Say hello to Florida Attorney General Pan Bondi!
General Bondi has a complex system for determining when to bring the power of the Florida AG’s office to bear on an important case, like the one about Trump University bilking all those
rubes alleged victims. Has the potential defendant caused material harm to Florida citizens? Is the potential case winnable? Also, and maybe most importantly, has the defendant ponied up any fat checks to the Bondi Reelection Fund? To wit:
Florida’s attorney general personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump around the same time her office deliberated joining an investigation of alleged fraud at Trump University and its affiliates
The new disclosure from Attorney General Pam Bondi’s spokesman to The Associated Press on Monday provides additional details around the unusual circumstances of Trump’s $25,000 donation to Bondi.
The money came from a Trump family foundation in apparent violation of rules surrounding political activities by charities. A political group backing Bondi’s re-election, called And Justice for All, reported receiving the check Sept. 17, 2013 — four days after Bondi’s office publicly announced she was considering joining a New York state probe of Trump University’s activities, according to a 2013 report in the Orlando Sentinel.
After the check came in, Bondi’s office nixed suing Trump, citing insufficient grounds to proceed.
Bondi declined repeated requests for an interview on Monday, referring all questions to Marc Reichelderfer, a political consultant who worked for her most re-election effort.
Reichelderfer told AP that Bondi spoke with Trump “several weeks” before her office publicly announced it was deliberating whether to join a lawsuit proposed by New York’s Democratic attorney general. Reichelfelder said that Bondi was unaware of dozens of consumer complaints received by her office about Trump’s real-estate seminars at the time she requested the donation.
Oh! Pam Bondi solicited that donation from Trump “several weeks” before deciding whether or not to sue him! That is certainly a very vague length of time! In that case there’s no possibility that anything fishy was going on here! I mean, what state attorney general starts thinking about the cases she plans on pursuing “several weeks” before she pursues them? None, I guess! I figure most of them just show up in a courtroom in the morning and sue the first suspicious looking individual and/or corporation they encounter!
Seriously, even if nothing improper happened here–and, come on–it sure as hell looks like something improper happened. And a public official who loses the public trust is a public official who should probably be out of a job. How does this one still have hers?