- Federal judge tossed high-profile indictments after Bondi's handpicked acting U.S. attorney was ruled unlawfully appointed, undermining major cases.
- Calls for disbarment and revelations about grand jury and warrant mishaps raised serious ethics and procedural questions for Bondi's DOJ.
- A revived criminal contempt probe and politicized moves—like sudden Epstein review—add to credibility woes and mounting legal exposure.
As families across the country gathered for Thanksgiving dinners this week, Attorney General Pam Bondi found herself at the center of a far less festive gathering—of legal headaches, that is.
What started as a routine stretch of high-stakes prosecutions for the Trump administration’s top law enforcement official has spiraled into what even her critics are calling her roughest patch yet.
Federal judges slapping down indictments, whispers of disbarment, and a criminal contempt probe hanging over her deputies—it’s the kind of week that could sour anyone’s turkey.
The FrankNez Media Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
Bondi, who stepped into the attorney general’s role with promises of aggressive accountability for Trump’s political foes, is now staring down a cascade of reversals that expose cracks in the Justice Department’s foundation.
It’s not just one misstep; it’s a pile-up, from botched appointments to ignored court orders, all unfolding under the glare of a holiday spotlight that no one in Washington particularly wanted.
The Bombshell in Court: Indictments Crumble on a Technicality
The hammer fell hard on Monday, November 24, when U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie delivered a stinging rebuke to Bondi’s team.
In a ruling that read like a procedural thriller, Currie tossed out indictments against two of Trump’s most vocal critics: former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The reason? Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, handpicked by Bondi back in September, was “unlawfully appointed.”
Currie didn’t mince words. She declared that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment…are hereby set aside,” effectively wiping the slate clean on both cases—not because the evidence was weak, but because the whole setup violated federal rules on interim appointments.
The catch: Once the 120-day window for such picks expired, only a district court could step in.
Bondi’s move? Over the line. This wasn’t some obscure footnote.
Halligan, a political appointee with ties to the administration, was the sole prosecutor who presented the cases to the grand jury—a break from the norm, where career attorneys usually handle these to keep things arms-length from politics.
No team of seasoned pros, no internal checks. Just one fresh face signing off on charges that targeted Trump’s old adversaries.
Comey, ever the straight shooter, didn’t hold back in a quick video statement: the prosecution was “based on malevolence and incompetence.”
James, meanwhile, struck a defiant tone, saying she remained “fearless in the face of these baseless charges.”
Bondi, undeterred, fired back from Memphis that same day. The department, she said, would file an “immediate appeal” and pursue “all available legal action.”
But with the door cracked open for re-indictments, the real question lingers: Can they rebuild these cases without tripping over the same wires? And does this procedural fumble signal deeper issues in how Bondi’s DOJ picks its battles?
Echoes of Scandal: Disbarment Drums Beat Louder
If the courtroom drama wasn’t enough, the peanut gallery started tuning up. Enter Ty Cobb, the ex-Trump White House lawyer who’s made a second career out of skewering his old boss’s legal team.
On live TV, Cobb didn’t pull punches: Both Bondi and Halligan “should be disbarred.”
Cobb’s beef? He accused Bondi of filing court affirmations that were flat-out untruthful—though he stopped short of naming names or pinpointing the documents.
No judge has backed that up yet; it’s Cobb’s word against the record, at least for now. But the timing couldn’t be worse.
This comes hot on revelations that the grand jury in the Comey case never even saw the final version of the charges they voted on—a potential violation of federal rules that could torpedo the whole thing if it gets refiled.
A federal magistrate judge piled on, flagging “investigative missteps” like shaky search warrants and grand jury irregularities.
Judge Michael Nachmanoff, presiding over a related hearing, summed it up with a folksy zinger: “The issues are too wavy and too complex” to sort out on the spot.
Translation? This mess is a tangled web of constitutional red flags and sloppy paperwork, and it’s not unraveling anytime soon.
For Bondi, it’s a gut check. These aren’t abstract gripes; they’re the kind of ethics flags that could lead to bar reviews or worse.
And in a department already accused of playing favorites, every loose thread feels like a pull on the whole fabric.
Contempt on the Horizon: Deportation Debacle Draws DOJ In
Just when you thought the fireworks were over, a federal judge lit another fuse.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg revived a criminal contempt inquiry naming a who’s who of Trump officials: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and more.
The charge? Possibly flouting a temporary restraining order tied to March deportations to El Salvador.
Details are murky—no major newsroom has cracked the full story on what went down back in the spring, what the order exactly barred, or how the defiance played out.
But the government’s defense? Crystal clear in filings: The order “said nothing about returning” the detainees who’d already been shipped out.
Plain language, they argue—no retroactive rewind required. For Bondi, though, this is personal. Her department’s neck-deep in defending the administration, and a contempt finding could spotlight DOJ’s role in what looks like a brush with judicial defiance.
At a time when her shop’s already catching heat for procedural shortcuts, this inquiry feels like salt in the wound. Will it stick? Hard to say without more daylight on the facts.
But it’s another headline Bondi didn’t need.
Judge Shopping Backfires: Misconduct Claim Fizzles
Bondi’s week of woes didn’t stop at her own cases. A side quest to ding a judge blew up in her face too.
Back in February, Chad Mizelle—Bondi’s then-chief of staff—filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes.
The gripe? Reyes got “hostile and egregious” during a hearing on Trump’s transgender military ban, grilling a DOJ lawyer in ways that felt like a public shaming.
Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit shut that down this week, dismissing it on procedural grounds.
His take: If DOJ thought Reyes was biased, they should’ve just asked for her recusal in the case—not drag it through the ethics pipeline, which isn’t a workaround for regular litigation tools.
No ruling on whether Reyes actually crossed lines; just a polite (but firm) “wrong door.”
The underlying military ban appeal chugs along, untouched. But for Bondi’s crew, it’s a reminder: You can’t always litigate your grudges. And declining comment from both sides? That’s Washington-speak for “let’s pretend this didn’t happen.”
Epstein Flip-Flop: Politics Over Precedent?
Lest we forget the ghosts of scandals past, Bondi’s about-face on Jeffrey Epstein’s files reared its head again.
Just months back, she was on record saying digging up those records was a dead end—key players gone, old probes exhausted, nothing new to see.
Enter President Trump, pounding the table for fresh prosecutions from the trove. Cue the reversal: DOJ prosecutors now tasked with sifting through the files for any charge-worthy nuggets.
Legal watchers are side-eyeing the switch, wondering if it’s merit-driven or just bending to White House wind.
Reviewing cold cases isn’t shady on its face, but the whiplash—from “pointless” to “priority”—smells like politics seeping into the prosecutor’s playbook.
No word from DOJ on why the tune changed, and whether it’ll yield real indictments remains anyone’s guess.
A Lone Bright Spot? The Wedding Chase Heats Up
To be fair, not every dispatch from DOJ this week was a dud.
They did roll out a big one: Unsealing charges against fugitive ex-Olympic snowboarder Ryan Wedding, now fingered as the kingpin of a brutal cross-border drug ring.
Bondi hyped it hard, calling Wedding’s outfit “one of the most prolific and violent drug trafficking organizations in this world.”
A $15 million reward bump for tips? That’s the kind of flex that usually dominates the news cycle.
But with Wedding and three accomplices still ghosts in the wind, even this win feels muted. All suspects, of course, are innocent until proven guilty.
Still, in a week stacked with L’s, it’s like bringing a slingshot to a sword fight—not quite enough to shift the narrative.
Looking Ahead: Appeals, Probes, and a Long Shadow
As Bondi navigates the post-Thanksgiving cleanup, the road looks bumpy.
Appeals in the Halligan saga, ethics hangovers from Comey, that contempt cloud over her inner circle—each one’s a slow-burn saga primed for more headlines.
The DOJ reached out to Newsweek for comment late Friday, but crickets so far.
For an administration betting big on law-and-order optics, this week’s stumbles hit where it hurts: Credibility.
Courts aren’t rubber-stamping anymore; they’re dissecting, delaying, dismissing. Bondi’s got the appeals machinery humming, but can she steady the ship before the next wave crashes?
In D.C., where scandals breed like rabbits, that’s the question everyone’s asking over their Black Friday coffee.
One thing’s clear: Pam Bondi’s holiday breather was anything but. And 2026? It might just be the sequel nobody’s ready for.
Also Read: A DOJ Whistleblower Now Makes Revelation That Undermines the Judicial System’s Integrity
