Matt Gaetz brings the fight, but can he beat the Senate swamp?



The Epoch Times on Thursday interviewed me about my views on Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks. The only nominee I expressed reservations about was Matt Gaetz, Trump’s choice for attorney general. But the reason I offered was not quoted fully. I said that while I would certainly vote for Gaetz if I were a U.S. senator, I do not believe he is confirmable. Republican senators like Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska would likely oppose his nomination, alongside all Senate Democrats, who will likely vote as a bloc against most of Trump’s nominees.

Gaetz is a troublesome choice for several reasons, starting with allegations of sexual involvement with a 17-year-old girl. The House Ethics Committee has investigated the charge, but its findings have not yet been released. I recognize the double standard at play here. Legacy media defended individuals like Bill Clinton and concealed the appalling misconduct of Democratic donors such as Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein for as long as possible.

The weaponization of federal agencies like the Justice Department and Secret Service against political dissenters will no longer be tolerated.

I also acknowledge that Biden’s administration resembled an intersectional exhibitionist show, featuring figures like Admiral Levine, Sam Brinton, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. These appointments seemed to cater to the Democrats’ identitarian agenda. Notably, many “centrist” Republicans now criticizing Gaetz’s nomination had no problem voting for Biden’s ideologically driven Cabinet selections.

But we are not dealing here with a level playing field, and even conventional Republican outlets like National Review and the Wall Street Journal are railing against Gaetz’s nomination. I’m not sure that I see any way forward for the former Florida congressman. His sexual scandal, his effort to overthrow a Republican speaker of the House, and his flamboyant rhetoric will all be held against him if the confirmation process goes forward.

Let me clarify that, unlike the RINOs and neocons, I do not oppose Gaetz’s nomination because I want an attorney general the left will find inoffensive — someone modeled after Trump’s attorneys general during his first term. I recently heard Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal lament the absence of a nominee with Bill Barr’s moderating influence.

This time, however, Trump appears to want someone in the role who will support him unequivocally. He is not looking for an attorney general who will flaunt nonpartisanship by distancing himself from a president despised by the legacy media. Joe Biden and Barack Obama appointed attorneys general who loyally served their interests and advanced their ideological agendas. Trump has every right to seek an attorney general who will do the same — while demonstrating a greater commitment to justice than those Democratic appointees showed.

Any of the three candidates previously on Trump’s short list would likely be more confirmable as attorney general than Gaetz. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, or former Deputy Attorney General Matthew Whitaker could effectively perform the duties assigned to Gaetz while generating less controversy as nominees.

Let me stress that my reason for opposing Gaetz’s nomination is most definitely not the one probably driving the Bushies and neocon Republicans. I don’t want a “bipartisan” attorney general who will try to get along with with the opposition as we pursue an aggressively liberal internationalist foreign policy. I am hopeful that anyone who becomes attorney general will actively investigate and prosecute those bad actors who abused their positions under the Obama-Biden-Garland administrations.

The D.C. swamp must be drained, and those “public servants” who have gone after the political opposition without just cause and who have threatened religious and social traditionalists should be treated accordingly. They should not only be dismissed from their positions but also prosecuted.

It is crucial to send a clear message to public administrators and Democratic Party leaders: The weaponization of federal agencies like the Justice Department and Secret Service against political dissenters and culturally traditional Americans will no longer be tolerated. Simply turning the page to focus on foreign policy or fiscal issues will not achieve the same impact. Least of all should we pretend that the systematic weaponization of administrative agencies, which has been ongoing since Obama’s presidency, never occurred. Ignoring this history will only embolden the Democrats to resume such practices as soon as they regain power.

This is why any prospective attorney general must not only be up to this task but also be confirmable. Unfortunately, Gaetz does not meet this criterion, which is why his nomination was ill advised. While it is commendable that he has vigorously defended President Trump against baseless, malicious accusations, that alone will not secure his confirmation.

Manchin Tanks Biden Interior Department Nominee Laura Daniel-Davis

'Are they political partisans first or Americans first?'

Washington Post Says Asking KBJ Questions About Her Legal Rulings Is Worse Than Falsely Accusing Kavanaugh Of Rape

The Post's commentaries on Jackson are not only patently false but their phony claims about her confirmation hearing deserve endless taunting.

If Ketanji Brown Jackson Doesn’t Know What A ‘Woman’ Is, Why Does She Use The Word So Much?

Repeatedly using a word she says she 'can't' define is not a good look for a potential Supreme Court justice.

VIDEO: Ketanji Brown Jackson says she can't define the word 'woman' because she's 'not a biologist'



U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson said during confirmation hearings Tuesday that she can't define the word "woman" because she's "not a biologist."

What are the details?

Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee raised the question to Jackson in light of the growing controversy surrounding biological males who identify as females — and then compete against biological females in sports.

“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Blackburn asked Jackson

“Can I provide a definition?" Jackson replied, after which Blackburn confirmed that was the question.

"No," Jackson said. "I can’t."

“You can’t?” Blackburn inquired.

“Not in this context," Jackson replied, smiling and gently laughing. "I’m not a biologist."

Sen. Marsha Blackburn: "Can you provide a definition for the word woman?"\n\nJudge Ketanji Brown Jackson: "I can't. Not in this context. I'm not a biologist."pic.twitter.com/BK1ENBdYcG
— The Post Millennial (@The Post Millennial) 1648002155

Blackburn continued: “So you believe the meaning of the word ‘woman’ is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?”

“Senator, in my work a judge, what I do is I address disputes,” Jackson replied. “If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide, so, I’m not —”

Blackburn shot back, saying, "The fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about,” after which the senator brought up the controversy surrounding swimmer Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer who crushed the competition in the 500-yard freestyle at the NCAA women's swimming championships.

“Just last week an entire generation of young girls watched as our taxpayer-funded institutions permitted a biological man to compete and beat a biological woman in the NCAA swimming championships,” Blackburn told Jackson before asking, “What message do you think this sends to girls who aspire to compete and win in sports at the highest levels?”

“Senator, I’m not sure what message that sends,” Jackson answered. "If you're asking me about the legal issues related to it, those are topics that are being hotly discussed as you say and could come to the court."

Anything else?

Jackson's deflection seems to be a favorite tool among leftists who support transgender women competing against biological females. In fact, readers of TheBlaze saw that play out in the bleachers at the NCAA women's swimming championships when a woke man argued with a woman that Thomas indeed belonged at the meet. “Are you a biologist?” the man asked her — all while Thomas cruised in the pool ahead of other swimmers.

In addition to Blackburn's questioning, Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas grilled Jackson about her views on critical race theory, which sent Twitter into an indignant frenzy. And during his opening statement Monday, Cruz blasted Democrats for their "explicitly racial" treatment of Republican judicial nominees.

"If you are Hispanic or African-American, and you dare depart from their political orthodoxy, they will crush you, they will attack you, they will slander you, they will filibuster you," Cruz told Jackson, who would be the first black woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court if confirmed.