Federal prosecutors have poked holes in Mangione lawyers' claims that Attorney General Pam Bondi has a "profound conflict of interest" due to her ties to a lobbying firm, particularly one that had clients including the parent company of UnitedHealthcare.
Bondi's defense team denied claims made by Mangione's lawyers in their submission that she was receiving income through a profit-sharing arrangement with Ballard Partners, which allegedly created a financial conflict of interest. The government countered this claim, stating that Bondi only has a 401(k) account through the firm reflecting past compensation, and the contributions were stopped when she left.
In response to Mangione's lawyers' claims about her lobbying ties and subsequent decision to seek the death penalty in his case, Deputy Manhattan U.S. Attorney Sean Buckley wrote in a court filing that their narrative "collapses under the weight of his own assumptions" since there is no demonstrable financial benefit tied to the litigation. In other words, there is no conflict of interest.
Mangione's lawyers argued that Bondi's past lobbying work and her decision to pursue capital punishment in his case created a profound conflict of interest, violating his due process rights. However, Buckley countered this by stating that Bondi's pledge in January 2025 to follow ethical regulations and recuse herself from matters related to Ballard Partners for a year was not applicable to Mangione's case.
Furthermore, the government maintained that there is no "ethical, statutory, or constitutional obligation" for Bondi to recuse herself from Mangione's case due to the lack of parties involved. The only collateral interest is emotional and reputational, which does not transform them into entities requiring her to step aside.
As a result, prosecutors will proceed with seeking the death penalty in Mangione's case, contradicting his lawyers' claims that there was no conflict of interest. A hearing on this issue is scheduled for Friday, when U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett will hear oral argument on whether the defense can bar prosecutors from using certain evidence and have some charges thrown out.
Bondi's defense team denied claims made by Mangione's lawyers in their submission that she was receiving income through a profit-sharing arrangement with Ballard Partners, which allegedly created a financial conflict of interest. The government countered this claim, stating that Bondi only has a 401(k) account through the firm reflecting past compensation, and the contributions were stopped when she left.
In response to Mangione's lawyers' claims about her lobbying ties and subsequent decision to seek the death penalty in his case, Deputy Manhattan U.S. Attorney Sean Buckley wrote in a court filing that their narrative "collapses under the weight of his own assumptions" since there is no demonstrable financial benefit tied to the litigation. In other words, there is no conflict of interest.
Mangione's lawyers argued that Bondi's past lobbying work and her decision to pursue capital punishment in his case created a profound conflict of interest, violating his due process rights. However, Buckley countered this by stating that Bondi's pledge in January 2025 to follow ethical regulations and recuse herself from matters related to Ballard Partners for a year was not applicable to Mangione's case.
Furthermore, the government maintained that there is no "ethical, statutory, or constitutional obligation" for Bondi to recuse herself from Mangione's case due to the lack of parties involved. The only collateral interest is emotional and reputational, which does not transform them into entities requiring her to step aside.
As a result, prosecutors will proceed with seeking the death penalty in Mangione's case, contradicting his lawyers' claims that there was no conflict of interest. A hearing on this issue is scheduled for Friday, when U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett will hear oral argument on whether the defense can bar prosecutors from using certain evidence and have some charges thrown out.
I gotta say, this whole thing is kinda wild 
. So Pam Bondi's got ties to a lobbying firm and her old law partners are trying to make her look like she's got a financial conflict of interest? C'mon 
, it seems like Mangione's lawyers are just trying to stir up drama here. The AG's team already said the contributions were stopped when she left the firm, so yeah, there's no actual conflict 
.
Can't they see that this is a case about whether Mangione deserves the death penalty or not? It feels like they're just trying to make excuses for their own actions. 
I'm curious to hear how U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett will rule on this one 
.
. The fact that she's following the rules and recusing herself when it comes to Ballard Partners is pretty cool too 
. I'm all about due process and fairness, but sometimes these kinds of things can get blown out of proportion. It's always good to have some clarity on the situation before we start jumping to conclusions 
I'm so done with these lawyers on both sides 
They're going back and forth like a tennis match 
but what really matters is Mangione's life 
We should be worried about whether he'll get the death penalty or not 
I mean, let's focus on the real issue here - his fate 
The lawyers are just being dramatic and trying to spin this for their own gain 
Can we please just get back to the facts? 
This hearing is going to be SO intense 
Let's see how Judge Garnett handles it 
. And now it seems like prosecutors are pushing forward with the death penalty, which is just... intense 
. I don't know, man, I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this 
!
. Sure, it's no good that she's got some financial ties, but it's not like she's getting paid to work on Mangione's case or anything 
. But at the end of the day, I think Bondi's got a solid defense and she should be able to pursue the death penalty without any conflict of interest issues 
.
? It just don't seem right to me 
.