On the topic of Pam Bondi's most recent retarded statement in a long history of retarded statements: I believe that this indicates her unwillingness to pursue terror charges or other charges like incitement of violence against the leftists and intends to use some creative interpretation of civil rights statutes, which will heavily limit their scope and effectiveness. I do not believe that the Administration has the political capital to pass any kind of legislation angled towards "hate speech," even if they had a Senate that could pass bills it seems unlikely that it would be found constitutional. This seems, to me, more like the Attorney General publicly signaling her unwillingness to go after the organizations under terror or RICO legislation and her unwillingness to hit the offenders online with incitement of violence or terroristic threats and instead use some civil rights statute to softball them until the news cycle (in their mind) moves somewhere else.
The question should be posed as "Why?" And I think that it's clear that the Administration is currently unfocused and lacking a clear internal narrative. You have Vance and Stephen Miller talking openly about targeting the Antifa-brand organizations and using terror and RICO laws to do it. But on the other hand you have Bondi saying what she said, you have Patel out to lunch, and other intermediaries vacillating between blaming the Internet and trying to "turn down the temperature." Trump can't seem to decide if this is more important or if the new ball room is. I get the impression that someone, whether that's Trump or Susie Wiles (as Chief of Staff), is being incredibly indecisive and unable to decide on whether they want to try to go back to business-as-normal or use this as justification to clamp down.
I genuinely don't think Trump believes that this is the Rubicon. I guess that's what happens when you're pushng 80.