Trump is considering firing AG Pam Bondi: Sources

[0:00] The president is considering a cabinet shakeup. What are you learning on this front? [0:05] Yeah, this is some reporting that we're doing tonight with my colleagues Elena Treen and [0:08] Kristen Holmes. We have confirmed from multiple sources, John, that the president has been [0:12] talking privately recently about replacing the Attorney General Pam Bondi, firing her [0:17] from her role running the Justice Department, and actually instead putting the EPA Administrator [0:22] Lee Zeldin in that position. Now, it's not confirmed yet that he is going to oust her. [0:27] We have not gotten reporting that he's made a final decision on this. You can see this is her [0:31] today as she was getting in the motorcade, actually, with the president to go with him [0:35] to the Supreme Court to listen to those hearings on birthright citizenship. But the president's [0:41] attitude on her, John, for the last several months really has been quite sour. And a lot of it has [0:46] to do with the backlash over the handling of the Epstein investigation. The president doesn't like [0:51] the headlines they're getting. They don't like the negative response that they're getting, [0:54] even from Republicans, from their base. [0:57] And folks on Capitol Hill. And also, John, ahead of this two-week deadline where Pam Bondi is [1:02] supposed to go and testify on Capitol Hill because they subpoenaed her, including Republicans on that [1:07] committee, the House Oversight Committee. And so the White House has been eyeing that deadline. [1:12] It's April 14th, I believe, that she's set to go and testify as a date. And this is something the [1:17] president had been talking about back in January. It appeared to subside a bit, John, and then now [1:22] has kind of resurrected itself, where this is a conversation we started hearing from sources was [1:27] really heating up in the West Wing on Monday. But one thing that, you know, I've talked to people, [1:32] it's not even clear to them if this is actually going to happen. The president talks a lot about [1:36] this. It's not clear if he'll follow through on it. And he did issue a statement tonight calling [1:41] Pam Bondi a wonderful person and saying that she's doing a good job. And so we'll see if that shakes [1:47] out here. He also similarly stood by Kristi Noem until he didn't, John. And so we'll have to wait [1:52] and see what the president himself ultimately decides when it comes to Pam Bondi running the [1:57] department. So let's start off, first of all, with Pam Bondi. What is the sense, Aaron, why now [2:02] if she is set to go? It's a really good question. I think that, you know, we talked about the Epstein [2:08] files. That's been a saga that's been playing out really for more than a year right now. But [2:12] we've also seen in recent weeks, especially in recent months, these attempts to target Trump's [2:17] political opponents that have kind of coursed through the DOJ. And we've seen this pop up every [2:22] once in a while and then kind of fade away. Those haven't gone very well. You know, some of these [2:27] indictments and the indictments were thrown out. The Jerome Powell investigation hasn't exactly gone [2:32] to plan. There's reporting that suggests that some of these investigations have ramped up as [2:37] some of the pressure has increased on Bondi. But we haven't really seen that kind of retribution [2:41] campaign that Trump has talked about really being brought forward. And so it kind of makes me [2:46] wonder, like, if President Trump is looking at Bondi's stewardship of the Justice Department [2:50] right now, what successes is he seeing in his mind, the things that he's really looking for? [2:55] And I'm not sure he's necessarily seeing those. [2:57] So let's say, Mike, Pam Bondi is out. Let's say Lee Zeldin ends up there, for example, [3:03] or anyone else. Do you anticipate, because some of the roadblocks, frankly, that this DOJ has run [3:09] into is a lack of evidence for what the president would like to see happen? What actually changes [3:15] if the person at the top changes, if the facts don't change? [3:17] So to answer your first question, though, what changed? Kristi Noem is no longer taking all the [3:25] flack to begin with. [3:28] Pam Bondi was second in line for the media and everyone else to come after. So I think [3:32] that's part of it. I think your point is well taken. Pam Bondi has done for the president [3:39] what Pete Sessions couldn't do in the first administration. And that's basically run an [3:43] organization that is pursuing a lot of the efforts that the president wants her to pursue. [3:51] I don't find the reporting on him questioning whether she should go or stay to be all that [3:57] fascinating. [3:59] She's been doing that all the time. And I don't think that's actually new. Maybe it's ratcheted up [4:03] a little bit. But this is, you know, from my experience, this is Trump being Trump. [4:09] This is maybe Trump being Trump, right? But do you think, given that, as you just pointed out, [4:14] now Kristi Noem is gone or attention on Pam Bondi... [4:17] There is. But we can't forget that she was easily replaced by a fellow senator, Mark Wayne [4:23] Mullen, who was able to go through a confirmation hearing. A confirmation hearing for DOJ is not [4:27] out of the question. [4:29] going to be as smooth with a Lee Zeldin who doesn't have those relationships. So we got to [4:34] take the, we got to look at the entire picture here and what is the art of the possible. And [4:39] I'm not sure replacing Pam Bondi prior to the midterms is possible. There's also, looking at [4:45] the whole picture, I find this to be a fascinating through line between the Pam Bondi reporting and [4:51] what we saw at the Supreme Court yesterday, President Trump being there. And to me, the [4:55] through line is President Trump, and he's been very clear about this publicly, he has certain [4:59] expectations of people that he puts in certain positions. That includes the justices. And there [5:05] was a lot made about him being at the court yesterday and what is the message that that [5:09] sends. The court sent its own message back in terms of their questioning. Yeah, absolutely. [5:13] I mean, they were not falling for it. This obviously, this clearly is not constitutional [5:17] what he is trying to do, but I think he tries to go there to intimidate them. Like I put you here [5:21] and they're sort of like, we don't care that we, we answer to the constitution, not to you. [5:25] But also with Pam Bondi, she is supposed to schedule, she's scheduled to testify in the [5:29] oversight committee hearing here coming soon, which is going to bring the Epstein files right [5:32] back into, to view for everyone again, which I think that he was trying to get out of view. And [5:37] I mean, Susie Wiles has blamed her. I think Donald Trump blames her for the handling of the Epstein [5:41] files. And a lot of the first year of the administration was very marred with those [5:45] sorts of stories over and over, and it's not going away. And I think that this, maybe he thinks that [5:50] getting rid of her takes that away, but I think it just creates more problems for someone else [5:53] because then someone's going to want to review. [5:55] There's going to be investigations happening. If a new person comes in, [5:58] it's going to be a mess, just like you said. [5:59] It's going to be another mess. [6:00] Yeah, it's going to be another mess. [6:01] How much of a sense is there within the administration that given the mess that [6:04] could be brought up with any changes, that it's a reason to stick with the status quo? [6:09] I mean, Mike brings up a very good point. If you look at who is on the, the, the judiciary [6:14] committee in the Senate, you know, Tom Tillis is an increasingly critical voice of the [6:19] administration. He has drawn a hard line when it comes to Trump's nominee for the federal reserve. [6:24] Um, he's spoken out against some of these tendencies that, that we've seen in the justice [6:28] department. You know, it's a really good question. Are they going to be able to get a replacement [6:32] through that committee? Will it, not just will they be able to get, get it through, but will it [6:36] be the kind of person that Trump wants in that position? Are they going to be able to get [6:40] somebody, uh, you know, maybe a Lee Zeldin could get through, but somebody who might be a little [6:44] bit more gloves off with doing some of the things that Trump wants, maybe they'll have a tougher [6:47] time. [6:48] Joining us in our fifth seat is former federal prosecutor Temedayo Ngongo-Williams. [6:53] Temedayo, is it surprising to you? [6:54] That the president wants to jettison Pam Bondi at this stage? [6:58] Uh, it's not surprising because I think she has been a terrible, uh, AG. I think what's surprising [7:03] is that the core of her issue is that she has been politically loyal to him and not the rule of law. [7:08] So what does surprise me is that again and again, she has desecrated this department. I served as a [7:14] former federal prosecutor as, as a part of the prosecutor. I was proud. I was, I thought it was [7:18] a patriotic job. And what she has done again and again is choose Trump over country. So for him to [7:24] fire her and point to the Epstein files, that's actually her standing behind him. She's completely, [7:29] uh, she screwed the roll up of that, but it's not because she was trying to do the right thing. It's [7:34] because again and again, she was trying to obstruct justice in rolling out the so-called client list [7:38] that you said existed. She said it was going to be released. Now there's no list in having a [7:42] redaction and taking the amount of federal agents from doing things like counter-terrorism. She put [7:47] them on handling thousands of names, seeking president Trump's name and redacting him. So do I [7:51] think he should fire her? Yes. But for the reasons that he's going to do it, I don't think he's going to do it. [7:52] I think he should fire her. Yes. But for the reasons that he's going to do it, I don't think he's going to do it. [7:52] And let's not forget, um, he said on Truth Social that, uh, Pam, I've reviewed over 30 statements [8:03] saying essentially same old story as last time. All talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What [8:08] about Comey, Adam Shifty Schiff, Letitia? They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is being done. [8:14] Um, he wants political prosecutions and he, I guess he was, in her defense, I guess she was [8:21] attempting to, but we. [8:22] Yeah. [8:22] Still have a justice system in this country that has a say in this as well. [8:26] It turns out Pam Bondi, Lindsey Halligan, none of these people are enough for Donald Trump to [8:30] overcome the checks and balances that we have. I was going to cite that same Truth Social post [8:35] because in that he is directly making sure his attorney general is following his orders. He [8:40] named three people. Two out of those three people were then indicted, were then targeted. It's such [8:45] a clear, clear example of weaponization. Nothing like that existed under the Biden administration. [8:51] Nothing like that has existed before. So it's, it's new. [8:53] Who were they indicted by? Who indicted them? [8:56] Um, the Eastern, yeah, yeah, the grand jury issued the indictment. Sorry. [9:02] Well, no, the grand jury issued the indictment, but didn't Lindsey Halligan literally fudge up one of the charges? Am I right? [9:07] There was a question on her appointment and whether or not it was legal and that was it. [9:11] It's also that she gave incorrect law to the grand jury. And I think citing the grand jury is somehow. [9:16] Which the judge, by the way, and that was part of the reason she was removed from that case. [9:19] Yeah, she never should have been in the job in the first place. And, and I think it's wrong. [9:23] You have to point to the grand jury somehow a stamp of approval. As everyone says, [9:27] you can indict the ham sandwich. They're saying that a grand jury approves something. [9:30] I've been in a lot of grand juries. There's only one person in there representing. That's [9:34] the, the government. There's no counter to you, to your argument. It's not hard to indict people. [9:39] I just, I just thought that was the standard when Trump was having indictments. [9:40] And weren't there a couple of instances where they failed to get the grand jury to actually [9:43] indict and so they had to kind of chop it around, essentially? [9:47] Yes. Some grand juries have declined. So obviously they do make judgments, [9:51] even when they're asked to do things. [9:53] The broad agreement at, at the table is that we have a functioning government with checks [9:56] and balances. And in fact, we don't have a king in this country, I guess. We just have [10:01] a functioning constitutional democracy right now. If I were in Pam Bondi's shoes, and obviously some [10:06] people have had gripes with her, I think her best argument for why she has succeeded would be to tell [10:12] the president, look, one of your biggest successes is the massive drop in crime in this country, [10:16] homicides, robberies, all this violence. We have seen huge drops in crime. If I were in her shoes [10:22] and giving her PR advice, that's what I would tell her to argue. [10:24] I don't know if it would be enough to assuage the concerns that apparently are being had, [10:30] but that's how I'd probably argue it. Like, on your watch with me as attorney general, [10:33] you have overseen a historic drop in making, in crime and in making this country safe. That [10:39] would be a good argument. Now on Zelden, by the way, I'll just say for his part, [10:41] highly respected, major accomplishments and a lot of respect for him and what he's been able [10:48] to do at EPA. So I would say his stock is definitely on the rise. [10:50] It's not a brag that our institutions are holding from the guy that you're defending [10:53] trying to destroy them. [10:54] Zelden would have a tough job ahead of him.