Question for Legal Beagles

[Dick7Access]

I have a few days ago had a conversation with a friend who is very conservation and a Trump fan.

He said he was disappointed with Pam Bondi. He said she hasn’t brought very many cases to trial, if any. I did not have an answer. I did some research and found many, many cases since Jan 20th brought to trial by the US Department of Justis. I was under the understanding that if the USDJ brings something to trial it comes by the director of the Attorney General. Am I mistaken. I have googled it and can’t come up with much.

 

[Isaac]

I have a few days ago had a conversation with a friend who is very conservation and a Trump fan.

He said he was disappointed with Pam Bondi. He said she hasn’t brought very many cases to trial, if any. I did not have an answer. I did some research and found many, many cases since Jan 20th brought to trial by the US Department of Justis. I was under the understanding that if the USDJ brings something to trial it comes by the director of the Attorney General. Am I mistaken. I have googled it and can’t come up with much.

I would guess the difference is in the definitions. certainly the department of Justice already had a massive pipeline. Some of those cases are probably going to trial without it being relevant to the new administration. Maybe he meant new prosecutions?

 

[Dick7Access]

I would guess the difference is in the definitions. certainly the department of Justice already had a massive pipeline. Some of those cases are probably going to trial without it being relevant to the new administration. Maybe he meant new prosecutions?

The question is not what what cases were on going trial. The question is all trials by the US Department of Justus by the authority of the attorney General?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The attorney general's name might be on all litigation initiated by the DOJ, but maybe not. For example "The United States vs. Joe Schmidlap" rather than "Pam Bondi vs. Joe Schmidlap."

 

[Dick7Access]

The attorney general's name might be on all litigation initiated by the DOJ, but maybe not. For example "The United States vs. Joe Schmidlap" rather than "Pam Bondi vs. Joe Schmidlap."

I guess I am not making my self clear. Even if her name is not on the paper work. I have always assumed that if it goes to court by the US Department of Justice then it is under the authority of the Attorney General. Now I am not sure I am right. I have email the US Department of Justise but by the time they answer me J D will be president.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Unfortunately Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino have been slow walking for whatever reason. Arrests need to happen.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Unfortunately Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino have been slow walking for whatever reason. Arrests need to happen.

My completely uneducated guess because I have no idea about any legal systems especially the American one!

But my guess is they are getting their ducks in a row to capture one of the big names...

Incidentally I don't think any of the legal systems are particularly swift!

 

[AccessBlaster]

My completely uneducated guess because I have no idea about any legal systems especially the American one!

But my guess is they are getting their ducks in a row to capture one of the big names...

Incidentally I don't think any of the legal systems are particularly swift!

I like that assessment Uncle.

 

[Isaac]

I'll hazard a guess too. My guess, @Dick7Access , is that YES - all Dept of Justice cases are under the ultimate authority of Pam Bondi, but they do not usually involve themselves heavily in every case, nor do the take the act of "turning an about face" and "switching course" on a case lightly, as it requires justification to a judge and wastes an enormous amount of resources, and requires explaning to probably others too.

Thus not 100% of cases that Pam disagrees with are going to be tossed out at a moment's notice, but I am 86% sure she has full authority

 

[moke123]

Thus not 100% of cases that Pam disagrees with are going to be tossed out at a moment's notice, but I am 86% sure she has full authority

You'll be able to tell by the resignations.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You'll be able to tell by the resignations.

If people with a liberal agenda can't work for a conservative president, you can't blame Trump entirely. He was elected by a majority of those who voted. If there is ANY blame to be placed, it must lie with the complacent voters who abstained. To abstain is analogous to the disaffected child who, when given unwelcome directions or news, simply says "Whatever" (disdainfully) and goes on about their business. To abstain is to vote "I don't care."

 

[AccessBlaster]

If the only thing Trump accomplishes is closing the southern border, we got more than our monies worth. It's the biggest finger in the democrats eye.

 

[Isaac]

I do agree with completely closing it except for legitimate asylum cases (which yes, may include Venezuelans at times) and people with the legal right to cross, a border wall is a totally reasonable thing. Nobody should be coming across illegally - zero

 

[AccessBlaster]

Legit asylum seekers need to go through proper channels, bum rushing the border isn't one of them.

 

[moke123]

If people with a liberal agenda can't work for a conservative president, you can't blame Trump entirely. He was elected by a majority of those who voted. If there is ANY blame to be placed, it must lie with the complacent voters who abstained. To abstain is analogous to the disaffected child who, when given unwelcome directions or news, simply says "Whatever" (disdainfully) and goes on about their business. To abstain is to vote "I don't care."

Guess you haven't been reading the resignations. Most DOJ Ausa's serve both democrat and republican presidents. They don't however compromise their ethics to do so.

 

[Isaac]

No one is arguing with that.

Well, I think Democrats argued with that for years - they were kind of "okay" with a certain "tolerable number" [whatever that may be] bum rushing the border.

But unless someone is in danger from their own government (and that would be hard to prove), asylum from Venezuela is probably not on the table. Most Asylum seekers come from war torn regions

Personally I'd say refine that a little more, or better said, harmonize those 2 statements: It doesn't have to be danger from their own government necessarily, it can just be extreme danger from some kind of persecution. A place run by extremely violent gangs would be something to at least consider for qualification IMO. Most asylum seekers come from war torn regions--well that can mean danger from several sides, not just their own gov. Some places the government basically IS the gangs, like Somalia and Haiti.

But notice that we never take Christians. We let them rot in camps. Instead we take ungrateful crap like Ilan Omar.

I agree that we should be taking in persecuted Christians. We have a very nice neighbor - practically the only human being in our subdivision that actually stops and talks [gasp] to people in a friendly manner - she is from Ethiopia and a Christian, and I got the general sense they fled from some unpleasantness related to that. She is a great asset to the community! Polite, minds her business in a way but super friendly and reaches out to people too. Daughter is gainfully employed as a pharmacist.

 

[AccessBlaster]

It does seem like the wheels of justice turn slowly but we can't be like the Democrats assuming that 5 minutes is sufficient time for results. It can take months/years between an indictment and a trial. Although, I am really looking forward for Tish's perp walk because NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW

My main issues is the Epstein case, after promising discloser it's fizzled into nothing.

 

[moke123]

Although, I am really looking forward for Tish's perp walk because NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW

You may be waiting a long, long time.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/41b5fc5814067eb0/1ae076b8-full.pdf

 

[Isaac]

I guess any type of repetitive, halfway-organized persecution should count, as a lot of people are persecuted for their religion but not necessarily by their government. That said, I realize it is subjective - and that's why we have people who are the gatekeepers in these interviews. One can only hope they keep their heads screwed on straight and approve the right people ..... but I really have no idea ......

 

[Dick7Access]

Persecution is very different from Prosecution. Trump is still being persecuted because "they" don't like anything he does and so they are always making stupid arguments the way they are for the "Maryland" father who is in actuality in the country illegally, a wife abuser, and a member of terrorist gang. If some random judge doesn't agree with one of Trump's opinions, they charge him with some made up crime. Persecuting is identifying a person and making up some crime he can be charged with.

Prosecuting is formally charging a suspect with an actual crime which has been committed and for which sufficient investigation has identified someone who probably committed the crime..

Persecution/Prosecution is not subjective. Persecution identifies the person (or class of people) you want to charge before you even know if a crime was committed. Prosecution is investigating a crime and finding a person who may have committed it and you are sure enough of the person's guilt to spend the people's money on a trial. Tish James based her ENTIRE campaign on "getting Trump" THAT is persecution.

Pat for president