Trump Nominates Matt Gaetz as Attorney General

I have no inside information and wouldn't rule anything out.

 

How am I rewriting the Constitution? I wasn't referring to the criteria regarding a guilty verdict in court, I was referring to whether or not Gaetz could be confirmed as AG and I wasn't suggesting that Trump wasn't fairly elected. As W discovered in 2005 and 2006, a narrow margin of victory doesn't provide the president with a mandate for radical change or for that matter to ensure confirmation of an unqualified nominee with serious ethical problems for a cabinet position and in the case of the AG, possibly the most powerful cabinet position.

 

So, back to your original question.

OWN THE LIBS!!!!!

There you go.

 

Just a guess but I strongly suspect that Meatball Ron wants Rubio's seat and he will either appoint a placeholder who agrees not to run for the seat in 2006 or he could even end up appointing himself.

 

I think DeSantis wants one of his own people. I've heard Moody as someone.

Although Plastic-Surgery Face (i.e. Lara Trump) may attempt to use MAGA to bum rush it.

 

I think more libs would be owned by a Republican than a Kennedy but what do I know

 

No, "Bobby" is a MAGA talisman now.

 

He can do a Rod Blagojevich, its very legal and very cool now as long as the president pardons you

 

I dont know, would you want the Dems to fight for Liz Cheney just to reward her? Maybe I'm not the person to ask, since I think the Cheney family should all be in prison.

 

It’s understood these picks will be Repub/conservative. For example Rubio is considered smart and experienced. Hopefully Trump picks someone qualified instead of only reqmts like gaetz of having complete fealty to Trump and it’s a bonus they’ve screamed insults into an open mic.

 

Not sure I get what you're driving at. I'm just saying, MAGA has adopted him and all his crazy as one of their own. And since the left hates him, that just fuels it even more.

Also, on what grounds would you prosecute Liz?

 

As I have made clear, I think he is a clown and an embarrassment to the country, first, and the Party, second. It's not that I don't care whether or not those allegations are true. I certainly care. But I would be lying if I did not see them more as a means to the end of getting someone out of Congress who has been wholly inadequate to what should be a serious role. I mean, if Dan Crenshaw were to have substantiated allegations of a similar nature, I would say he needs to be gone, too. But I would at least be sad about it. In terms of Gaetz, I won't insult you by understating this: I hope the allegations are true and can be proven. If they are not or cannot, then no reason he cannot stay in Congress. I have read the Constitution cover to cover, and being a clown and an embarrassment is not disqualifying, as both parties regularly prove.

Not worried about that at all. I believe his position on Ukraine is merely politically expedient. If and when Trump changes his stance, Gaetz will, too. Almost miraculously. Just like your good self. And to be fair, in such a case, you will also see miraculous changes of position from members of the far left, such as Pramila Jayapal, who do not really support Ukraine in their hearts but were only doing what was politically expedient as the party in power.

I admitted it was a failed venture back in the fall of 2022. I had predicted at war's beginning, on this very site, that without foreign intervention Russia would completely conquer Ukraine in a matter of weeks (more optimistic than the Russian plans of two months, which had not been revealed to us at that time). I was as surprised as anyone that Ukraine repelled them at Kyiv and killed or captured almost the entire Russian airborne force at Antonov. But I then still predicted that Russia would merely abandon a quick war of maneuver and adopt a methodical advance by line out of the east that would grind out Ukraine with superior firepower and numbers by year's end. Again, I was wrong. I failed to account for how poor Russian leadership, planning, fire support control, and logistics would be. Then in late summer Ukraine postured for counteroffensives against Kharkiv and Kherson. "Madness!" said I. What would happen, I predicted, was Russia would sinisterly draw in the meager forces Ukraine could mass, cut them off, kill them, and resume its inexorable march through Moldova and on to the NATO borders, again by year's end. When you're wrong, you're wrong. And I was wrong, and the "annexed" territories of Kharkiv and Kherson remain in Ukrainian hands to this very day, over two years later.

So we both believe it has been failed venture, but we disagree on the scope of that failure and how much of that failure Russia just needs to eat. Speaking for self, I am not interested in giving Russia a face-saving victory in this war where it keeps its modest gains and gets to act as if that was the goal all along. There is a moral component to this, of course. I don't like to see the strong do what they want while the weak suffer what they must. But I am also a realist, and I do not want to be in a shooting war with China in the next five years because Russia set a new international norm for using force to take what they perceive as theirs. I don't particularly relish the idea of China telling itself, "Bro, all we have to do is wait the West out, and we can take whatever we want eventually." So, yeah, I need this venture to be a bit more of a failure than it already has been.

 

Have they really "adopted" him or is he just a useful idiot that can be discarded when he is no longer needed for anything? Its not like he's uniquely qualified for anything. I base this on the board conservatives, and I cant say any of them were especially fawning over the guy other than a guy who could draw votes from Biden. He has no more purpose.

 

I actually don't have as big of a problem with Hegseth as many others do. He would not have made my top 10, of course. In my opinion, there are many better qualified candidates. I will say that he does understand some of the cultural problems undermining the DoD's mission and has ideas on how to correct the underlying assumptions that erode at mission effectiveness. Sometimes, I think how he words those issues could be more tactfully stated, but on the whole many of his assessments are correct. I say all of this without respect to the allegations of sexual misconduct against him. If there's something there, he has to go. Period.

But that is not really what I was asking. You stated that this Gaetz thing was planned from the start and it seems obvious in retrospect. I am asking you to predict now, in advance, whether Trump fully intends to bait and switch with Hegseth as well: offer a controversial candidate as red meat for the base, then withdraw him and put up a more traditional candidate for moderate and organizational support.

 

Makes you wonder why the State of Florida doesn’t care about prosecuting this child molester … oh yeah, I remember now, it’s because Gaetz is a Republican child molester…

 

Of course Butthead withdrew, he knew those receipts were about to be devastating.

Righties immediately want to blame libs (as usual), when the initial group of folks to call him out was five or six republicans lol

 

Those welcome signs do proclaim Florida to be a “free state.”

 

I don't think Hegseth is a planned sacrificial lamb. Hegseth has degrees from Harvard and Princeton. Credentials Gaetz does not have. I think Hegseth is exactly who Trump wants in that role, but you're right, hindsight is 20/20. In fact, I think the post of yours I was referring to is that he would indeed be more qualified than many of our previous SOD's. Which reminds me, I know Hegseth left the military in 2021. The accusations are from 2017. Isn't the military pretty pro-active in investigating these matters? Would he not have been screened by the Army prior to re-entering the service in 2019? Especially carrying the elevated rank that he did.

 

When it comes to Guard and Reserve, it depends on status at the time of the alleged infraction. For the military to even consider conducting the investigation he would have had to be in a military status (on orders or drilling) the day it happened. Since he was at a conference related to his profession as a journalist, I don't believe his status was ever in question. In such a case, the military defers to the civil authorities. If they decline to press charges, then the serviceman is not held accountable on the military side either. As far as I know, his clearance was not even suspended, which is a much lower bar.

Legally, I don't think you can expect much from this. From a public relations perspective, though, it at least looks bad. His best-case scenario, if his version of events is 100% accurate, is that he got overly intoxicated at the bar to the point where the accuser, who was managing him for the event, had to go down and intervene to get him to his room; then she was so enamored with him that, even though she was married and her husband was staying in the same hotel, she just couldn't resist banging him out in his room while he was sloppy drunk. Possible? Sure. Likely there is at least a bit more to the story? Yep. My guess is that he, too, will withdraw his name to preclude further scrutiny.