CNN “Fears” Pam Bondi Because She’s “Competent”

Independent Sentinel ^ | November 23, 2024 | By M DOWLING

[airdalechief]

CNN fears Pam Bondi because she’s “competent” and, as such, is “dangerous.” Usually, competent is a good thing, but maybe not for CNN. It would explain a lot about the network.

“We should all fear her because she’s competent,” said CNN analyst Jason Johnson.

“We may not agree with her ideologically, but she actually knows how to do this job. So, if anyone on the Democratic side, or anyone who cared about liberty or justice, was thinking, well, maybe Matt Gaetz will screw this up, and that will give us some time. No, Pam Bondi knows what she’s doing.

[central_va]

Chin Soy Boy is a silly one fer sure.

[central_va]

You are a lawyer hence you mind is corrupt. Go away. Lawyers like you make us sick.

[Lazamataz]

He lacks the knowledge to make the intelligent strategic decisions necessary to employ a team of experienced attorneys effectively. Running teams of lawyers is not a general management skill. That's why law firms don't have non-legal CEOs managing cases with teams of lawyers under them. The lawyers who run large cases and large investigations are the ones with the most legal knowledge and experience because they're the ones who have to make the critical decisions.

Solution: He hires someone to do it.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

[GOPJ]

CNN got the vapors? Clutch those pearls idiots...

[JimRed]

Bondi should appoint Matt Gaitz as her deputy. Watch leftist heads explode!

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Solution: He hires someone to do it.

So he hires someone to act as the "Special Prosecutor" (which actually hasn't existed four more than four decades, but let's ignore that for now), who will make all the important decisions like who to charge, how to staff each investigation, how to conduct each investigation, make all the close legal calls and strategic decisions....

And Gaetz just gets the title?

Law is a very technical profession. If you lack the requisite technical knowledge and experience, it is impossible to properly supervise those who do.

[Lazamataz]

So he hires someone to act as the "Special Prosecutor" (which actually hasn't existed four more than four decades, but let's ignore that for now), who will make all the important decisions like who to charge, how to staff each investigation, how to conduct each investigation, make all the close legal calls and strategic decisions.... And Gaetz just gets the title? Law is a very technical profession. If you lack the requisite technical knowledge and experience, it is impossible to properly supervise those who do.

So he serves as the motivator and the general temperature-setter.

Do you know what ELSE is a very technical profession? Technology. Specifically, computer development. This is my area of expertise.

Non-technical people manage computer teams all the time. They are given advice and counsel by their charges, and based on that input, make the broad-stroke decisions.

Your profession is NOT more technical than mine. I've seen this model work.

You'll tell me why this cannot work. I, having been 30 years in a profession far more technical than yours, will not believe you.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

So the lead supervisor for a team of coders doing hard-core coding may know absolutely nothing about coding himself? How can he tell if they are doing their jobs correctly as opposed to screwing up or just bullshitting their boss?

In law, the only significant indications to someone without expertise of whether or not someone is doing their job correctly may not be evident for years. Some lawyers can bullshit pretty sophisticated clients for years, essentially misleading them regarding the posture of the case.

So he serves as the motivator and the general temperature-setter.<

I don't really know what that means. Who makes the actual decisions as to who will or will not be prosecuted, what they will be charged with, the scope of the investigations, who will get immunity, etc.?

[Lazamataz]

So the lead supervisor for a team of coders doing hard-core coding may know absolutely nothing about coding himself?

Yes. Seen it in action.

How can he tell if they are doing their jobs correctly as opposed to screwing up or just bullshitting their boss?

Peer participation and review. Nobody can slack when everyone checks one another's work. Look into Agile practices. Heck, if you guys are having these sort of problems, you might want to start EMPLOYING Agile practices, adapting it to better fit the law.

In law, the only significant indications to someone without expertise of whether or not someone is doing their job correctly may not be evident for years. Some lawyers can bullshit pretty sophisticated clients for years, essentially misleading them regarding the posture of the case.... and.... I don't really know what that means. Who makes the actual decisions as to who will or will not be prosecuted, what they will be charged with, the scope of the investigations, who will get immunity, etc.?

If you guys aren't collaborating, and I mean DAILY, I think I see a hole in your profession's process.

We all have defined roles, in computer development. Business Partners. Product Owner. Project Manager. Scrum Master. Team Dev Lead. Developers. Testers.

This is what a functional Agile team looks like. We meet daily for morning 15 minute standups, but that is but one of the many Agile ceremonies intended to increase collaboration.

In my case, the Project Manager reports to an Associate Director, who has zero by way of coding experience.

Basically, in this tight team, we all keep one another honest. Agile also works in other industries. I bet it could work in yours.

Look into it. You may change the landscape of the legal profession.

[Lazamataz]

A parting thought: We in computer development used to work in the manner you say, where you state:

In law, the only significant indications to someone without expertise of whether or not someone is doing their job correctly may not be evident for years.

Same thing in coding. Seen that too. We call that Waterfall Development, as opposed to the far more effective Agile Development.

I said it as a lark, but I seriously wonder, now, if your entire profession could benefit from what we have learned in the computer world.

[Lazamataz]

I know you have a few friends who are lawyers. This might interest them.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I'm not sure how, to be honest. There are so many judgment calls made during litigation that you really don't know if they ultimately pay off until trial, and sometimes not until after the appeal.

I'll give you an example. There are often times during litigation when you're trying to press the other side in some manner, either on a legal issue, or on discovery issue where you're trying to uncover information, etc.. Now normally, you'd think that the right thing to do is to push as hard as you can, and win every battle that you can. If the judge rules in your favor on those issues, that's great.

Except sometimes it isn't. Good lawyers will be aware of when they have taken an issue and pushed it to the point where it may become an issue for appeal. A classic example of this is what has happened with Trump. The prosecutors pushed for all sorts of very favorable rulings in that case, which the judge almost always granted. That was instrumental in getting them a conviction.

The problem is that some of those rulings were so excessive that they may well result in a reversal at some level. If that happens, Democrat lawyers will scream that it was unfair, and Republican lawyers will say it was fully justified. And if it doesn't, the reactions will flip. But the reality is whether or not those Democratic prosecutors were right to push that hard on all these issues won't be known until the appeal is final - 3-4 years after that case began.

So I don't see a way to come up with meaningful mile markers along the way that tell you for certain whether or not your approach is correct. Ultimately, it's just a lot of very nuanced judgment calls being made by people who hopefully have a great deal of experience.

[Lazamataz]

Let me think on this. I think the immediate issue is that you are relying on the judgement calls of inherently fallible people, sometimes with motivations that go beyond the courtroom: Judges, Juries, all of them.

Perhaps I am in a profession which, easily as technical (or more so) than yours, gives me the luxury of hard evidence of success. A web server either works or it doesn’t. An API either enforces CORS policy and accepts JWT tokens or it doesn’t. It either returns results correctly or it doesn’t.

I still feel your profession could benefit from some of the Agile processes, particularly collaboration. That being said, let us return to the original discussion: Could Matt Gaetz function as an effective champion against the malicious prosecution (lawfare) evidenced in the last four years? I think he could. He could serve in the role as my Associate Director does, who doesn’t know much code. My Associate Director hired well, and Matt could certainly to that, appointing one of your experienced lawyers as the Project Manager, who reports the progress to Matt. Matt would rely on the judgement calls of his immediate underling, while stressing the desired outcome: Reversal of Lawfare, creation of hard steps to avoid its repetition, and disassembling current Malicious Prosecution efforts.

[Lazamataz]

I’m starting to sense that your profession is far more similar to sales, than computers.

Sales cannot benefit from all of Agile, but it can benefit from some of it.

I actually considered law as a profession, and have been told by other lawyers that I would actually be good at it. However, I’m kinda glad I chose the path I chose. Could I have made more money? Sure. I get far more job satisfaction in on my path, though.

[Lazamataz]

If Artificial Intelligence advances sufficiently, it could serve as a GENUINELY impartial judge.

Then your profession could evolve to something a lot less iffy, a lot less ‘judgement call-y’.

I’m actually enjoying this exchange of thoughts about our respective professions. I sense you are, too. 😊😊

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I’m starting to sense that your profession is far more similar to sales, than computers.

That's fair, though it is sales governed by an incredibly complex set of rules governing those sales. Although, that's more of the jury end of things. The appellate end is much less sales-y, and more purely analytical. And sometimes, what sells best to a jury isn't what works best to set up an appeal, so at trial, you're weighing the risk of boring a jury with the value of building a stronger record for appeal.

However, I’m kinda glad I chose the path I chose. Could I have made more money? Sure. I get far more job satisfaction in on my path, though.

For a short period due to circumstances, I did some plaintiff's work, meaning I was suing companies. I stopped after getting settlements on a few cases that didn't deserve it simply because I was good at fitting the facts of a case to a viable legal theory - even if I knew it was crap. Felt dirty, and couldn't do it anymore.

Probably the worst thing about practicing law is that you're never truly away from your job. In the car, on vacation, in the shower, you are constantly thinking about the details of all your cases, the theories, the deadlines, etc.. stopped practicing a few years ago, and it feels good.

[piytar]

Oh it did. Thanks Laz. Phone has been let’s say busy.