Bondi: "saying something to get the president mad enough flip you off is a class 5 reverse racist felony"
Executive summary
The online quote attributing to “Bondi” the line that “saying something to get the president mad enough flip you off is a class 5 reverse racist felony” appears to be a partisan, hyperbolic claim with no clear legal basis in the sources provided: the line is recorded on a discussion forum but no statute, official DOJ memo, or legal commentary presented here recognizes a crime by that name or description [1]. Existing hate‑crime statutes and recent policy debates cited in the record concern bias‑motivated violence or institutional enforcement actions, not casual speech framed as “reverse racism” or a discrete “class 5 felony” for provoking an obscene gesture [2] [3].
1. The origin of the claim is a partisan forum post, not a statute
The only direct source for the exact wording is a DebatePolitics forum entry that repeats the phrase as a rhetorical jab—“To say something that makes the president so mad he flips you off, yup, class five reverse racism felony says Bondi” [1]—and forums are not primary legal authorities; no parallel appears in the Justice Department memoranda or formal legal reports provided here [4] [5].
2. Criminal law on “hate” or bias requires intent and protected class targeting, not mere provocation
State and federal hate‑crime regimes described in the materials focus on criminal acts motivated by bias against protected characteristics and often involve violence, intimidation, or other underlying offenses that are enhanced because of bias [2] [3]. Those descriptions show that criminal liability for bias requires more than provocative speech designed to elicit an obscene gesture; instead it requires intent to interfere with rights or to commit an underlying offense tied to bias [3].
3. No evidence here of a legal category called “class 5 reverse racist felony”
The reporting and legal documents provided discuss specific statutes, hate‑crime sentencing schemes, and high‑profile legal fights—such as Second Amendment dockets and academic critiques of legal precedent—but none establish a criminal charge labeled “class 5 reverse racist felony” or a standard criminalizing speech designed to annoy a political figure [6] [7]. That absence in the available record is meaningful: if such a crime existed or had been publicly announced by an attorney general, it would be reflected in DOJ memos, press statements, or legal analyses, none of which are shown here [4] [5].
4. Political context: partisan rhetoric and institutional critique inform the claim
The figure invoked—Pam Bondi—is a polarizing political actor in the materials: civil‑rights groups and legal defenders frame her actions as hostile to civil‑rights institutions and express concern about prosecutorial intentions, which explains why opponents might amplify or caricature her statements [8] [9]. That context suggests the forum quote functions more as political ridicule than an accurate legal summary, and opponents’ warnings about using prosecutorial power for political ends show why such a meme would gain traction even without legal grounding [8].
5. Evidence limits and alternative explanations
The available sources do not include a statute, DOJ charging memo, or court decision endorsing a crime that criminalizes provocative speech of the kind described, so the strongest conclusion supported here is that the claim is unsubstantiated in the record provided [1] [4]. It remains possible—though unsupported by these materials—that other documents or jurisdictions might use unusual terminology; absent those sources, asserting the claim as legal fact is not justified. Alternative viewpoints exist in the materials: civil‑rights advocates argue that Bondi’s prosecutorial posture threatens rights [8], which could motivate both alarmist rhetoric and political caricature like the forum post [1].