DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

Trump fires Pam Bondi as US attorney general, White House official says
By Andrew Goudsward and Nandita Bose
Thu, April 2, 2026 at 1:37 PM EDT


WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has removed Attorney General Pam Bondi from her post, a White House official said on Thursday, following mounting frustration with her performance, including her handling of investigative files ‌related to the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump had also reportedly grown frustrated that Bondi was not moving quickly enough ‌to prosecute critics and adversaries who he wanted to face criminal charges.

In a social media post, Trump praised Bondi as a "Great American Patriot and a loyal friend" and said she will ​move to a job in the private sector. Trump said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, his former personal lawyer, will lead the Justice Department in the interim.

Pam Bondi fired as U.S. attorney general
President Trump dismissed Pam Bondi from her role as the nation’s top law enforcement official following ongoing negative publicity and controversy over DOJ investigations. Social media and officials responded with mixed takes while Bondi called her tenure an 'honor of a lifetime.'

Why did Trump fire Attorney General Pam Bondi?
During her tenure as the top U.S. law enforcement official, Bondi was a combative champion of Trump’s agenda and dismantled the Justice Department’s longstanding tradition of independence from the White House in its investigations.

But it was repeated criticism over the Epstein files, including from Trump allies and some Republican lawmakers, that came ‌to dominate her tenure. Bondi was accused of covering ⁠up or mismanaging the release of records on the DOJ’s sex trafficking investigations into Epstein, a financier who cultivated ties with an array of wealthy and powerful figures.

POLITICAL HEADACHE

The issue created political headaches for Trump and drew renewed scrutiny ⁠of his past friendship with Epstein, which he has said ended decades ago.

Her ouster could lead to a shake-up in strategy at the Justice Department and potentially a renewed push to deploy the U.S. legal system against Trump’s targets.

Bondi is the second senior Trump official to be ousted recently. Trump removed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi ​Noem ​on March 5 following criticism of her management of the agency and Trump’s immigration ​agenda.

Bondi, a former Republican state attorney general in Florida, ‌said she worked on restoring the Justice Department’s focus on violent crime and rebuilding trust with Trump’s supporters after federal prosecutors twice criminally charged Trump during his years out of power.

Bondi also faced criticism over the removal of dozens of career prosecutors who worked on investigations disfavored by Trump, with critics accusing her of abandoning the DOJ’s traditional focus on even-handed justice.

Bondi defended the rollout of the Epstein files, saying the Trump administration had been more transparent on the issue than previous presidents and that DOJ lawyers worked on a compressed timeline to review reams of material.

SPARRING WITH LAWMAKERS

During a ‌combative hearing before a House of Representatives panel in January, Bondi responded to criticism ​with political attacks directed at lawmakers. She refused to apologize or look at Epstein victims ​and their relatives who attended the proceedings.

Bondi early last year played ​into fevered speculation about the Epstein files, saying a client list was on her desk for review. But after ‌an initial release included material that had largely already been ​public, the DOJ and FBI declared in ​July that the case was closed and that no further disclosures were warranted.

The move prompted an eruption of criticism and eventually a bipartisan law passed in November requiring the Justice Department to release nearly all of its files.

The release of roughly 3 million pages of ​records still did not quell the controversy, as lawmakers ‌criticized redactions in the files and the disclosure of the identities of some Epstein victims.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-fires-pam-bondi-us-171320094.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

I think there is 2

And the Fanboys go gobble gobble gobble gobble gobble.

There's only one possible reason to try and challenge this, something for that stood in place for all those other presidents since Nixon.

Records, multi million dollars jets, anything really. Its just not fair!

Washington — The Justice Department said that a federal law enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal that requires the president to preserve certain documents and turn them over to the National Archives at the end of his administration is unconstitutional.

The opinion from Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, who leads the Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that the Presidential Records Act exceeds Congress' power and "aggrandizes the legislative branch" at the expense of the independence of the executive branch.

Gaiser, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, wrote that as a result of his determination that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional, President Trump does not need to comply with it.

"The PRA is not a valid exercise of Congress's Article I authority and unconstitutionally intrudes on the independence and autonomy of the President guaranteed by Article II," he found. "The Act establishes a permanent and burdensome regime of congressional regulation of the Presidency untethered from any valid and identifiable legislative purpose."

The Office of Legal Counsel decision on the constitutionality of the records law was made public Thursday and first reported by Axios.

The Presidential Records Act was enacted in 1978, four years after President Richard Nixon's resignation. The law established that presidential records belong to the U.S. government, not the president personally, and must be preserved. When a president leaves office, the Presidential Records Act requires material to be turned over to the National Archives, which maintains the documents.

The measure governs the records of the president, vice president and certain parts of the Executive Office of the President, like the National Security Council, and sets out requirements for the maintenance, access and preservation of information during and after a presidency.

Under the law, the White House must preserve material relating to certain political activities and information regarding the president's duties, including emails, text messages and phone records. But it excludes the president's personal records, which are documents of a "purely private or nonpublic character."

The Presidential Records Act has no enforcement mechanism, but Mr. Trump repeatedly invoked the law after he was indicted in 2023 on charges stemming from his alleged mishandling of sensitive government records after the end of his first term in January 2021.

In a case pursued by then-special counsel Jack Smith, Mr. Trump was accused of keeping classified documents at his South Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, after repeatedly rebuffing demands from the National Archives that he turn them over.

Mr. Trump denied any wrongdoing and claimed that he was allowed to keep all of the material under the records law. The case eventually ended after he won a second term in the White House last November.

The Office of Legal Counsel provides the president and federal agencies with advice on legal questions, and its opinions bind the executive branch. But if a court reaches a different interpretation of a legal question, that determination prevails.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-department-presidential-records-act-unconstitutional/

Trump claims he’s ‘the most transparent’ president in US history

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/politics/trump-claims-most-transparent-president-fact-check

Agree heartily with that last paragraph. The league seems too stubborn to embrace some of the most common-sense tech, it's ranges from head-scratching to jaw-dropping. For instance, how is there not a chip in the ball that lights up a TD light at the goal line? And yeah, if you're standing two feet away and can't see a player's foot is out of bounds - suspend that dolt for two games without pay.

As far as the officiating itself, I think there are some bad eggs, but not any more than any other workplace. My biggest complaint is the league's constant penchant for making rules even more subjective than they already are. There is enough nuance in determining a catch to fill a Stephen King novelette. What the hell was wrong with coming down with two feet? Then they had to add "make a football move", pretty soon they decided "they must survive the ground"... GTHOH, it wasn't broken in the first place!

Lastly, let the booth pick-up flags AND distribute them if a play is under review anyway. That Hollywood Higgins dive could have changed the face of this franchise forever if the penalty the whole world watched was enforced.

I did a deep dive, albeit about ten years ago, and was blown away at the number of lawyers and doctors!

The first major issue the crew faced...


Artemis II toilet returns to 'normal operations' after brief issue
Melina Khan
USA TODAY
April 2, 2026, 9:44 a.m. ET
link

To be clear, most of the problem (IMO) has to do with many rule-changes making the game harder to officiate vs easier. Also, some rule changes seem to be slanted to try to increase scoring (which sometimes makes it tough to make the "right" call). The lack of accountability in struggling to make officiating more consistent in the NFL extends way beyond the guys wearing stripes on the field.

Kind of along the same lines, I believe there has been a fairly significant amount of turnover in NFL reffing crews (outside of any impending work stoppage).

I just have a hard time with the NFL not really doing a whole lot for standards and accountability for bad reffing (I know they're graded which goes towards scheduling in the playoffs... this isn't accountability) while in the same breath making the game harder to ref and not investing in officiating consistency (boggles my mind how little technology is used).

They are paid $250,000+ per season to learn rule changes, stay in shape and know the one part of the field they are assigned to... and to not get the calls wrong consistently. I don't think they are under paid in the slightest. This is also a part time job for them, nearly all of them have other careers.

I wish I had gotten heavy into officiating as a youth and worked my way up the chain. The problem is, most of them are lawyers and dentists that know someone that got them in.

I don’t know what an official makes in the NFL, but I’d bet they’re underpaid.

And it’s a difficult job in a fast/paced game, so mistakes happen.

I guess that's at least something after 56 years.

Not much.... just a successful launch of the most powerful rocket ever built!!!!!

It was worded in a way that sent a message to current officials that they no longer have any power in negotiations and no more than that. A power play short and simple.

I would say you are right. That's why he changed the play calling for Flacco. That was my entire point. He adjusts the play calling to suit the QB.

I love the space program and all. But I suppose maybe I'm not as excited about it right now as some of the younger people are. Us older folks watched Apollo missions land on the moon 6 times and 12 different men walk on the moon between 1969 and 1972. There were a total of 24 astronauts that landed on the moon during that time frame. So I'm not seeing what they've done to this point as all that much in terms of progress. I guess my generation was just spoiled by watching people walking on the moon.

I can't really agree or disagree with "everything has gone our way" since it's not really clear what "way" we wanted things to go.

Ever since this admin has started mucking around in Iran, the objective has morphed and undergone so many changes/shifts... and yet somehow during the whole thing it's never really been clear.

During the last work stoppage, there was a ton of press and hand-wringing about the effect the replacement refs were having on game outcomes... but honestly, I didn't feel like they were all that worse than the regulars.

Similarly, games would benefit from this with oversight when played with regular refs as they would with replacements.


Overall, I just find myself very unimpressed with officiating consistency in the NFL, so it's annoying to see people give replacement refs such a hard time.

This isn't the Iran war thread. This is a thread about the trump administration is threatening the broadast licenses of networks for not saying and reporting things the way they want them to. It's about the FCC chair admitting this administration is at war with the media. How they aren't supposed to report anything the Iranian leaders say and only report what trump says. You do realize that's how they do things in places like Russia and China, right?

And BTW- The only time we have went into the middle east that it hasn't turned into a quagmire is when Bush invoked operation Desert Storm. A coalition was built leading up to that operation and there was a very clear agenda. Run Iraq out of Kuwait. That lasted a grand total of 100 hours.

You seem not to remember how that worked. You don't start a war first and then tell people it's time for them to get involved. You build a coalition first. You must have forgotten about Shock and Awe and how huge that bombing campaign was in Iraq. How Bush stood on the deck of that aircraft carrier under the "Mission Accomplished Banner" well before the mission was accomplished or how we spent almost 20 years in Afghanistan and the Taliban is still in charge.

So now, after all of that recent history you think it's unrealistic to think not only the media but the people themselves don't wonder if this will turn out the same way? Come on man.

Trump told the American people just months ago that he had obliterated Iran's nuclear program. That it had been set back years and maybe decades. Then just eight months later he tells you they are on the verge of having a nuke. So was he lying to you then or was he lying to you when he started this war?

I can help you out Peen - The reason some think this is an absolute chit show and not going well (and it has nothing to do with media perspective, much of the rest of the world things it's a mess) ... and this is off the top of my head and I'll miss some things:

1. 9 months ago we obliterated Iran's Nuke capacity. Trump and Hegseth told us.
2. So this is a war we started thru choice - and it is illegal based on international law.
3. Rubio told us we joined Israel because they were going to strike with or without them. Doesn't really sound like we are in charge here.
4. We've been given a revolving door of reasons or justifications or objectives - regime change, influence on the next regime, remove a threat that didn't exist. Various independents and then someone from the FBI confirmed this.
5. Nearly forgot to mention that the negotiations were going well, concessions never before made had been committed to.
6. Before we went Trump and the administration said we were doing it for the people (who were being brutally killed and suppressed) - that lie/narrative has died a quiet lonely death.
7. We bombed the crap out of them and were very soon told we'd won. We were told they had no means to use missiles or fight back.
8. At which point they did what they said they would do and tried to make this as painful as possible for the rotw - firing missiles and rockets at neighboring states and causing the issue in Strs of Hormuz.
9. Probably worth a mention of the $1/2 Billion of insider trading that went on before Trumps big announcement.
10. Trump claimed all the leaders were dead - there was no one to talk to - but he was negotiating with someone... a top man. He said all that contradiction in the space of 3 minutes.
11. Iran mocked him - said there was no negotiation and then promptly ratcheted up there attacks and strikes.
12. Trump's been asking for help from NATO - which this war has absolutely NOTHING to do with. NATO countries told him so and since then Trump's been attacking western allies, acting like a child and being a jerk. He's now threatening to exit NATO.
13. He said he didn't need help and then 24 hours later was asking for help (from France, UK and NATO).
14. Colin Powell said something along the lines - "once you break it, you are going to own it, and we're going to be responsible" == what Trump has done is Break it now tell the world to go fix the mess he made in Hormuz Straights.
15. His address last night was an absolute incoherent ramble of nonsense. He just claimed that if the war hadn't started Iran would have let off a Nuke by now.

Bottom line-

- No real regime change. No control over the regime change. The new ruler is the son of the old ruler - he may be more dangerous. We don't know.
- We have not helped the people.
- They were not a nuclear threat before - they still aren't.
- World economy has been impacted. It might take a while to recover.
- We've further distanced and provoked NATO allies.
- Price of oil (right now) $107 barrel
- Trump's too stupid to realize that even if the US doesn't get it's oil thru the Straights of Hormuz - any shipping issues there impacts the GLOBAL price of oil.
- Your solution of putting more US boots on the ground in the middle east to police a region is the very definition of quagmire.

The whole entire thing is an unmitigated disaster. The world and the US is not safer today and the threat of Iran and any shenanigans has not diminished, if anything maybe, just like what Israel did with Genocide in Gaza - you've just bred and filled the ranks for future generations to hate the US.

\


Yet you give no reasons that it's not possible.....

\


Yet you give no reasons that it's not possible.....