The Dictatorship
Why Pam Bondi’s first day as attorney general was such a mess
When Merrick Garland was sworn in as the U.S. attorney general, he took the oath of office at the Justice Department, which made sense, given that it was the agency he was poised to lead. When Loretta Lynch was sworn in to the same office, the ceremony was held in the same room at Main Justice. When Eric Holder became attorney general, the scene was the same.
But when Pam Bondi was sworn in as the newest attorney general, she took the oath in the Oval Office — with Donald Trump nearby, looking over her shoulder, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas oversaw the proceedings.
There appeared to be a symbolic significance to the scene, as if the president wanted to leave little doubt that he believed Bondi was an extension of his White House. Of course, this wasn’t just a matter of symbolism: As The Washington Post reportedthe attorney general, in the opening hours of her tenure, made her focus clear.
Attorney General Pam Bondi spent her first day on the job Wednesday redirecting the Justice Department’s significant law enforcement authority toward addressing President Donald Trump’s grievances with the agency, making her allegiance to his agenda clear in a series of strongly worded directives.
The nation’s new chief law enforcement official issued 14 “first-day” directives, but Politico highlighted one of the more ridiculous orders.
Bondi directed the “weaponization” group to investigate former special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the two federal criminal cases against Trump. … And she directed the group to examine “federal cooperation with the weaponization” by the offices of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The attorney general said the working group would be responsible for reviewing instances of what she characterized as “politicized justice.”
At first blush, it might be tempting to just roll one’s eyes at such an endeavor. Congressional Republicans spent two years overseeing a related “weaponization” investigation, and the GOP lawmakers’ investigation proved to be an embarrassing dud. If Bondi and her team want to waste time on a similarly pointless probe, perhaps it’s best to simply shrug and move on?
Maybe, but it might not be that simple.
First, for the Justice Department to investigate its own former special counsel is an unprecedented abuse. There’s literally no evidence of Smith ever having engaged in any wrongdoing, which makes it impossible to defend such a probe. (If Bondi is looking for actual misdeeds, I might recommend that she turn her attention to the convicted felon whose alleged crimes Smith was pursuing.)
Second, the existence of a “Weaponization Working Group” at Main Justice appears intended to perpetuate the absurd myth that federal law enforcement was weaponized during the Biden administration. It was not. That lie might very well make Republicans feel better about the felonies Trump was charged with, but going to war against the recent past is scurrilous.
Third, Bondi’s endeavor isn’t just targeting federal law enforcement. Evidently, Trump’s Justice Department is also targeting state and local prosecutors whom the president sees as villains, further reinforcing what appears obvious: Trump’s so-called revenge tour is ongoing, and the attorney general wants to help advance the campaign.
But I’m also concerned about where all of this is likely to end. If the “Weaponization Working Group” acknowledges reality and concludes that there was no actual “politicized justice” during Joe Biden’s presidency, will that suffice? Or is it more likely that Trump and Bondi will decide that the answer has to match the question in a politically satisfying way, even if that means drawing conclusions that aren’t supported by the evidence?
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”