Talk:Pam Bondi

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2025

Pam Bondi is currently married to her third husband, John Wakefield. This fact is not currently included on her page. 2601:681:D03:C610:2C45:68DA:1540:9C27 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a citation and I will add it. --Malerooster (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She's currently engaged, not married. You can still add this likely.
As of 2024, Bondi is not married, but she finds herself in a joyful chapter of her personal life as she is happily engaged to her partner, John Wakefield. Their romantic journey began in 2018 and has been filled with shared moments of happiness and companionship, which Pam generously shares through her Instagram account. Read more at: https://thehiphopupdate.com/politics/pam-bondis-husband-in-2024-married-with-kids/ Captan40000 (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
seems important fact needs to be corrobated

Massive liberal bias ignores facts

Heavy liberal bias makes this page essentially worthless. Not even close to the truth and ignores established facts. 69.178.31.28 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide an example? Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes waiting for proof - ackman in news but details — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.130.142.29 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, especially when stating she supported false claims of election fraud. How could an opinion be false. There were many examples of election fraud, mostly by using the covid pandemic to usurp election laws. The line should read, "and made claims of election fraud." 73.84.46.137 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree!!!! The fact that there was evidence of fraud from eye witness views as well as documented accounts. It should read as "she claimed election fraud" with added claim of "voter fraud". 162.72.52.123 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
caRE TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE? Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you! It says Bondi "...made false claims about election fraud..." when over half the country suspects it. False shouldn't be arrogantly inserted, as if the editor is THE final authority on this much DEBATED subject. 2605:59C8:102D:1410:2517:CCB4:ADED:55B9 (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Over half the country? Well first of the USA is not the only country in the world, secondly, we go by what RS says (even non-American ones)., the editor has no authority RS do. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced material

Can material be sourced that is going to added going forward? Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All material added should be sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is she actually married to John Wakefield?

I find no support for the claim in the Personal Life section stating that she is married to John Wakefield. A video on a YouTube channel called County Office claims there's no evidence that they are married. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_lwrvKWLLk Bro rick (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found no RS indicating that they are married. The Youtube was the only source I found that addressed the issue one way or the other. Bro rick (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that she's married to John Wakefield has been deleted from the 'Personal life' section but Wakefield is still listed as her spouse in the info box. (I have extended confirmed user access, so I could delete it, but I know too little about the subject to want to get involved.) Russ London (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. --Malerooster (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She's currently engaged to him, not married. Captan40000 (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page reads like a left hit piece

Who wrote this? Is is very biased and condescending. This page should be taken down for correction. 2601:14B:C201:D3C0:1DF4:524A:F26E:4A62 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then AFD it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relax. WP is a well-known leftist cesspit. This article is about par for the course. rudra (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Th eliberal slant has been on Wikipedia for a while. The 1% decide the information that gets into these articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Liberal" maybe, but not liberal. As Shellenberger says, leftists like to cross-dress as liberals. Sneaky. I got tired of the edit warring and "reliable source" games and gave up on WP 15 years ago. (Yes, it's been at least that long :-() rudra (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Represented Trump

She’s NEVER personally represented Trump. She was an assistant to the White House Council. 47.160.86.71 (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in the sentence about her lobbying work

In the sentence about her work lobbying around the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, the word "held" is shown where in should be "help". Mattstaed (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error

On the last sentence of the last bullet in "U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary concerns about possible conflict of interest", there is a spelling mistake. The phrase currently says "as late ats 2024." when it should be "as late as 2024." QuacksALot (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Durbin comments should not be listed on her Bio. Very inappropriate.

Slanderous opinion of one government opponent. 2600:6C58:6400:23:E03A:EE50:E0CE:BCDB (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not slander, as there has been no court case. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comment is not needed, doesn't add anything material to article. --Malerooster (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MAybe, but that was not the objection. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. --Malerooster (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2025

In the 'U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary concerns about possible conflict of interest' section, I request that the following sentences be changed to be grammatically correct, fluent and provide more information.

"In presenting information to the committee, Bondi's worked as lobbyist was not present to the committee. According to the committee website, Bondi did not present the following issues pertaining to her work as a partner with Ballard Partners:"

to be changed to:

"When testifying information to the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to the committee website, Bondi did not present the following issues about her work as a partner with Ballard Partners:"

and

"Bondi was a lobbyist for The GEO Group, which a private prison company. The company is a government contractor for immigration detention facilities.[72][73]The company has had experienced criticism for issues in safety issues, health care, and management practices.[74][71][75]"

to be changed to:

"Bondi was a lobbyist for The GEO Group, a private prison investment and operating company with facilities in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, and South Africa. The company is also a government contractor for immigration detention facilities.[72][73]The company has experienced significant controversy since the early 2000s with criticism of safety, health care issues, and its management practices.[74][71][75]" JaredLukeUK (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its supported, and seems relevantSlatersteven (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2025

In the 'U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary concerns about possible conflict of interest', I request that the following sentences be changed to be grammatically correct,fluent and provide more information.

"In presenting information to the committee, Bondi's worked as lobbyist was not present to the committee. According to the committee website, Bondi did not present the following issues pertaining to her work as a partner with Ballard Partners:"

^ to be changed to: v

"When testifying information to the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to the committee website, Bondi did not present the following issues about her work as a partner with Ballard Partners:"

and

"Bondi was a lobbyist for The GEO Group, which a private prison company. The company is a government contractor for immigration detention facilities.[72][73]The company has had experienced criticism for issues in safety issues, health care, and management practices.[74][71][75]"

^ to be changed to: v

"Bondi was a lobbyist for The GEO Group, a private prison investment and operating company with facilities in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, and South Africa. The company is also a government contractor for immigration detention facilities.[72][73]The company has experienced criticism for issues in safety, health care, and its management practices.[74][71][75]" JaredLukeUK (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed above, is it not? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italian heritage

The current version of this article says that Bondi's ancestors came from Campania in southern Italy, but, in her Senate testimony on January 15, 2025 she said her ancestors came from "Sicily." Which is correct? 76.189.135.48 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what wp:rs say, she is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is still worth mentioning
"Although Bondi's ancestors came from Campania in Southern Italy, she claimed in her Senate confirmation hearing that her ancestors came from Sicily." Captan40000 (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

stance on PA electoral votes

what are the documented facts on her stance on the results in PA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.130.142.29 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More References on Her Lobbying for KGL KSCC

As a lobbyist, she had represented a Kuwaiti investment company called KGL KSCC. There are citations from the federal lobbyist filings and a description of the company from a court case in the UK. There are reliable, neutral, third-party references for the lobbying effort. However, KGL KSCC appears to no longer exist due to the difficulty finding information about the company on search engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 07:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 Presidential election

“Bondi was one of President Donald Trump's defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial. She became a vocal supporter of Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election”

“Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.108.226 (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and? Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2025

Update Pam Bondi's status from United States Attorney General Nominee to 87th United States Attorney General (Incumbent) Koucanada (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2025

Statement of "made false claims of election fraud" should be removed or edited Proven false statements should be included to confirm this is not opinion 169.147.254.128 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, as they have not proven there was fraud, in fact quite the opposite. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]