Trump’s AG is TERRIFIED as Trump THROWS Her UNDER THE BUS

Donald Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi appears to be both pissed and scared. In many ways, Donald Trump kind of outed her in a way that I think she's livid about because she doesn't have absolute immunity the way the Supreme Court on many issues gave Donald Trump absolute immunity and I think Pam Bondi is keenly aware that her aiding and abetting a lot of Donald Trump's unlawful behavior makes her someone that people could be raising questions about in the future about

executing unlawful orders potentially. So when Donald Trump posted on social media a few weeks back at this point, Pam, I need you to go after my political opponents. I need you to go after New York Attorney General Letitia James and James Comey and Senator Schiff and others. She was livid. And the most recent reporting though was that Donald Trump did not mean to post that publicly. And in many ways that makes it worse

for Attorney General Pam Bondi because there are serious questions about how are they communicating with each other? Where are these communications? And from the Wall Street Journal report, by the way, a Rupert Murdoch property, Donald Trump was trying

to communicate with Pam Bondi via direct message on Truth Social, on Trump's private social media company, Trump's private account on a private company that's now traded on the stock exchanges that Donald Trump makes money, that Trump has a contract with in order to help Truth Social make money. Trump, as a private citizen, Trump agreed

to make the posts first and kind of almost exclusively on Truth Social. And so now the question becomes, in the cases that are being filed now by Lindsey Halligan, Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, who's now become a federal prosecutor, leading the Eastern District of Virginia, despite her never even being a prosecutor before

in her entire life, are these messages discoverable? Like when James Comey files his vindictive prosecution motion and outrageous grand jury conduct motion and or grand jury abuse, outrageous government conduct motion,

and he seeks discovery, is he gonna go for those direct communications? I'm sure that's not the only message. Are there a treasure trove of direct messages on truth social between Pam Bondi and Donald Trump there? And I think it puts Pam Bondi out there

as something that she did not want the appearance of. I think she was okay hiding it. We saw earlier this week when she was doing the, when she testified under oath uh before the Senate, you know, she was willing to, she had her scripted lines attacking each of the Democratic Senators. Well, you are Antifa and you're

this. I'm not gonna answer. I would never talk about those communications. So, she understood the assignment in terms of trying to avoid perjury and trying to avoid accountability by just saying, I'm not going to tell you, which again is fairly unprecedented. It's an oversight hearing. You're obligated to tell in normal situations that would pretty much get you fired as the attorney general. I can't even imagine if another AG performed the way she did at that hearing. But now, is this discoverable

information? Is this going to come out eventually? Does this link Pambandi to Trump's orders in ways that, I mean, if this was discovered through investigative journalism. In the past, it would bring down an entire administration like that. And I understand in this Trump dictatorship, things are handled differently and viewed differently. But I want to turn it over to Harry Litman from the Talking

Feds YouTube channel, Talking Feds Podcast, and Talking Feds Substack. Because Harry, I think if it's framed that way, imagine if investigative journalist framed that way, imagine if investigative journalists right from the past instead of like Watergate, what they discovered, the President of the United States sending notes to the Attorney General, go after my political opponents, then they go after the

political opponents. Some investigative journalist in the 70s exposes it. Harry, it would be done, you're done. Presidency falls, AG falls, criminal charges get brought. It's over, like it's not even a question. So it happens in public, but because we live in a dictatorship now, essentially, it's like, well, that's just Donald Trump being,

but she's scared, it seems, because she, and why she's pissed is, she's like, I don't have the absolute immunity. And my guess too is what Donald Trump had to promise her. I'm going to give you one of those pardons after I leave also.

You know, I'm going to give you a future pardon on everything. And I bet you Trump's promised that to a lot of people. If I was a guessing person that was communicated to her. What do you make of it, Harry? Yeah. people. If I was a guessing person, that was communicated to her. What do you make of it, Eric? Yeah, so it's a really interesting, important question. So we're talking selective prosecution and what we actually know now, what that note says, it's just an almost incontrovertible case,

right? He screams at her. You're right, it's a little weird the way he communicates, even if he thinks it's an email. And what he says is, in all caps, simultaneously he's saying he doesn't know what they've done but he's screaming at her, they get it done, we're looking bad, they impeach me twice and indicted me five times, it is time for justice to be done. In other words, defining it completely without any doubt as a reprisal for their having done their jobs. There's not even any suggestion that in doing their jobs,

they'd gone awry of the law, et cetera. It's just, they went after me. The reason, and it's an exigent reason, and we gotta get it done now, is simply because they used, they did the job that they were supposed to do.

Which as a quick aside, it drives me nuts now that some people are using her appearance and others, they have amnesia a little about January 6th, what a righteous and necessary prosecution that was, and that some people are now sort of seeing, oh, both sides to it is really terribly wrong. But let's go to this issue. What about that? It's great, great, great evidence. Here's how it'll work. He'll bring us a a selective prosecution motion 99 out of 100

times. That motion will be denied. All kinds of defendants, you know, they were selected out, but the threshold is high. And the 100th time, it may be they might grant a little discovery, and then it would be denied. This is the 101 first time or the zero time, whatever. The basic facts are so strong and they've got a right, you know, plaintiff and any party has a right to prove, a due process right, to prove their case with the best evidence and the best evidence here I think has to be the words that come out of Donald

Trump's mouth. If you ask, you know, put Lindsey Halligan on the stand, what did Donald Trump tell you? First, objection, hearsay. And second, it doesn't really bring it home the way, what did you tell Lindsey Halligan if he has to? Now, so I think what's gonna happen, and Pat Fitzgerald, remember he was the special prosecutor

with Libby and Cheney, he knows how to play these stress points, they can move for the motion and make a very strong case for discovery. What happens then? They're gonna fight it tooth and nail, they always do. There's some tremendous paranoia of anything coming out.

But they'll say executive privilege maybe first. But we know from the Nixon case, executive privilege is only a partial, it's not absolute. And in fact, if it's the only way you can get the evidence is what happened in Nixon itself, then it ought to yield. So unless they gin up something more special about the special rules for the president.

And as long as I mentioned that, I just need to say there's zero in the immunity opinion, the infamous Trump versus US immunity opinion that should have to do with this here. They just said he couldn't be indicted or investigated for a crime. But there's that one incredible overreach

in the immunity opinion, which basically says, you can't even get evidence of communications between the president and the Department of Justice. Now that's in the context of immunity and it really should not apply to a plaintiff's effort to get to build evidence in a selective prosecution motion.

But you know, the court having been so bullish get to build evidence in a selective prosecution motion. But the court having been so bullish and turning such cartwheels in his favor elsewhere might do it here. But to my mind, the basic rubric for your listeners, he's got a great case of selective prosecution. He's got a right to prove it with the best evidence.

That evidence is from Trump. Maybe you do interrogatories or a video deposition or whatever, but you need Trump under oath to really prove your case. And if they won't do it, that's a reason in and of itself for the court to dismiss. But I think that's going gonna be a real kind of brouhaha once Fitzgerald for Comey and Abby Lowell for Letitia James says, we got a great case here and we need some discovery, your honors.

Just everybody think about that moment where Donald Trump's gonna get deposed and he's been out there making all the comments. He's the main and only witness in this vindictive prosecution scheme. And he says, I'm not doing it.

And then the court says, well, if you're not doing it I'm gonna have to dismiss it because there's a showing that you're the person, so either you do it or I'm going to have no choice as the judge. And then what's Donald going to say? Oh, it's just so unfair, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's the judge going after me.

It's like, sorry, dude. Sit for the deposition now. You've made yourself, yes, this is unprecedented, but no president ever has done this for this specific reason. And also because they follow the law. Harry, before we go, anything you want to say? Yeah, and lied about it. So yeah, I'll say that, but I don't know what you think, Ben. I think Lindsey Halligan's in a world of hurt and maybe Pam Bondi as well because they have something that Donald Trump doesn't have, a bar license and they could really get clobbered there. I think if all this happens and any way you slice it, I think

the odds are overwhelming that both these cases don't go to conviction. I think he'll just like some find a way to try to declare victory and move on that he's already knows he's exacted pain and expense and humiliation. And that's at least part of it. Or he'll say, well, we can't give this information to the liberal judges trying to do. So normally you roll the dice this much on a big case, and it falls completely

falls around you. It's humiliating, but he's, you know, sort of beyond shame and humiliation. And the question is whether it's being followed closely enough by the American people to have the you know, you and I have outrage. I mean, real outrage, you know, white hot outrage, but that's because I know how basic and fundamental to the Constitution or any prosecutor's office is the command that you can't prosecute people because they're political enemies of the president. I think for maybe a lot of people, it sounds like one of 20 sort of sins,

whereas really we are in, well, I did a sub stack called ninth circle of hell. The last one in the inferno. That's where I think we are. This is truly revolting what they're, it just doesn't happen in a,

this is what happens in authoritarian societies,

not democracies.

Everybody subscribe to Harry Lipman's YouTube channel. It's called Talking Feds. So search Talking Feds, like federal prosecutors, Feds. Then search Talking Feds, wherever you get your audio podcasts, then subscribe to the Talking Feds sub stack.

Thanks, Harry.

Thanks, Ben.

And everybody hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 million subscribers. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our sub stack at MidasPlus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, add free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at MidasPlus.com. exclusive content only available at MidasPlus.com.

You can also get a free subscription to our podcast at MidasPlus.com.