The Bondi DOJ: An Investigative Report on Power, Purges, and Political Prosecution

Inside the Most Controversial Transformation of the Justice Department in American History

By Dr. Wil Rodriguez

TOCSIN Magazine

In the marble corridors of the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, career prosecutors speak in hushed tones, if they speak at all. Fear has become the dominant emotion in an institution that once prided itself on independence from political pressure. Since Pam Bondi took the oath as the 87th Attorney General of the United States on February 5, 2025, the Department of Justice has undergone a transformation so profound that former officials describe it as nothing less than the systematic dismantling of the rule of law.

This is not hyperbole from partisan critics. These are the words of people who have dedicated their careers to the institution, who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and who now watch in horror as the Justice Department is weaponized in ways that would have been unthinkable even a year ago.

This investigation examines the Bondi tenure at DOJ through extensive documentation, interviews with current and former officials, and analysis of the unprecedented actions taken in the name of “ending weaponization.” What emerges is a portrait of an institution in crisis, where loyalty to Donald Trump has replaced fidelity to the Constitution, where career prosecutors are purged for doing their jobs, and where the awesome power of federal prosecution is directed from the Oval Office with brazen disregard for legal norms that have governed the department for generations.

The Confirmation: Promises Made, Promises Broken

Pam Bondi was Trump’s second choice for attorney general after former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz withdrew from consideration amid allegations of sexual misconduct and illegal drug use. The Senate voted 54-46 to confirm Bondi on February 5, 2025, in a mostly party-line vote.

Bondi entered the role with deep ties to Trump’s orbit, having spoken on his behalf at the 2016 Republican National Convention and serving as one of his personal attorneys during his first impeachment trial. More recently, she led the legal arm of the America First Policy Institute.

At her confirmation hearing, Bondi struck themes of independence and impartiality that now ring hollow in light of subsequent events. She echoed Trump’s assertions that the Justice Department under President Biden had been weaponized against Trump and conservatives. “The partisanship, the weaponization will be gone,” she told lawmakers. “America will have one tier of justice for all.”

When sworn in, Bondi made a revealing promise to President Trump: “I am truly honored that you have asked me to take on this role, and I will make you proud, and I will make this country proud.” The order of those loyalties—Trump first, country second—would prove prophetic.

The First 10 Days: A Preview of Things to Come

The transformation began immediately. Within ten days of her confirmation, the outlines of Bondi’s vision for the Justice Department became clear: this would be Trump’s DOJ, operating at his direction, pursuing his enemies, and protecting his interests.

The initial days saw a flurry of activity that set the tone for everything that followed. Career prosecutors who had worked on cases involving Trump or his allies found themselves sidelined, reassigned, or forced out. Senior officials who had spent decades building institutional expertise were shown the door. The message was unmistakable: if you had ever crossed Trump, your days at DOJ were numbered.

One leader described the workplace as one of “confusion” and “fear” amid the firings and resignations in the first weeks of the Trump administration.

The Purge: Weaponizing Dismissals

What began as targeted removals escalated into a systematic purge that has gutted entire divisions of the Justice Department. The scale and scope of the dismissals are unprecedented in the modern history of the department.

January 6 Prosecutors

The dismissals marked the first time that prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases and were past their probationary period of federal employment had been fired by the Justice Department. At least three federal prosecutors who worked on cases against Jan. 6 rioters were fired, with dismissal letters signed by Attorney General Bondi stating they were “removed from federal service effective immediately” with no reason given.

The message was clear: prosecuting those who attacked the Capitol on behalf of Donald Trump would not be tolerated in Bondi’s DOJ. These were not probationary employees who could be dismissed easily. These were career prosecutors with years of service who had successfully prosecuted some of the most violent participants in the assault on democracy.

One federal law enforcement official called the firings “horrifying” and noted that the prosecutors had been serving in other capacities before the 2024 election. “To fire them, without explanation, is a slap in the face not only to them, but to all career DOJ prosecutors. No one is safe from this administration’s whims and impulses. And the public certainly is not served by the continued brain drain of DOJ—we are losing the best among us every day.”

The Jack Smith Purge

Attorney General Pam Bondi fired at least 20 officials who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith, according to sources with knowledge of the firings. This was part of a massive purge of staffers who took part in the prosecution of Trump for Jan. 6 and possessing classified documents unlawfully.

The Smith investigation had documented Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Career prosecutors and FBI agents had spent months building what they believed were strong cases. Their reward for this work: termination.

One fired Jan. 6 prosecutor sent a farewell email quoting Theodore Roosevelt, a poignant reminder that standing up to power has always carried costs. The email came amid what officials describe as the continued targeting of career Justice Department and FBI officials disfavored by the Trump administration.

The Ethics Purge

The Trump administration’s ongoing purge continued with Attorney General Bondi firing the department’s top ethics adviser. Bondi fired one of the top officials tasked with advising her and other senior DOJ officials of their ethical obligations.

The symbolism here is almost too obvious: the person charged with ensuring ethical conduct at the Justice Department was removed, presumably for doing exactly that job. With the ethics chief gone, who would sound the alarm about potential violations? Who would advise officials when they were crossing legal or ethical lines? The answer appears to be: no one.

The Civil Rights Exodus

More than 70 percent of the attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have departed. This represents not just a brain drain but an existential threat to the division’s mission. The Civil Rights Division enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status, and national origin. Its work is fundamental to protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans.

The mass departure suggests either a hostile environment that made staying untenable or deliberate efforts to hollow out a division whose work conflicted with the administration’s priorities. Either way, the result is the same: the federal government’s capacity to enforce civil rights laws has been catastrophically diminished.

The Public Integrity Collapse

The Public Integrity Section, which prosecutes public corruption, has been almost entirely emptied out. This is perhaps the most telling casualty of the Bondi era. The Public Integrity Section investigates and prosecutes corrupt public officials. Its near-complete gutting raises an obvious question: what happens to corruption investigations now?

The answer may lie in who benefits from an absent or compromised Public Integrity Section. With the watchdogs dismissed, who guards against corruption in government? The implications for accountability are staggering.

The Comey Indictment: Retribution Masquerading as Justice

If the purges represented the stick of the Bondi DOJ, the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey represented something more sinister: the use of federal prosecution as a weapon of political retribution.

Trump’s Public Demands

Last month, Trump openly directed Bondi to go after his perceived political adversaries, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, and Comey. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump said in a social media post addressed to Bondi. “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

This was not a private conversation leaked to the press. This was a public demand from the President of the United States ordering his Attorney General to prosecute specific individuals. The breach of traditional norms separating the White House from prosecutorial decisions could not have been more blatant.

The Prosecutor Who Said No

Shortly before Trump’s post, the president pushed out the top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, a career prosecutor Trump had tapped for the role earlier this year. Siebert’s office was leading investigations into both James and Comey, and Siebert had expressed concerns about the strength of the evidence in both cases.

Here was a career prosecutor who had the temerity to evaluate the evidence rather than simply follow political orders. His removal sent a clear message to every federal prosecutor in the country: your job depends on delivering the outcomes Trump demands, regardless of the evidence.

The Replacement: Loyalty Over Experience

Trump then installed Lindsey Halligan, a former insurance attorney and White House aide with no prosecutorial experience, as U.S. attorney to replace Siebert. She sought and secured an indictment against Comey, overruling career prosecutors who questioned the strength of the case.

An insurance attorney with no prosecutorial experience was put in charge of one of the most significant U.S. Attorney’s offices in the country and immediately overruled experienced career prosecutors to deliver the indictment Trump demanded. This is not how a justice system committed to rule of law operates. This is how a system of political prosecution operates.

The Indictment

Comey faces charges of making false statements and obstruction of justice related to congressional testimony from 2020. One DOJ insider told MSNBC the indictment was “among the worst abuses in DOJ history.”

A former DOJ director of public affairs, speaking with current and former employees, said: “Everybody is in shock. It doesn’t surprise them, though, because this is the way the Justice Department has been. Career officials have largely been either pushed out or silenced and are not in meetings about major decisions about cases.”

Even Bondi Doubts the Case

Even Bondi herself feels the case is thin and that her department may struggle to convict Comey and please Trump, sources told CNN. The attorney general fears the perjury case against Comey may not deliver the result the president wants.

This may be the most damning detail: the Attorney General pursued an indictment she believes is weak because the President demanded it. This is not justice. This is theater designed to satisfy Trump’s desire for revenge.

Legal Community Reacts

Former White House special counsel in Trump’s first term, Ty Cobb, called Comey’s indictment a “tragic day for America.” “What we have here is a clear vindictive prosecution, a clear selective prosecution. We have a president for the first time in history ordering his attorney general to indict his enemies. And the attorney general, instead of being the independent force that she’s supposed to be, saying: ‘Yes, sir. How fast can I get that done for you?’”

Cobb continued: “This is either the end of the rule of law in America or it’s a tipping point against the authoritarian activity we’ve seen from this president and his attorney general.”

Former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin called it “an extremely thin indictment” and noted: “I think it’s worth reflecting on how the power to prosecute is the most profound power that the government has. This isn’t about deciding who gets a federal contract. This is about the government deciding who goes to prison or who might go to prison. And the fact that it is now being directed from the very top. This is in complete violation of how the Justice Department is supposed to work. This is a profound and scary thing.”

The Senate Hearing: Accountability Avoided

On October 7, 2025, Attorney General Bondi appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her first oversight hearing since the Comey indictment. Democrats pressed Bondi over concerns DOJ is being weaponized to target Trump’s foes. Bondi defended her work as attorney general, rejecting allegations that DOJ investigations and prosecutions are driven by politics.

But her defense rang hollow in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The hearing itself became a study in evasion and deflection.

The Deflection Strategy

Bondi, in her opening remarks, accused the Biden administration of weaponizing the DOJ against Trump and his allies. “They wanted to take President Trump off the playing field,” she said. “This is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in the justice system.”

The strategy was clear: rather than defend her actions, attack her predecessors. Rather than explain the Comey indictment, point to Trump’s prosecutions. Rather than address concerns about politicization, claim she was ending politicization.

During the oversight hearing, Bondi was unprofessional and partisan, but most importantly, she was evasive, rejecting key lines of inquiry.

Questions Unanswered

Democratic senators came prepared with pointed questions:

• Why was Erik Siebert, a Trump-appointed career prosecutor, removed after expressing concerns about evidence?

• What was Bondi’s role in the decision to indict Comey?

• Why were career prosecutors overruled on the strength of the case?

• What criteria are being used to target individuals for investigation?

• Why were Jan. 6 prosecutors fired without explanation?

To most of these questions, Bondi refused to provide substantive answers, citing “ongoing investigations” or declining to discuss personnel matters.

The 300 Prosecutors

A letter signed by nearly 300 former career DOJ employees and released on the eve of Bondi’s hearing says the department is failing to uphold the rule of law, keep the country safe and protect civil rights. “The administration is taking a sledgehammer to other longstanding work the Department has done to protect communities and the rule of law, too,” the letter says. “We call on these leaders to reverse course—to remember the oath we all took to uphold the Constitution—and adhere to the legal guardrails and institutional norms on which our justice system relies.”

Three hundred former career prosecutors do not sign such a letter lightly. These are people who understand the gravity of their words and the potential consequences. Their collective voice represents not partisan opposition but professional alarm at the degradation of an institution they devoted their careers to serving.

The View from Inside: A Department in Crisis

The statistics tell part of the story, but interviews with current and former officials reveal the human dimension of the crisis.

Morale at Rock Bottom

“Right now morale is low at the Justice Department,” former DOJ director of public affairs Xochitl Hinojosa said. “And the Justice Department, I think is on its way to being broken, if not already. And I think you’re going to see more career officials leave.”

Career prosecutors who have spent years, even decades, building expertise are leaving in droves. Some are taking early retirement. Others are moving to state prosecutors’ offices or private practice. All are making the same calculation: they cannot in good conscience continue to serve in an institution that has betrayed its core mission.

The Chilling Effect

Perhaps the most insidious impact of the Bondi era is the chilling effect on future prosecutions. Numerous current and former officials have told NBC News that the targeting of people who worked on the January 6 investigation would leave career prosecutors and FBI officials hesitant to pursue cases against any Trump allies for fear of being targeted by the administration.

This is how institutional rot works: it’s not just about the cases that are brought for political reasons; it’s about the legitimate cases that aren’t brought because prosecutors fear political retribution. When career officials must consider whether investigating certain individuals will cost them their jobs, the rule of law has already failed.

The Brain Drain

The exodus of talent from DOJ represents a national security threat. These aren’t just any employees; these are some of the most experienced prosecutors in the country, people who have handled complex terrorism cases, transnational organized crime, public corruption, and civil rights violations. Their institutional knowledge cannot be easily replaced.

Moreover, the reputational damage to DOJ will make recruitment difficult for years to come. Why would talented young attorneys choose to work at an institution that has been so thoroughly politicized? Why would anyone commit to a career in public service at a department where political loyalty matters more than professional competence?

The Pros: A Perspective on Defenders’ Claims

To conduct a fair investigation, we must examine the arguments made by Bondi and her defenders, even as we interrogate their validity.

“Ending Weaponization”

Bondi and her supporters claim she is “ending the weaponization” of the Justice Department that occurred under the Biden administration. In an appearance on Fox News after Comey was indicted, Bondi said: “the weaponization has ended. We’ve made that very clear. Whether you’re a former FBI director, whether you’re the head of a former intel community, whether you are a current state or local elected official, whether you’re a billionaire funding organizations to try to keep Donald Trump out of office, everything is on the table. We will investigate you and we will end the weaponization. No longer will there be a two-tier system of justice.”

The claim is that prosecuting Trump represented weaponization, while prosecuting his enemies represents ending weaponization. This Orwellian logic requires accepting that any investigation of Trump is by definition political, while investigations of his critics are by definition legitimate.

Restoring Confidence

Supporters argue that Bondi is restoring public confidence in the Justice Department by demonstrating that no one is above the law, not even former senior officials like Comey. After Comey was charged, Bondi posted on social media: “No one is above the law. Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people.”

This argument relies on the premise that Comey committed crimes and that his prosecution is therefore justified. But when career prosecutors with expertise in these cases express concerns about the strength of evidence, and when they are overruled or fired for expressing those concerns, the “no one is above the law” claim rings hollow.

Removing Partisans

Defenders suggest that the firings of prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases and Trump investigations represent the removal of partisan actors who had allowed their political views to influence their work. From this perspective, Bondi is simply cleaning house and restoring impartiality to the department.

This argument requires believing that hundreds of career prosecutors across multiple divisions and offices all happened to be partisan Democrats who let politics guide their work, rather than trained professionals following the evidence. It requires ignoring that many of these individuals had served under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. It requires a level of cynicism about career civil servants that borders on conspiracy thinking.

Following Presidential Direction

Some supporters make a more constitutionally dubious argument: that the President, as the head of the executive branch, has the authority to direct the Justice Department’s prosecutorial decisions, and Bondi is simply following appropriate chains of command.

This view fundamentally misunderstands or deliberately ignores decades of norms and practices designed to insulate prosecutorial decisions from political pressure. While the President technically has authority over the executive branch, post-Watergate reforms established crucial firewalls between the White House and prosecutorial decisions precisely to prevent the kind of abuse we’re now witnessing.

The Cons: A Damning Ledger

The case against Bondi’s leadership of the Justice Department is overwhelming and grows stronger with each passing week.

Destruction of Institutional Independence

The most fundamental failure is the obliteration of the Justice Department’s traditional independence from White House political direction. When the President publicly orders prosecutions and the Attorney General delivers them, the careful separation between political leadership and prosecutorial decision-making collapses.

This independence isn’t a courtesy or tradition; it’s a crucial safeguard against the abuse of prosecutorial power. Without it, every American is vulnerable to selective prosecution based on political considerations. If you donate to the wrong candidate, criticize the wrong official, or simply find yourself on the wrong side of a political dispute, you could become a target.

Selective Prosecution as Policy

The Comey indictment, following Trump’s public demands, represents textbook selective prosecution. Whether Comey made false statements in 2020 testimony may be debatable, but what’s not debatable is that he was targeted for investigation and prosecution because of his conflict with Trump, not because of any systematic effort to prosecute all instances of alleged false statements to Congress.

This selectivity extends to the broader pattern of DOJ actions under Bondi. Those who investigated or prosecuted Trump face termination. Those who attacked the Capitol receive pardons. Those who refused to help overturn the 2020 election face investigation. Those who aided Trump’s efforts face protection. The pattern is unmistakable.

Gutting Institutional Capacity

The mass departure of experienced prosecutors has left critical divisions hollowed out. The Civil Rights Division, Public Integrity Section, and other units fundamental to DOJ’s mission cannot effectively function when 70 percent or more of their attorneys have left or been fired.

This isn’t just about abstract institutional health; it’s about real-world impacts. Civil rights violations will go unaddressed. Public corruption will go unprosecuted. Complex cases requiring years of institutional knowledge and expertise will be dropped or bungled.

Chilling Effect on Future Prosecutors

Perhaps the most enduring damage is the message sent to career prosecutors: do your job, but only if it doesn’t conflict with political interests. Investigate corruption, but not if the corrupt are politically connected. Follow the evidence, but only if it leads where political leaders want it to go.

No professional prosecutor can operate effectively under these constraints. The result will be a Justice Department staffed increasingly by political loyalists rather than career professionals, with predictably catastrophic results for the rule of law.

International Implications

America’s standing as a nation committed to rule of law has taken severe damage. Allies watch with concern as the world’s oldest democracy weaponizes its justice system for political ends. Adversaries point to American hypocrisy when criticizing their own authoritarian practices. The moral authority that has underwritten American leadership for generations erodes with each politicized prosecution.

Constitutional Crisis

We are witnessing a slow-motion constitutional crisis. The Justice Department exists to enforce the law impartially, not to serve as the President’s personal law firm and opposition research department. When that fundamental principle is abandoned, the entire structure of constitutional governance is threatened.

The implications extend far beyond the Trump administration. Once these norms are shattered, they will be extraordinarily difficult to restore. Future presidents of both parties will face pressure to use DOJ as Trump has. The precedents being set now will haunt American democracy for generations.

What They’re Holding Back: The Hidden Story

California Attorney General Rob Bonta sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi expressing grave concern with the alarming trend of the U.S. DOJ wielding its prosecutorial power for the improper purpose of political retribution.

But the full story of what’s happening inside DOJ remains partially hidden. Current employees fear retaliation for speaking out. Documents that would reveal the full extent of political interference remain classified or protected by privilege claims. The investigation into specific cases remains ongoing, preventing full disclosure.

What we know is damning enough. What we don’t know may be worse.

Investigations Not Pursued

We don’t know how many legitimate investigations have been shut down because they touched on politically sensitive subjects. We don’t know how many cases were dropped not because of insufficient evidence but because of who they involved. We don’t know the full extent of White House direction of prosecutorial decisions beyond the Comey case that Trump made public.

Prosecutors Silenced

We don’t know the full stories of prosecutors who were fired, demoted, or reassigned. Many have signed non-disclosure agreements or fear professional retaliation if they speak publicly. The intimidation ensures that much of what happened will remain hidden, at least until these individuals are safely distant from potential consequences.

The Epstein Files

During the October 7 hearing, senators questioned Bondi about the status of files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the deceased financier whose connections to powerful individuals have long been a subject of speculation and concern. Bondi’s responses were evasive, raising questions about whether politically sensitive information is being suppressed.

Future Targets

We don’t know the full list of individuals being investigated at Trump’s direction. The public demands have focused on Comey, Letitia James, and Adam Schiff, but how many others are under investigation? How many critics of Trump are now subjects of federal scrutiny not because of evidence of wrongdoing but because of their political opposition?

The Historical Context: How Did We Get Here?

The erosion of DOJ independence didn’t begin with Pam Bondi, though it has reached its nadir under her leadership. Understanding the trajectory helps explain how we arrived at this crisis.

Post-Watergate Reforms

The Watergate scandal revealed the dangers of a politicized Justice Department. Richard Nixon’s use of DOJ and the FBI to target political enemies led to reforms designed to insulate prosecutorial decisions from political pressure. Attorneys General were expected to maintain distance from the White House on specific cases. The FBI Director was given a 10-year term to span multiple administrations. Career prosecutors were given protections against political interference.

These reforms worked reasonably well for decades, though they were never perfect. Both Republican and Democratic administrations occasionally tested their limits, but generally respected the core principles.

The Erosion Begins

The erosion accelerated in recent years. The Obama administration faced criticism for how it handled investigations of IRS targeting of conservative groups. The Trump administration’s first term saw unprecedented attacks on the “deep state” and career officials, though Attorney General Jeff Sessions maintained some institutional independence before his forced resignation.

The Biden administration’s appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate Trump was defended as necessary given the unprecedented situation of investigating a former president and current candidate, but critics saw it as politicized prosecution.

The Dam Breaks

Whatever one’s view of these earlier controversies, they pale in comparison to what has occurred under Bondi. Previous Attorneys General, even when criticized for political considerations, maintained at least the appearance of following evidence and law. They didn’t publicly take orders from the President on specific prosecutions. They didn’t purge entire divisions of career prosecutors. They didn’t fire people for successfully prosecuting cases.

Bondi has shattered norms that even her controversial predecessors respected. The dam has broken, and the flood of politicization threatens to wash away whatever remained of DOJ independence.

The Path Forward: Can the Damage Be Undone?

The question facing America is whether the damage to the Justice Department can be repaired, and if so, how.

Immediate Steps

The most immediate need is to stop the ongoing destruction. This requires political accountability—through congressional oversight, public pressure, and eventually electoral consequences for those enabling the abuse. It requires whistleblowers willing to risk their careers to expose what’s happening. It requires legal challenges to the most egregious abuses.

Institutional Reforms

Longer term, institutional reforms may be necessary:

• Strengthening the Special Counsel regulations to provide genuine independence for investigations of high-ranking officials

• Creating statutory protections for career prosecutors against politically motivated firings

• Establishing clearer guidelines and consequences for political interference in prosecutorial decisions

• Reforming the appointment process to ensure Attorneys General have demonstrated commitment to institutional independence

• Creating inspector general authorities specifically focused on politicization of prosecutions

Cultural Restoration

Perhaps most importantly, there must be a cultural restoration within DOJ. The next Attorney General committed to genuine independence will face the monumental task of rebuilding trust, recruiting talented attorneys to replace those who fled, and reestablishing norms that have been demolished.

This cultural restoration cannot happen quickly. It will require sustained effort over years, not months. It will require leadership willing to resist political pressure even from their own party. It will require a public willing to support prosecutors who follow the evidence wherever it leads, even when politically uncomfortable.

The Public’s Role

Ultimately, the restoration of DOJ depends on public demand for rule of law over political expediency. If the American people accept or even applaud the use of prosecutorial power for political ends, no reform can prevent future abuses. If they demand better, political leaders will have incentive to provide it.

The test of democratic citizenship is not just voting, but vigilance. It’s paying attention when norms are violated, speaking out when abuses occur, and holding leaders accountable when they betray their oaths. The Department of Justice belongs to the American people, not to any president or political party. Its preservation requires active engagement, not passive observation.

REFLEXION BOX

The Bondi Justice Department represents a stress test for American democracy. Can a system built on rule of law survive when those charged with enforcing the law use it as a weapon? Can institutions designed to constrain power function when political leaders have no shame about abusing them?

History suggests pessimism may be warranted. Once norms are shattered, they rarely fully recover. The precedents being set now—that Attorneys General take direct orders from presidents on specific prosecutions, that career prosecutors can be purged for doing their jobs, that the awesome power of federal prosecution can be wielded for political revenge—will not easily be undone.

But history also shows that democratic systems can recover from authoritarian moments if citizens demand it. Watergate led to reforms that strengthened institutional independence. Public outrage at abuses has, at times, forced course corrections. The question is whether we have reached a point where such corrections remain possible or whether we have crossed a threshold into a new normal of politicized justice.

The answer depends partly on what happens next with the Comey prosecution. If it proceeds to trial and Comey is convicted based on genuine evidence of wrongdoing, perhaps the case will be vindicated despite its origins. But if, as many expect, the case proves as thin as critics claim, and if Comey is either acquitted or never brought to trial, the political prosecution will stand as a permanent stain on American justice.

More broadly, the answer depends on whether the American people accept this state of affairs or demand better. Do we want a justice system where political considerations determine who gets investigated and prosecuted? Do we want a country where criticizing the president subjects you to federal criminal investigation? Do we want a democracy where the rule of law means nothing more than rule by those in power?

The Bondi DOJ forces us to confront these questions. The answers we give, through our political choices and civic engagement, will determine whether American democracy survives the 21st century or becomes just another historical example of how republics fail.

What’s at stake is nothing less than the foundational principle that in America, no one is above the law and no one is targeted by law for political reasons. This principle has never been perfectly realized—the criminal justice system has always reflected power imbalances and inequities. But as an aspiration, as a guiding principle, as a norm that constrained the worst abuses, it has been central to American democracy.

That principle is now in mortal danger. Whether it survives depends on us.

A Call to Vigilance

The crisis at the Department of Justice demands attention from every American who values rule of law over rule by the powerful. This is not a partisan issue, though it has been treated as one. Conservatives who applaud the targeting of Trump’s enemies should consider whether they want Democratic presidents wielding the same weapons. Progressives who remained silent during controversies in previous administrations must recognize that their silence enabled the current crisis.

The Justice Department can only function as an institution above politics if the American people insist on it. That means:

• Demanding accountability through congressional oversight

• Supporting whistleblowers who expose political interference

• Rejecting partisan justifications for prosecutorial abuse regardless of which party benefits

• Voting for leaders committed to institutional independence over political loyalty

• Staying informed about what’s happening inside DOJ even when the news is uncomfortable

• Speaking out when norms are violated, even when it’s politically inconvenient

The marble corridors of the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building have witnessed many chapters in American history. They have seen prosecutors bring down organized crime syndicates, enforce civil rights in the face of violent resistance, hold corrupt officials accountable, and protect national security. The people who walked those halls did so with the understanding that they served something larger than any political party or individual: they served justice itself.

Today, those corridors echo with a different sound. It’s the sound of prosecutors packing their offices, of whispered conversations about who might be targeted next, of institutional knowledge walking out the door, of fear replacing the courage that justice requires.

The question is whether this chapter is an aberration that will be corrected or the beginning of a new era where the Justice Department serves as an instrument of political power rather than a check on it.

History will judge not just Pam Bondi and Donald Trump, but all of us. Did we speak out? Did we demand better? Did we defend institutions even when it was politically uncomfortable to do so? Or did we choose partisan loyalty over principle, short-term political gain over long-term institutional health, the satisfaction of seeing our enemies targeted over the protection of equal justice?

The Bondi DOJ is a mirror held up to American democracy. What we see reflected is deeply troubling. But the image is not yet fixed. We still have the power to change it—if we have the will.

The rule of law is not self-executing. It requires constant defense by people willing to put principle above politics. The Justice Department cannot save itself. That responsibility falls to the American people.

The question is: will we rise to meet it?

Epilogue: The Comey Trial

As this article goes to press, the trial of James Comey has not yet begun. The outcome of that trial will tell us much about whether any vestige of independence remains in the federal judiciary, whether career prosecutors will testify about political pressure, and whether the American people will accept obvious political prosecution or demand accountability.

Whatever the verdict, the damage has been done. Trust in the Justice Department has been shattered. Careers have been destroyed. Institutional knowledge has been lost. The precedent has been set.

The only question that remains is whether we allow this to become the new normal or whether we find the courage to demand something better.

The answer will define American democracy for generations to come.

This article is based on extensive documented interviews with current and former Justice Department officials, review of public records and court documents, and analysis of DOJ policies and practices. Some sources in those documented interviews spoke on condition of anonymity due to fear of retaliation.

Visit: tocsinmag.com