Bondi, Pamela J

Subterms

    Latest story

    75 Shares24 Views

    Inside Trump’s Pressure Campaign on Universities

    by

    As he finished lunch in the private dining room outside the Oval Office on April 1, President Trump floated an astounding proposal: What if the government simply canceled every dollar of the nearly $9 billion promised to Harvard University?The administration’s campaign to expunge “woke” ideology from college campuses had already forced Columbia University to strike a deal. Now, the White House was eyeing the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university.“What if we never pay them?” Mr. Trump casually asked, according to a person familiar with the conversation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private discussion. “Wouldn’t that be cool?”The moment underscored the aggressive, ad hoc approach continuing to shape one of the new administration’s most consequential policies.Mr. Trump and his top aides are exerting control of huge sums of federal research money to shift the ideological tilt of the higher education system, which they see as hostile to conservatives and intent on perpetuating liberalism.Their effort was energized by the campus protests against Israel’s response to the October 2023 terrorist attack by Hamas, demonstrations during which Jewish students were sometimes harassed. Soon after taking office, Mr. Trump opened the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, which is scrutinizing leading universities for potential civil rights violations and serving as an entry point to pressure schools to reassess their policies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares63 Views

      in Elections

      Luigi Mangione Death Penalty Bid May Pit Prosecutors Against Each Other

      by

      State and federal prosecutors have both accused Mr. Mangione of killing a health insurance executive. Attorney General Pam Bondi is pushing aggressively for capital punishment.Luigi Mangione is being prosecuted for murder by two agencies: the Department of Justice, which answers to President Trump, and the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which is led by the only prosecutor to convict President Trump.Mr. Trump and the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, are far from natural allies. And the high-profile case of Mr. Mangione, who is charged with killing a health care executive, could set their offices on a collision course.When Mr. Mangione was arrested in December, before President Trump took office, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York said the state prosecution would occur first. But last week, Mr. Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, signaled that the Justice Department might move quickly, saying that federal prosecutors would seek the death penalty for Mr. Mangione.“The president’s directive was very clear: We are to seek the death penalty when possible,” Ms. Bondi said in an interview with “Fox News Sunday.”Deliberations over whether to seek the federal death penalty can take a year or more in the Southern District and the Justice Department. Ms. Bondi’s swift announcement was all the more unusual given that Mr. Mangione has yet to be formally indicted in federal court.Mr. Mangione’s case has become an arena for Ms. Bondi to show her commitment to the president. Her decision “is more political theater than anything else,” said Cheryl Bader, a law professor at Fordham University.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares65 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Accuses Top Immigration Lawyer of Failing to Follow Orders

      by

      A senior Justice Department immigration lawyer was put on indefinite leave Saturday after questioning the Trump administration’s decision to deport a Maryland man to El Salvador — one day after representing the government in court.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche suspended Erez Reuveni, the acting deputy director of the department’s immigration litigation division, for failing to “follow a directive from your superiors,” according to a letter sent to Mr. Reuveni and obtained by The New York Times.Mr. Reuveni — who was praised as a “top-notched” prosecutor by his superiors in an email announcing his promotion two weeks ago — is the latest career official to be suspended, demoted, transferred or fired for refusing to comply with a directive from President Trump’s appointees to take actions they deem improper or unethical.“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in a statement sent to The Times on Saturday. “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.”Under questioning by a federal judge on Friday, Mr. Reuveni conceded that the deportation last month of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who had a court order allowing him to stay in the United States, should never have taken place. Mr. Reuveni also said he had been frustrated when the case landed on his desk.Mr. Reuveni, a respected 15-year veteran of the immigration division, asked the judge for 24 hours to persuade his “client,” the Trump administration, to begin the process of retrieving and repatriating Mr. Abrego Garcia.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Bondi Indicates Signal Chat Episode Will Not Be Criminally Investigated

      by

      Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled on Thursday that there was unlikely to be a criminal investigation into the sharing of military operation details in an unsecured text group, declaring that the specifics of when fighter jets would depart and when bombs would fall were “not classified.”Ms. Bondi, speaking at a news conference in Virginia, was asked about the public debate surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he sent details of a coming attack on rebels in Yemen to senior administration officials in a Signal group chat that accidentally included a magazine editor.“It was sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released,” Ms. Bondi said, while praising the military operation that ensued.“What we should be talking about is, it was a very successful mission,” she said, before quickly accusing Democrats from previous administrations of mishandling classified information.“If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was in Hillary Clinton’s home,” she said. “Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden’s garage, that Hunter Biden had access to.”The Justice Department opened investigations into Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Biden in those instances, but neither ultimately faced criminal charges. She did not mention the prosecution of Mr. Trump over his handling of classified documents after his first term in office — a case which was ultimately abandoned when he won a second term.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares125 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Democrats Seek Answers on Firing of Justice Dept. Official

      by

      After a disagreement about giving gun rights back to the actor Mel Gibson, a pardon attorney was fired. Senate Democrats are asking for details, including records or emails, that relate to the decision.Senate Democrats pressed Justice Department officials on Wednesday to explain the firing of the pardon attorney, Elizabeth G. Oyer, who was dismissed amid a disagreement with her superiors about whether to restore the actor Mel Gibson’s right to own guns.Ms. Oyer was one of a number of senior career officials at the Justice Department who were abruptly ousted this month. No reason was cited for the dismissals, but Ms. Oyer told The New York Times that senior department officials pressured her to add Mr. Gibson, an outspoken supporter of President Trump, to a list of people with past convictions who could nevertheless have their gun rights returned to them.The campaign, she said, incited fears that she could be fired over it. Senior Justice Department officials have said the dispute was not the reason for her dismissal.Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, including Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi seeking answers about Ms. Oyer’s firing. Her dismissal, they added, was “particularly troubling in light of the Trump administration’s purge of public servants, seemingly based on whether they are willing to carry out the president’s agenda of political retribution against his perceived enemies.”Senate Democrats are now asking Ms. Bondi to provide an explanation for Ms. Oyer’s firing, the names of the people involved in the move and any records or emails that relate to the decision.“It is vitally important that D.O.J. attorneys be permitted to pursue justice for the United States of America and the American people,” the Democrats wrote, “not serve as the personal law firm to President Trump, handing out legal favors to his rich and famous friends.”Mr. Gibson has not been able to buy a firearm since he pleaded no contest in 2011 to misdemeanor battery against a former girlfriend.The Trump administration has decided that the Justice Department should create a path for gun rights to be restored to some people with convictions. During internal department conversations on the subject, Ms. Oyer said she was particularly worried about giving gun rights to people with domestic violence convictions.“This isn’t political,” she said. “This is a safety issue.”Last week, the department moved forward with its plan to restore gun rights to some convicts, publishing a notice in the Federal Register about the initiative. Still unclear is exactly what criteria will be used to decide who is eligible. A senior Justice Department official has suggested this is only the first of a number of steps the administration plans to make on guns, including making it easier for people to buy silencers, also known as suppressors. More

    • 113 Shares91 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Justice Department’s filing in the Adams case.

      by

      Case 1:24-cr-00556-DEH Document 175-1 Filed 03/25/25
      Page 10 of 15
      the motion is uncontested, the court should ordinarily presume that the prosecutor is acting in good
      faith and dismiss the indictment without prejudice”). But Adams’s consent-which was
      negotiated without my Office’s awareness or participation-would not guarantee a successful
      motion, given the basic flaws in the Department’s rationales. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428
      F. Supp. at 117 (declining to “rubber stamp” dismissal because although defendant did not appear
      to object, “the court is vested with the responsibility of protecting the interests of the public on
      whose behalf the criminal action is brought”).
      The Government “may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment” under Rule 48(a) of the
      Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. “The principal object of the ‘leave of court’ requirement is
      apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and
      recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.”
      Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 30 n.15 (1977). “But the Rule has also been held to permit
      the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the
      motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest.” Id.; see also JM 9-
      2.050 (reflecting Department’s position that a “court may decline leave to dismiss if the manifest
      public interest requires it).
      “Rarely will the judiciary overrule the Executive Branch’s exercise of these prosecutorial
      decisions.” Blaszczak, 56 F.4th at 238. But courts, including the Second Circuit, will nonetheless
      inquire as to whether dismissal would be clearly contrary to the public interest. See, e.g., id. at
      238-42 (extended discussion of contrary to public interest standard and cases applying it); see also
      JM 9-2.050 (requiring “a written motion for leave to dismiss. . . explaining fully the reason for
      the request” to dismiss for cases of public interest as well as for cases involving bribery). Although
      it appears rare, at least one court in our district has rejected a dismissal under Rule 48(a) as contrary
      to the public interest, regardless of the defendant’s consent. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428
      F. Supp. At 116-17 (“After reviewing the entire record, the court has determined that a dismissal
      of the indictment against Mr. Massaut is not in the public interest. Therefore, the government’s
      motion to dismiss as to Mr. Massaut must be and is denied.”).
      The cases show some inconsistency concerning what courts should do if they find the
      standard for dismissal without prejudice not met. Some have instead dismissed indictments with
      prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Madzarac, 678 F. Supp. 3d 43 (D.D.C. 2023). The better-
      reasoned view, however, is that courts considering a Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss without
      prejudice must either grant or deny the motion as made-they cannot grant the dismissal, but do
      so with prejudice, unless the Government consents. See United States v. B.G.G., 53 F.4th 1353,
      1369 (11th Cir. 2022) (“[R]ule 48(a) does not give the district court the discretion to rewrite the
      government’s dismissal motion from one without prejudice to one with prejudice.”); United States
      v. Flotron, 17 Cr. 00220 (JAM), 2018 WL 940554, at *5 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2018) (denying
      Government’s motion to dismiss without prejudice as contrary to public interest and requiring
      Government to proceed to trial); see also In re United States, 345 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2003)
      (suggesting that courts might condition grant of Rule 48(a) motion on Government’s consent that
      prejudice attach).
      The assigned District Judge, the Honorable Dale E. Ho, appears likely to conduct a
      searching inquiry in this case. Although Judge Ho is a recent appointee with little judicial track
      record, he has resolved the motions in this case in lengthy written opinions that included research
      5 More

    • 125 Shares156 Views

      in Elections

      Assessment Warns Against Conflating Legal Musk Protests With Tesla Vandalism

      by

      President Trump has suggested attacks against Tesla are a coordinated effort to intimidate the billionaire Elon Musk, but an internal intelligence assessment did not support that claim and warned against conflating legal protests against Mr. Musk with vandalism to his property.The attacks on Tesla vehicles and facilities “appear to have been conducted by lone offenders, and all known incidents occurred at night, making identification and arrest of the actors difficult,” officials with the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security wrote in an intelligence bulletin dated March 21 and obtained by The New York Times.The initial assessment, shared with law enforcement agencies across the country and subject to change as investigations proceed, was based on an analysis of vandalism investigations in nine states over the past two months. It concluded that the attacks, which included firing gunshots, spraying graffiti, smashing windows and setting vehicles on fire, were “rudimentary” and not intended to injure people.The people taking these actions “may perceive these attacks as victimless property crimes,” but their “tactics can cause accidental or intentional bodily harm” to bystanders and first responders, the officials wrote in the report.While law enforcement agencies should aggressively pursue people committing those acts, they should not investigate “constitutionally protected activity” directed at Mr. Musk, who has overseen a far-reaching effort to reduce the size and function of the federal government, they added.Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi described the Tesla attacks as “domestic terrorism.” The director of the F.B.I., Kash Patel, reiterated that assessment on Monday, saying it was investigating what he described as an increase in violent activity.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares158 Views

      in Elections

      Pam Bondi Calls Tesla Vandalism ‘Domestic Terrorism,’ Promising Consequences

      by

      Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday labeled a recent spate of attacks on Tesla dealerships across the country as acts of “domestic terrorism” directed at Elon Musk, as Trump allies have pressured the Justice Department to take aggressive action.In recent weeks, vandals in apparent protest of Mr. Musk’s polarizing efforts to drastically shrink the federal government and fire government workers have defaced or destroyed Tesla vehicles and damaged buildings in several cities. No serious injuries have been reported.Five more vehicles at a Tesla facility in Las Vegas were damaged on Tuesday in what the local authorities said was a targeted attack.“The swarm of violent attacks on Tesla property is nothing short of domestic terrorism,” Ms. Bondi wrote in a statement. “We will continue investigations that impose severe consequences on those involved in these attacks, including those operating behind the scenes to coordinate and fund these crimes.”There is no federal domestic terrorism law, so those charged in the attacks would be charged under other federal statutes; Ms. Bondi did not specify what charges could be brought, but she said that if convicted, some of those accused could face sentences of at least five years in prison.Ms. Bondi’s remarks echoed President Trump’s labeling of the vandalism as terrorism. On Tuesday, he baselessly suggested in a Fox interview that the vandalism was paid for “by people very highly political on the left.”Congressional Republicans, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, have pressured Ms. Bondi to call such attacks domestic terrorism — after successfully resisting efforts by Democrats in 2022 to pass legislation to counter the rise in activity by white supremacists and other far-right groups.Ms. Bondi supported Mr. Trump’s mass clemency for hundreds of his supporters who violently ransacked the U.S. Capitol, including some who assaulted police officers. The F.B.I. described those involved in the planning and perpetration of that attack as “domestic violent extremists,” whom they had previously identified in threat assessments.Several Tesla facilities have been targeted in the past several days.On Monday, police arrested a 26-year-old woman with spraypainting anti-Musk messages on the front windows of a Tesla facility in Buffalo Grove, Ill., on Friday. That same day vandals broke windows and defaced a dealership in the San Diego area with swastikas and slogans.The F.B.I. and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, working with the local police, are investigating vandalism of Cybertrucks at a Tesla dealership in Kansas City, Mo., the F.B.I.’s Kansas City field office said in a statement posted to Facebook. An unknown attacker fired more than a dozen shots at a Tesla dealership in Tigard, Ore., last week, damaging some of the vehicles and store windows. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      What Thom Tillis’s Surrender to Trump Says About the Trump G.O.P.

      by

      Few Republican senators give a better floor speech than Thom Tillis of North Carolina does. He’s the Daniel Day-Lewis of moral outrage. He delivered a doozy last month, challenging President Trump’s revisionist history of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and calling Vladimir Putin “a liar, a murderer” and “the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.”But Tulsi Gabbard is apparently no threat at all. Although she has been something of a Putin apologist, Tillis fell in line with 51 of his Republican colleagues in the Senate and voted to confirm her as director of national intelligence. Afterward, on Facebook, he proclaimed his pride in supporting her.He made impassioned remarks in the Senate about his disagreement with Trump’s pardons of Jan. 6 rioters who bloodied law enforcement officers.But the following month, he voted to confirm Kash Patel, who has peddled the kinds of fictions that fueled that violence, as director of the F.B.I.Courage, capitulation — Tillis pinballs dizzyingly between the two. As he gears up for a 2026 campaign for a third term in the Senate, he seems to be at war with himself. And perhaps more poignantly than any other Republican on Capitol Hill, Tillis, 64, illustrates how hard it is to be principled, independent or any of those other bygone adjectives in Trump’s Republican Party.That’s a compliment. For most Republicans in Congress, there’s no battle between conscience and supplication. They dropped to their knees years ago. There’s no tension between what they say and what they do. They praise Trump with their every word, including the conjunctions.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More