working anywhere near Rump…

tightlikethatApr 02, 2026 at 02:25:43 PM

Can't wait to see which ghoulish MAGA Monstrosity is appointed to replace her...

ontheleftcoasttightlikethatApr 02, 2026 at 02:31:10 PM

^^ THIS ^^

Every time, every damn time, Shitler replaces someone they turn out to be some new form of horrible.

Baby SealtightlikethatApr 02, 2026 at 02:31:31 PM

Word is that it will be Lee Zeldin.

Load moreby TaboolaSponsored LinksFROM THE WEBWhy Your Rotator Cuff Isn't Healing (It’s Not Just Age)RejuvaCareThe Best Walking Shoes For Women To Wear All DayWalkergreyBrain Doctors Connect Cognitive Decline to This Daily Food - Is It on Your Plate?Memory and Health12 Expenses Retirees Are Quietly DroppingGreensprout12 Things To Cut When Living On RetirementGreensprout$25 Patch Is Going Viral After Shocking Weight Loss PhotosBetterLivingTrending ListAbbreviated Pundit Roundup: Lame duck president quacks upby Greg Dworkin,CommunityAP260920633816891422182hThursday Night Massacre . . . 12 senior military officials firedby Clytemnestra,CommunityDefense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks to members of the media during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, Tuesday, March 31, 2026. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)23810611hSo let me get this straight—by GregryJ,CommunityFILE - Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George speaks during the POW/MIA National Recognition Day Ceremony at the Pentagon, Sept. 19, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, file)1735510h10 Gems of Bluesky Today - Day 301by ZenTrainer,Communitybkkkk5896hL - O - S - E - R, and other Iranian propaganda videos show they know us better than we know themby Clytemnestra,CommunityStill from Iranian propaganda video3952hBwahahahahahahaha....Bwahahaha....snort...snickerby LaFeminista,CommunityKribi3071hGNR for Friday, April 3, 2026: Good Fridayby chloris creator,Communitypansies47292hADAPTIVE INDOMITABLE UKRAINE Creates 24/7 "Hungarian Radio Ukraine" To Counter Orban Propagandaby Decimus,CommunityHungarianRadioUkraine47
Lindsey Halligan

Comey Prosecution Appears Doomed After Federal Judge Eviscerates Halligan's Conduct

Lindsey Halligan has had some very bad days since Donald Trump attempted to shoehorn her into the position of United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia with marching orders to bring him the scalps of Jim Comey and Tish James. But yesterday was her worst day, and it points to far worse ones still to come.

The cause of her miserable Monday was a meticulous and blistering memorandum opinion from Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick in United States v. Comey. The 24-page decision eviscerated her and the entire prosecution.

Fitzpatrick’s opinion lays out a sequence of investigative, procedural, and constitutional failures so fundamental that they threaten the viability of the indictment itself. The judge details a cascade of basic yet grave errors by a U.S. Attorney and a Department of Justice that have veered miles off the rails.

The catalog is long, and it culminates in a finding that Halligan misinstructed the grand jury on points of law so elementary that any first-year law student in a prosecutorial-tactics class would know to avoid them. That same student, it bears noting, would have had more relevant experience than Halligan, who was plunked into the highest job in the office and then proceeded to appear solo before the grand jury despite having had exactly zero experience as a federal prosecutor.

Combine that preposterous assignment with the political imperative to deliver indictments for the Maximum Leader in cases that were themselves threadbare, and you had the perfect setup for overreach and blunder in the grand jury room. Unsurprisingly, that is precisely the trap Halligan walked into. It is hard to see her professional reputation emerging intact.

The opinion traces the misconduct back to Trump 1.0 and the 2019–20 “Arctic Haze” investigation. FBI agents obtained warrants to search devices and email accounts belonging to Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman, James Comey’s longtime attorney and confidant.

Richman’s role as Comey’s lawyer should have set off immediate alarm bells, because of the extreme risk to a prosecution of viewing, much less using, documents covered by the attorney-client privilege. That is why as a general rule, no member of an investigative or prosecutorial team may review attorney-client privileged material; that responsibility lies with a separate “taint” team of uninvolved attorneys and agents.

But Fitzpatrick found that the agents charged with the initial review went far beyond the warrant’s limits. Worse, they held onto that material long after the investigation had closed and failed to conduct any meaningful privilege review despite knowing Richman represented multiple clients, including Comey. Most remarkably, Comey—the privilege holder himself—was never included in the screening process. And notwithstanding a court order to seal and refrain from reviewing nonresponsive material, the government effectively treated the entire trove as fair game for rummaging—a practice the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.

That was the landscape when Halligan was rushed into service, after the previous nominee, Erik Siebert, told DOJ leadership that the case could not be brought under DOJ guidelines. That assessment, implicating a core duty for any federal prosecutor, amounted to a fireable offense in Pam Bondi’s Justice Department.

From there, as Fitzpatrick documents, things descended into chaos. Facing an imminent statute-of-limitations deadline on a newly imagined charge, the government went back to the Richman materials without seeking any judicial authorization. Fitzpatrick understatedly called the maneuver “highly unusual.” A new warrant would have required the government to define a relevant timeframe, establish probable cause for the new charges, and—critically—implement protections for privileged material. None of that occurred.

The next misstep was yet more jaw-dropping. The FBI agent assigned to search the extracted Richman materials was expressly told to look for communications between Richman and Comey—communications that were, by definition, presumptively privileged. He found them, printed them, and handed them to another agent, who recognized their privileged nature. Yet that recognition did not trigger a taint protocol, a recusal, or even a pause. Instead, Agent-3, who had been exposed to what Fitzpatrick describes as at least a “limited overview” of privileged content, went on to testify as the sole witness before the grand jury. Every word of his testimony may have rested on tainted material.

Then came Halligan’s performance before the grand jury. Fitzpatrick identified two separate statements she made that were “fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process.”

The statements themselves are redacted, but Fitzpatrick describes their contours. In the first she suggested to the grand jury that Comey might not have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify at trial—or that, at a minimum, the trial jury would be instructed not to draw any inference from his silence. It is hard to imagine a more basic or consequential legal error.

And she was not done. Halligan also told the grand jury it could rely on information not presented to it when determining probable cause and assured the jurors that the government had more—and perhaps better—evidence elsewhere.

It is difficult to imagine a prosecutor in the pre-Bondi DOJ who could have committed errors this basic and prejudicial and remained employed—or, at the very least, not been shunted off to an obscure corner where further harm was impossible. But in this DOJ, Halligan’s amateurism, combined with her anything-it-takes approach to serving Trump, is her most prominent qualification.

Things only deteriorated from there. The grand jury initially rejected Count One of the proposed charges—an unusual event. The rejection so unsettled Halligan that she botched the presentation of the returned indictment to the court. This has prompted sharp questioning from both Fitzpatrick and Judge Currie, who is overseeing a separate motion arguing that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful and ineffective.

Halligan has submitted a declaration swearing she had no contact with the grand jury after deliberations began. Fitzpatrick, reviewing the timeline, plainly does not buy it. His conclusion is stark: either Halligan is “mistaken” about when she learned the grand jurors had rejected Count One, or “the Court is in uncharted legal territory in that the indictment returned in open court was not the same charging document presented to and deliberated upon by the grand jury.” Those are two astonishingly bad options for Halligan.

By the end of the opinion, Fitzpatrick lists no fewer than eleven grounds supporting the defense’s request for disclosure of grand jury materials. They include possible Fourth Amendment violations; willful or reckless misconduct by investigators; mishandling of privileged documents; tainted testimony; constitutional misstatements; and profound irregularities in the indictment’s return. The cumulative impact is a judicial finding that Comey has shown a rare “particularized and factually based” basis to challenge the indictment’s validity—the exact showing Rule 6(e) requires. Findings like this are extremely uncommon.

For Halligan, the opinion marks a moment of extraordinary vulnerability. Even before it, she faced serious legal and ethical concerns: doubts about the legality of her appointment; sanctions in prior litigation; a reported unwillingness to follow DOJ protocols for politically sensitive investigations; and, above all, her willingness to sign on to reprisal prosecutions against Trump’s perceived enemies in defiance of everything DOJ once stood for.

None of this should shock us, or, for that matter, Halligan. She accepted the role of pretend prosecutor, tasked with bringing plainly illegitimate cases on Trump’s say-so. Now the case has metastasized, and it is far too late to turn back. Trump may well shield her from criminal liability with a pardon, but he cannot protect her professional reputation, which is irretrievably wrecked, or spare her from a bar discipline process, which is already underway.

Most importantly, the case Halligan volunteered for—which I have called “the single most shameful act in the Department of Justice’s history”—now appears to be in a death spiral. The only remaining question is which court and which legal tool will finish it off. And when that happens, the fallout will land squarely on Lindsey Halligan.

Halligan's Retribution Prosecutions Of Comey and James Are Falling Apart Fast

Halligan's Retribution Prosecutions Of Comey and James Are Falling Apart Fast

Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan is not having a good time.

Sure, indicting people because President Donald Trump said so was probably a bit of a rush, but now she’s stuck with two high-profile cases where the only help she has is prosecutors borrowed from other districts, since no one in her office would agree to handle these travesties.

While Halligan is running these cases on a shoestring, former FBI Director James Comey is going HAM and filing motion after motion to get rid of both Halligan and the indictment she secured against him.

He’s assembled a giant team of high-powered, experienced attorneys, and they are absolutely burying Halligan in a flurry of motions —an excellent strategy against an inexperienced prosecutor. Now, Halligan has to respond to all of these, and meanwhile, time marches on. Both Comey’s case and Halligan’s prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James are on the rocket docket, so Halligan has to simultaneously prepare for two big trials scheduled just a few weeks apart in January.

Comey had already filed two earlier motions to dismiss, one based on Halligan being illegally appointed and one alleging vindictive and selective prosecution. This week, he added three more.

First, he filed a motion to force the government to disclose the grand jury proceedings. Normally, grand juries are entitled to a “presumptionof regularity,” meaning the actions of the grand jury are presumed to be reasonable. But if a defendant can point to significant irregularities, they can get access to the grand jury materials.

Here, Comey points to two significant irregularities. First, it appears there may have been a tainted witness—an FBI agent who may have had access to privileged material between Comey and his attorneys, which would be covered by the attorney-client privilege. If the agent provided the grand jury with attorney-client information in an effort to buttress the indictment against Comey, that’s a big problem.

Additionally, Comey alleges that Halligan kept the grand jury well into the evening instead of sending them home after they refused to indict Comey on three counts. She then presented the two-count indictment and kept the jury until nearly 7 PM. Comey wants access to those proceedings to see if Halligan basically told the jury they couldn’t leave until they indicted him.

That might sound fanciful and ridiculous in a normal case with a normal prosecutor—a long-shot complaint. But this is no normal case, and Halligan is no normal prosecutor, so it’s not hard to imagine her thinking it’s totally appropriate to hammer a grand jury until she got what she wanted.

He’s also filed a motion for a bill of particulars. A defendant is supposed to know the basis for the charges against them so they can prepare for trial. But the indictment Halligan presented has literally no information about the factual basis for charging Comey. So, Comey is asking for all of it, and let’s face it: We know that whatever Halligan has as material supporting her fact-free indictment is probably pretty sparse.

If that wasn’t enough, Comey also filed a motion to dismiss the indictment “based on fundamental ambiguity and literal truth.” That’s a mouthful, but what it’s about is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s mangled, multi-part questions to Comey, creating confusion as to what, exactly, he was asking Comey about. The “literal truth” part is precisely what it sounds like—that Comey says he was literally truthful when responding to Cruz. Of course, if Comey was truthful, the whole indictment falls apart.

Meanwhile, in the Letitia James case …Halligan charged James with fraud over lying to her bank to get a better mortgage on a second home, but then renting it out in violation of the “Second Home Rider” contract. But there is language in her contract that says she can use the home “including short-term rentals.” In fact, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that a second home rider means the property “may be rented out on a short-term basis.”

James’ grand-niece lives in the home and testified to a different grand jury convened by Halligan that she had lived there for many years without paying rent. But then Halligan didn’t put the grand-niece before the grand jury that ultimately indicted James. That looks a lot like Halligan withheld material—that could have shown James’s innocence—from the grand jury that ultimately indicted James.

Halligan is overmatched and, honestly, seems to think her job ended after she secured indictments. Even though she’s gotten Justice Department attorneys from other jurisdictions to help out, that assistance can’t remedy the deficiencies in her indictments.

These experienced defense attorneys are not going to let up, and by now, Halligan has to feel like a mouse being batted around in a cat’s claws.

How long do we give her before she quits? Of course, if either of these indictments gets dismissed, Halligan might be purged by the same people who installed her in the job.

Perhaps she’ll go back to her previous job in the administration, where she got to singlehandedly remove any material from the Smithsonian museums that made white people sad, like exhibits about slavery.

She’s not qualified for that either, of course. But it’s got to be easier than her current thankless gig.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

The 'Weaponization Of Justice' Began During Trump's First Term

The 'Weaponization Of Justice' Began During Trump's First Term

Pundits who portray President Donald Trump's recent steps to secure federal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James as simply a response to prosecutorial efforts to hold Trump accountable after his first term have either forgotten what actually happened during Trump’s first term or are lying to their audiences.

Trump, an authoritarian to his core, repeatedly sought the investigation, prosecution, and imprisonment of his political foes throughout his first four years in the White House. The fact that he's had more success leveling actual criminal charges at his enemies in his second term says far more about the sycophants and toadies with which he's populated the government than about his own demeanor, which has always been laser-focused on using the levers of power to punish his perceived enemies.

On September 20, Trump publicly posted a message to Attorney General Pam Bondi he had reportedly intended to be private, complaining that investigations he had demanded into Comey, James, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) had stalled. He said that he had fired a U.S. attorney who had defied White House demands for politicized prosecutions and recommended Lindsey Halligan, who was serving in the White House after working as Trump’s personal lawyer. Trump subsequently said he had installed Halligan in the vacated U.S. attorney slot, and she obtained charges against Comey and James from a grand jury.

These indictments triggered denunciations from defenders of liberal democracy agog over his decimation of the rule of law and paroxysms of glee from MAGA foot soldiers. But a third category also emerged: conservative pundits who acknowledge that the indictments are politically motivated and improper, but nonetheless claim Democrats contributed to the situation by seeking charges against Trump between his terms in office.

Right-wing commentator Erick Erickson wrote in an October 10 piece that the Comey and James indictments were “absolutely politically motivated” and described them as “persecutions.” But he also claimed they were the flip side of the “law fare” he said the president had experienced.

“Unfortunately for Democrats, some of whom are complaining that ‘Trump would do this anyway’ even without those prior indictments, we actually have a 45th presidential administration where no such things happened and that was also the presidency of Donald J. Trump,” Erickson added. “Two wrongs do not make a right, but Democrats did start this.”

The editorial board of The Washington Post, recently reborn as a right-wing organ, likewise published an October 8 piece which described the Comey charges as “pathetically weak” but also complained: “Many Democrats still cannot see how their legal aggression against Trump during his four years out of power set the stage for the dangerous revenge tour on which he is now embarked.”

And in an October 13 piece at The Wall Street Journal, columnist Gerard Baker wrote that Trump “seems intent on repaying his enemies in kind” for purported Democratic “lawfare,” even as he warned that the James indictment “corrupts the legal process, corrodes public faith in civic institutions, and invites further leaps up the partisan warfare escalator.”

This argument aligns with Trump’s presentation of these prosecutions as retaliation for past Democratic efforts to hold him accountable.

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” he declared in his message to Bondi. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Set aside the question of whether Democrats should have accepted that a president must be allowed to commit crimes with impunity — even attempting to overturn an election that he lost — because otherwise he might some day regain power and demand prosecutors indict his foes.

It is simply not true that Trump began seeking to prosecute his political foes only in his second term, after his indictment by state and federal prosecutors during his years out of power.

Trump’s first-term quest to lock up his political enemies

During Trump’s first term as president, he frequently sought “to deploy his power against his perceived enemies,” and after his “repeated public or private demands for them to be targeted by the government, they faced federal pressure of one kind or another,” including federal criminal probes, as The New York Times detailed in a September 2024 investigation.

The Times produced an extensive but by no means all-inclusive list of individuals who faced such treatment, noting that “there was no legal basis for the investigation of many” of the targets. In some cases, baseless but furious accusations aired in the right-wing media led to pressure from Trump for investigations into his political foes’ purported crimes — but when Trump-appointed federal prosecutors actually reviewed the allegations, they found them underwhelming and did not seek charges.

The list includes Comey, who was subjected to Justice Department investigations into whether he had leaked classified investigations and into his handling of the probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. John Durham, appointed special counsel during the Trump administration, probed the latter subject for four years; he did not bring charges against Comey and failed to win jail time from any defendant.

It is difficult to take seriously the argument that Trump sought an indictment against Comey only as retaliation for Democratic efforts to prosecute him when his attempts to indict Comey predates those efforts by years.

Other targets identified by the Times who were subjected to Justice Department investigations during Trump’s first term include:

  • Hillary Clinton, Trump’s opponent in the 2016 election. “Federal prosecutors and a special counsel examined nearly all the issues and conspiracy theories Mr. Trump raised about Mrs. Clinton, her campaign and the Clinton Foundation, including the Clinton campaign’s role in gathering information during the 2016 campaign about ties between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia and providing it to the F.B.I.,” but Clinton “was never charged with anything.”
  • John Kerry, former secretary of state under President Barack Obama. Justice Department officials in Washington referred an investigation into Kerry’s contacts with Iran after Trump publicly highlighted them, but U.S. attorney’s offices in New York and Maryland ultimately declined to charge him.
  • Andrew McCabe, former deputy FBI director. “The Justice Department conducted a criminal investigation into whether Mr. McCabe had lied to the F.B.I. and Justice Department, and Mr. McCabe was investigated over whether he had leaked material to journalists,” but when prosecutors sought McCabe’s indictment, a grand jury declined to charge him.
  • Peter Strzok, lead FBI agent on the Clinton and Russia probes. “Federal prosecutors and a special counsel investigated his handling of the Clinton and Russia investigations” but did not bring charges against him.
  • John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser-turned critic. The Justice Department “opened a criminal investigation into whether Mr. Bolton had unlawfully disclosed classified information” in his 2020 book but did not bring charges against him (that probe has been revived in Trump’s second term).

Trump’s desire to prosecute his political enemies didn’t change between his first and second terms. In both terms, the FBI and Justice Department proved willing to respond to his public and private ire by looking into the purportedly criminal behavior. And in both terms, federal prosecutors eventually found that the evidence against his enemies was insufficient.

What’s changed is that during Trump’s second term, when federal prosecutors declined to bring charges, he replaced the recalcitrant U.S. attorney with a crony who had no issue seeking indictments anyway. But explaining that reality won't keep you on the good side of the MAGA movement.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World