Pam Bondi Turned Justice on Its Head

In his famous denunciation of the Roman aristocrat Catiline, who plotted a coup d’etat after losing an election (sound familiar?), Cicero famously thundered: 

Cicero, supported by the conservative senator Cato the Younger, persuaded the senate to endorse summary execution for five of Catiline’s coconspirators, who were quickly put to death, an offense against Roman law and norms for which Cicero himself would later face a brief exile. The argument offered in favor of execution without trial was much like the one Romans made for crucifixion—that it would have a deterrent effect. And, in the case of the Catilinarian conspiracy, it worked: Catiline had raised a force to wage war on the republic and seize the consulship, but many of his dispirited allies deserted him before the battle—which did not last long and which Catiline did not survive, which probably was the best thing for him: Rome was pretty hard on insurrectionists, a fact that probably should be of interest to the illiterate sentimentalists attracted to the slogan “RETVRN.” That QAnon Shaman guy got all weepy about not having organic food in the lockup—imagine how he’d have whined about being shoved off the Tarpeian Rock. 

Speaking of which: In addition to her other noncriminal crimes against the state, Bondi did not make a peep about Trump’s mass pardon of the January 6 insurrectionists and instead oversaw a DOJ purge in which the prosecutors who had worked on January 6-related cases—or on cases related to the actual crimes of Donald Trump and his lackeys in the first administration—were driven out. To protect the guilty and persecute the … “innocent” is a strong word for Washington, but you know what I mean—that is not justice. It is the inversion of justice, and Pam Bondi was instrumental in turning the Department of Justice upside down. 

Bondi, like many members of the Trump administration, could frequently be seen wearing a cross on a chain around her neck. She ought to think on that cross. Her career may be yesterday’s news, but there is news that stays news:

One is tempted here to take the Lord’s name in vain: J.D. Vance, the George Babbitt of Elmer Gantrys, is about to publish a book about Christian conversion. Vance is, of course, the nation’s leading expert on conversion—he can and will convert himself into anything you like, for a price. Even man-of-many-faces Sohrab Ahmari must look at Vance from time to time and think: 

St. Thomas More—I mean the stage character, not the historical figure—knew the score: 

We have to choose, to be human at all. Vance has chosen something else: to be all things to all cretins. 

Who rises and who falls in this world may be part of some divine plan, although I have some doubts about that. (“God is a kid with an ant farm.”) Vance, who would sell his beloved Mamaw into white slavery if it suited his ambition, makes me think of Robert Browning’s narrator in “Porphyria’s Lover,” who has just murdered a young woman and sits embracing her corpse, pleased to have gotten away with the crime:

Trump’s budget proposal is, of course, idiotic and dishonest. From the Wall Street Journal:

“Beautification in Washington” means Trump building more monuments to himself,  but set that aside for a second. Purely as a thought exercise, let us entertain the notion: Increasing defense spending by 42 percent while cutting non-defense spending by 10 percent would, in fact, represent a decrease in overall federal spending, since 42 percent of 13 percent (current defense spending) is a smaller number than 10 percent of 87 percent (non-defense spending). Given that almost all non-defense spending is entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and interest on the debt (a non-optional outlay), best of luck coming up with a way to cut 10 percent out of non-defense spending while only gutting “woke” and “green” stuff. All education, training, employment, social services, and transportation spending combined comes out to about 4 percent of federal spending. A note here to my progressive friends who insist that we’d be fiscally fine if we returned to Eisenh0wer-era top tax rates of 90-odd percent: In spite of the on-paper rates, overall federal taxes in the Eisenhower years were a little bit lower than they have been in recent years (a little less than 17 percent of GDP in 1957, a little more than 17 percent in 2025, almost 19 percent in 2022), while Trump’s proposal to boost military spending while cutting domestic spending would be a step back in the direction of Eisenhower-era spending priorities. In the 1950s, defense spending accounted for nearly 60 percent of federal outlays, as opposed to the current level of about 13 percent. In the earlier part of the Eisenhower administration, the defense/social-spending split was more like 80/20. (Go ahead and dig in here.) If you think that is what federal spending should look like—be careful what you wish for, because Trump may try to give it to you.

A New York Times headline wonders: Could there be “A North American Treaty Organization without America?” What would that even mean? 

I come bearing good news for the anxious Times copy editors: There will never be a North American Treaty Organization without America! In fact, there is no such thing as the North American Treaty Organization. NATO has 32 members, 30 of which are in Europe and two of which are in North America, and it is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  

I also have some bad news:

The Huffington Post, which still exists, reports: “Irritable Male Syndrome (IMS) Is An Actual Condition — And It Could Explain A Lot.” 

I came across an interesting name, one belonging to a lawyer for the Democracy Defenders Fund who was quoted this week in a New York Times article. And what a name:  Taryn Wilgus Null, which sounds like it should belong to a character in a book with a dragon on the cover and a subtitle advertising it as “Part 17 in the Wintersbane Saga” or something like that. It is an excellent name. As a boring ol’ “Kevin,” I am envious.

You can buy my most recent book, Big White Ghetto, here.

You can buy my other books here.

Please subscribe to The Dispatch if you haven’t.

You can check out “How the World Works,” a series of interviews on work I’m doing for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, here. My most recent interview is with Jonathan Farber, a private equity investor with a focus on oil and gas and one of the smartest energy policy guys you will come across. 

The word “coconspirators” makes me think of the original boss lady at Chanel. If Coco Chanel has a fan club, its members should be called the Coconspirators. 

(No, a hyphen would ruin the effect.)

The news isn’t all bad. 

“He is not here” is not actually the end of that sentence or the end of the verse—but everything that follows is only commentary and exposition. I myself have written many thousands of words of lesser commentary on the subject, but perhaps it would be better to leave a little more unsaid. We are at the tomb, in our grief and our loneliness, ready to make like our philosophical German friend and gaze into the abyss—but: He is not there.