Archives for category: Justice

Right after the election, Trump announced that he had chosen Matt Gaetz, Congressman from Florida, as his choice to be Attorney General of the United States. The AG is the highest ranking officer of the law in the nation.

Faced with strong opposition, including enough Republican votes to stop him, Gaetz withdrew from the nomination.

Today the House Ethics committee released its long-awaited report.

(CNN) — The House Ethics Committee found evidence that former Rep. Matt Gaetz paid tens of thousands of dollars to women for sex or drugs on at least 20 occasions, including paying a 17-year-old girl for sex in 2017, according to a final draft of the panel’s report on the Florida Republican, obtained by CNN.

The committee concluded in its bombshell document that Gaetz violated Florida state laws, including the state’s statutory rape law, as the GOP-led panel chose to take the rare step of releasing a report about a former member who resigned from Congress.

“The Committee determined there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of Congress,” panel investigators wrote.

The panel investigated transactions Gaetz personally made, often using PayPal or Venmo, to more than a dozen women during his time in Congress, according to the report. Investigators also focused on a 2018 trip to the Bahamas – which they said “violated the House gift rule” – during which he “engaged in sexual activity” with multiple women, including one who described the trip itself as “the payment” for sex on the trip. On the same trip, he also took ecstasy, one woman on the trip told the committee.

What does this say about Trump’s judgment?

Kristy Greenberg is a veteran prosecutor in the U. S. Attorney’s office in New York. She is the former deputy chief of the criminal division of the Southern District of New York. She is currently a legal analyst for MSNBC.

She explains why President Biden was right to pardon his son Hunter. I agree with her. Can you imagine how the Trump administration would have demeaned and humiliated Hunter Biden once they got their clutches on him? With Trump zealots in charge of the Justice Department and the FBI, Hunter would not stand a chance. Already, Republicans in Congress are saying they are not finished with Hunter, despite the pardon. House Republicans have a blood lust going for Hunter.

Greenberg writes:

Critics have argued that President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter was political nepotism—bad for the country, selfish, the height of privilege. But the actual story is the very opposite of nepotism: Hunter Biden was treated worse than an ordinary citizen because of his family connections. It’s good for the country when the president acts against injustice; President Biden rightly condemned the injustice of his son’s prosecution. His pardon was necessary to prevent Donald Trump’s Justice Department from targeting Hunter for years to come.

I worked as a federal criminal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York for 12 years, during which time I supervised and prosecuted many gun and tax cases. President Biden argues that the gun and tax charges Hunter was convicted of should never have been brought. I agree. When I served as deputy chief for the Southern District of New York’s Criminal Division, my job was to approve charging and non-prosecution decisions on gun and tax cases. I would not have approved the felony gun and tax charges brought against Hunter Biden; such charges are rarely—if ever—brought in similar circumstances.

Prosecutors charged Hunter with lying about his drug addiction when he purchased a firearm, and with possessing that firearm while he was a drug addict. They were wrong to do so. As a first-time offender with no criminal record or history of violent behavior who possessed a gun for only 11 days and didn’t use it, he did not pose a public-safety risk to warrant federal gun charges. The public interest is served by treating addiction, not weaponizing it. In a gross display of addiction-shaming, prosecutors used Hunter’s own words from his memoir about overcoming drug addiction against him at trial. They forced his former romantic partners to testify and dredge up details of his addiction. The prosecution’s trial presentation was cruel and humiliating.

Nor should prosecutors have charged Hunter with failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes during the period when he suffered from drug addiction. The IRS’s primary goal—to recover unpaid taxes—was satisfied when Hunter fully repaid the taxes he owed with interest and penalty. Felony tax charges are unwarranted here given that the tax amount is not exorbitant, his nonpayment occurred while he was using illegal drugs, and he fully repaid his taxes. A civil resolution or tax-misdemeanor charges would have been appropriate.

Notably, there had been a fair non-felony plea deal between Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss and Hunter, but congressional Republicans worked to crush it. They opened an investigation into the DOJ’s plea negotiations, held hearings with testimony from IRS case agents and prosecutors, and attempted to intervene in the case before the plea. Amid intense political pressure from Republicans, Weiss killed the deal, requested and obtained special-counsel status, and charged Hunter with gun and tax felonies. As President Biden stated in announcing Hunter’s pardon, a number of his opponents in Congress took credit for bringing political pressure on the process. President Biden is correct that Hunter was treated differently; most criminal defendants do not have members of Congress interfering in their cases to lobby for harsher treatment. That is not how our criminal-justice system is supposed to work.

If there were reason to believe that Hunter had committed any of the more serious crimes that reportedly were under investigation—bribery, money laundering, or illegal foreign lobbying, I would be far less sympathetic to the president’s pardon. But Hunter was never charged with these more serious offenses. Weiss investigated Hunter for six years; that’s an unusually long time for a criminal investigation focused on one individual. If after six years Weiss still does not have a real case against Hunter, then it doesn’t exist. (Complicating matters is the fact that this past February, Weiss charged Alexander Smirnov—a former FBI informant and the GOP’s star witness against Hunter—for falsely accusing President Biden and Hunter of receiving bribes from Ukrainian businessmen.)

The absence of a credible case against Hunter does not mean that a Trump DOJ wouldn’t bring bogus charges against him. During his campaign, Trump vowed that, if elected, he would appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” “the Biden crime family.” In nominating Pam Bondi for attorney general and Kash Patel for FBI director, Trump has further signaled how serious he is about using the DOJ as an instrument of personal revenge. At the 2020 Republican convention, Bondi argued that President Biden and his son were corrupt. Recently, Patel proposed using the law “criminally or civilly” against Trump’s political rivals. When he announced the pardon, President Biden stated, “In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me—and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.” He’s right.

Now is not the time to cling to norms that Trump is poised to shatter. Political prosecutions are coming, and I fear that our democratic institutions will not withstand them.

That’s why President Biden’s pardon should not be his last. President Biden should use his pardon power to protect others from political prosecution just as he used it to protect his son. He should condemn Trump’s plan for political prosecutions. He should pardon Trump’s political enemies preemptively to stymie the Trump DOJ’s politically motivated investigations. In particular, public servants who have drawn Trump’s ire for doing their job should not have to spend precious time and money defending themselves against Trump’s lies. Nor should they have to endure the reputational hit, the safety risk, or the emotional toll of political prosecutions. President Biden alone has the power to stop other needless political prosecutions before they begin. He should use it.

After Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in 2017, he choose respected FBI veteran Christopher Wray to replace Comey. The FBI Director is appointed for a ten-year term, to insulate the Director from partisan influence.

Senator Chuck Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on the Budget.

In this letter, directed to Director Wray, Grassley says he is finished and it’s time to pack his bag. He explains why. The heart of the matter is that he failed to investigate Republican claims that Biden was corrupt, but approved a search of Trump’s home for classified documents.

Next up is the odious Kash Patel, nominated by Trump to be FBI Director. Patel is a MAGA ideologue who has said that if appointed, on day one, he would close the FBI Headquarters and re-open it as a “museum of the deep state.”

Let’s see what Senator Grassley says about the unqualified Patel.

Heather Cox Richardson writes here about President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, which was condemned widely in the media, even in liberal publications like The Atlantic and The New Yorker. in her post, she wrote first about Jane Mayer’s expose of Pete Hegseth’s drunken sprees, then turned to the pardon.

She writes:

Also last night, President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden after repeatedly saying that he would not.

Trump-appointed Special Counsel David Weiss charged Hunter Biden on firearms and tax charges, but as former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance made clear in her Civil Discourse, Hunter Biden would not have been charged if he had been anyone other than the president’s son. He was charged with possession of a firearm by someone who is addicted to illegal drugs, a charge that prosecutors do not usually bring. Biden owned a gun for eleven days and apparently lied on the paperwork for it by saying he was not a drug addict when he was, in fact, in the throes of addiction.

The other charges stem from Hunter Biden’s failure, while dealing with addiction, to pay about $1.4 million in federal income taxes, which he has since paid in full plus interest and penalties. Vance explains that the government usually handles cases like his with administrative or civil penalties rather than criminal prosecution, as it did in the case of Trump henchman Roger Stone, with whom the government reached a settlement in 2022 for more than $2 million in unpaid income taxes, interest, and penalties without criminal charges.

But President Biden’s pardon covers not just those charges, but also “those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.” The pardon’s sweeping scope offers an explanation for why Biden issued it after saying he would not.

Ron Filipkowski of MeidasTouch notes that Biden’s pardon came after Trump’s announcement that he wants to place conspiracy theorist Kash Patel at the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Filipkowski studies right-wing media and points out that Patel’s many appearances there suggest he is obsessed with Hunter Biden, especially the story of his laptop, which Patel insists shows that Hunter and Joe Biden engaged in crimes with Ukraine and China.

House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY) spent two years investigating these allegations and turned up nothing—although Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia used the opportunity to display pictures of Hunter Biden naked on national media—yet Patel insists that the Department of Justice should focus on Hunter Biden as soon as a Trump loyalist is back in charge.

Notably, Trump’s people, including former lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his ally Lev Parnas, spent more than a year trying to promote false testimony against Hunter Biden by their Ukrainian allies. Earlier this year, in the documentary From Russia with Lev, produced by Rachel Maddow, Parnas publicly apologized to Hunter Biden for his role in the scheme.

As legal commentator Asha Rangappa noted: “People criticizing the Hunter Biden pardon need to recognize: For the 1st time, the FBI and Justice Department could literally fabricate evidence, or collaborate with a foreign government to ‘find’ evidence of a ‘crime,’ with zero accountability. That’s why the pardon goes back to 2014.”

And yet, much of American media today has been consumed not with the story that Trump has appointed a deeply problematic candidate to run what could be considered the nation’s most important department, overseeing about 3 million personnel and managing a budget of more than $800 billion, or with the reality that Biden’s distrust of our legal system under Trump is a profound warning for all of us.

Instead, they have focused on President Biden’s pardon of his son, many of them condemning what they say is Biden’s rejection of the rule of law.

Some have suggested that Biden’s pardoning his son will now give Trump license to pardon anyone he wants, apparently forgetting that in his first term, Trump pardoned his daughter Ivanka’s father-in-law, Charles Kushner, who pleaded guilty to federal charges of tax evasion, campaign finance offenses, and witness tampering and whom Trump has now tapped to become the U.S. ambassador to France.

Trump also pardoned for various crimes men who were associated with the ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian operatives working to elect Trump. Those included his former national security advisor Michael Flynn, former campaign manager Paul Manafort, and former allies Roger Stone and Steve Bannon. Those pardons, which suggested Trump was rewarding henchmen, received a fraction of the attention lavished on Biden’s pardon of his son.

In today’s news coverage, the exercise of the presidential pardon—which traditionally gets very little attention—has entirely outweighed the dangerous nominations of an incoming president, which will have profound influence on the American people. This imbalance reflects a longstanding and classic power dynamic in which Republicans set the terms of public debate, excusing their own objectionable behavior while constantly attacking Democrats in a fiery display that attracts media attention but distorts reality.

The degree to which the media endorsed that abusive power dynamic today does not bode well for its accurate reporting during Trump’s upcoming term. It also leaves the public badly informed about matters that are important for understanding modern politics

President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, who was targeted by House Republicans, convicted for tax evasion, and buying a gun without admitting that he was a drug addict at the time.

Biden was immediately criticized for pardoning Hunter because he had said in the past that he would not do it.

The Washington Post reported:

President Joe Biden on Sunday pardoned his son Hunter, a controversial decision that reverses his long-standing pledge to not use his presidential powers to protect his only surviving son, who was found guilty of gun-related charges in Delaware and pleaded guilty to tax evasion in California.

Using his executive authority in the waning days of his presidency, Biden lifted the legal cloud that has hung over his son for several years. While the president had pledged several times not to pardon or commute Hunter Biden’s sentences for federal crimes, many close to him had expected the pardon would come, given the president’s loyalty to his family. The move also comes at a time when Biden will face few political ramifications, given that he is a lame duck and voters have already rendered their verdict on his administration by sending Donald Trump back to office.

In a lengthy statement on Sunday night, released just as he was preparing to depart for Africa, the president said that his son had been “being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted.” He said that he did not interfere with the cases but that the cases were brought about because of political pressure on federal prosecutors.

“No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong,” he said. “There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough….”

“I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice,” Biden said in his statement. “I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.”

Hunter was prosecuted by Special Counsel David Weiss, Weiss, a Republican who started investigating Hunter in 2018. Republicans demanded that Merrick Garland appoint him, and Garland did. But then Republicans complained that Weiss was not strong enough. They wanted to drag Hunter through the mud, destroy his reputation, and hoped that Hunter’s tribulations hurt his father.

Can you imagine Trump’s Attorney General appointing a Democrat to investigate another Democrat?

The Republicans went after Hunter with a passion that would have been more appropriate for a mass murderer.

Hunter served years of humiliation and anxiety because he was a stand-in for his father.

It is just and right that his father pardoned Hunter.

A father owes it to his son to take care of him.

Our reader “Democracy” always posts wise, deeply researched comments. In this comment, Democracy makes us wonder whether Trump’s nomination of Matt Gaetz was a deep fake that would make anyone else look better. Such as Pam Bondi.

Pam Bondi will be loyal to Trump. Loyalty is the trait that matters more to Trump than competence or experience.

The Washington Post wrote about Bondi:

“Bondi said the Justice Department’s special counsel investigation into whether Trump associates coordinated with Russian interference in the 2016 election needed to be dissolved. She declared that the 45th president’s first impeachment in 2019 was a “sham.” And when Trump was indicted four times after leaving office, Bondi was blunt about who deserved legal scrutiny — and it wasn’t the former president.

“The prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones,” Bondi declared on Fox News in 2023, soon after Trump’s fourth set of criminal charges. “The investigators will be investigated.”

Democracy writes:

Pam Bondi as Attorney General.

What could go wrong? Let’s see.

Bondi was never a supporter of the Affordable Care Act and tried to extinguish it. As of February of this year, Florida had more than 4 million people receiving health care through the Affordable Care Act, the highest ACA enrollment in the country.

Bondi has been a long-time opponent of LGBTQ rights and same-ex marriage. After the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, Bondi said she had OPPOSED same-sex marriage NOT for any personal beliefs or political partisanship but because of “the rule of law.”

Bondi took that $25,000 political donation from a Trump CHARITY and then dropped any participation by Florida in a lawsuit against the Trump University flim-flam scheme. She denied that she did anything wrong or that there was any connection between the moola and her decision not to participate in the suit against Trump’s crooked tactics. Indeed, as one Trump University official said in court testimony, enrollees in the courses were directed to

“call their credit card companies and raise their credit limits two, three, or four times so that they would be able to invest in real estate,” to “charge the course to multiple credit cards” or “to open up as many credit cards as they could.” 

Bondi is a 2020 election denier, parroting Trump’s false claims that the election was “stolen” by “fake ballots” — she could never provide any evidence of this — and that any investigation into Trump’s incitement of the violent January 6 insurrection was a weaponization of the Justice Department for political purposes. Just last year she said on Fox ‘news” that,

“When Republicans take back the White House, you know what’s going to happen? The Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted — the bad ones — the investigators will be investigated.”

Kinda sounds like “weaponization” doesn’t it?

The mission of the Department of Justice is “to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights.” According to its website, DOJ core values are

• Independence and Impartiality.

• Honesty and Integrity. 

• Respect.

• Excellence.

Obviously, the nomination of Matt Gaetz was laughably terrible. Pam Bondi may be a bit more palatable, but not by much. She is a liar, and a bigot, and a right-wing hack, and a seditious traitor…but with a “pretty” face. She’s the lipstick on the pig.

So what could go wrong? A whole lot.

Timothy Snyder, professor of history at Yale University, is the author of On Tyranny. He writes and speaks frequently on television about the importance of defending our institutions against authoritarianism and resisting Putin’s quest to reclaim the Soviet Union.

He posted:

Each of Trump’s proposed appointments is a surprise.  It is comforting to think that he is simply a vengeful old man, lashing out this way and that.  This is unlikely.  He and Musk and Putin have been talking for years. And the whole idea of his campaign was that this time he had a plan.

We should be wary of shock, which excuses inaction.  Who could have known?  What could I have done?  If there is a plan, shock is part of the plan.  We have to get through the surprise and the shock to see the design and the risk.  We don’t have much time. Nor is outrage the point. Of course we are outraged. But our own reactions can distract is from the larger pattern.

The newspapers address the surprise and the shock by investigating each proposed appointment individually.  And we need this.  With detail comes leverage and power.  But clarity must also come, and quickly.  Each appointment is part of a larger picture.  Taken together, Trump’s candidates constitute an attempt to wreck the American government.  

In historical context we can see this.  There is a history of the modern democratic state.  There is also a history of engineered regime change and deliberate state destruction.  In both histories, five key zones are health, law, administration, defense, and intelligence.  These people, with power over these areas of life, can make America impossible to sustain.

The foundation of modern democratic state is a healthy, long-lived population.  We lived longer in the twentieth century because of hygiene and vaccinations, pioneered by scientists and physicians and then institutionalized by governments.  We treat one another better when we know we have longer lives to lose.  Health is not only the central human good; it enables the peaceful interactions we associate with the rule of law and democracy.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the proposed secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, would undo all of this.  On his watch, were his ideas implemented, millions of us would die.  Knowing that our lives will be shorter, we become nasty and brutish.

A modern democratic state depends upon the rule of law.  Before anything else is possible, we have to endorse the principle that we are all governed by law, and that our institutions are grounded in law.  This enables a functional government of a specific sort, in which leaders can be regularly replaced by elections.  It allows us to live as free individuals, within a set of rules that we can alter together.  The rule of law depends on people who believe in the spirit of law.  Matt Gaetz, the proposed attorney general, is the opposite of such a person.  It is not just that he flouts law himself, spectacularly and disgustingly.  It is that he embodies lawlessness, and can be counted upon to abuse law to pursue Trump’s political opponents.  The end of the rule of law is an essential component of a regime change.

The United States of America exists not only because laws are passed, but because we can expect that these laws will be implemented by civil servants.  We might find bureaucracy annoying; its absence, though, is deadly.  We cannot take the pollution out of the air ourselves, or build the highways ourselves, our write our Social Security checks ourselves.  Without a civil service, the law becomes mere paper, and all that works is the personal connection to the government, which the oligarchs will have, and which the rest of us will not.  This is the engineered helplessness promised by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who are to head a black hole named after a cryptocurrency.  There are already oversight instruments in government.  DOGE is something entirely different: an agency of destruction, run by people who believe that government should exist for the wealthy or not at all.

In a modern democratic state, the armed forces are meant to preserve a healthy, long-lived people from external threats.  This principal has been much abused in American practice.  But never before Donald Trump have we had a president who has presented the purpose of the armed forces as the oppression of Americans.  Trump says that Russia and China are less of a threat than “internal enemies.”  In American tradition, members of the armed forces swear an oath to the Constitution.  Trump has indicated that we would prefer “Hitler’s generals,” which means a personal oath to himself.  Pete Hegseth, Trump’s proposed secretary of defense, defends war criminals and displays tattoos associated with white nationalism and Christian nationalism.  He is a fundraiser and television personality, with a complicated sexual past and zero experience running an organization.  

In a world of hostile powers, an intelligence service is indispensable.  Intelligence can be abused, and certainly has been abused.  Yet it is necessary to consider military threats: consider the Biden administration’s correct call the Russia was about to invade Ukraine.  It is also necessary to counter the attempts by foreign intelligence agencies, which are constant, to harm American society.  This often involves disinformation.  Tulsi Gabbard, insofar as she is known at all, is known as a spreader of Syrian and Russian disinformation.  She has no relevant experience.  Were she to become director of national intelligence, as Trump proposes, we would lose the trust of our allies, and lose contact with much of what is happening in the world — just for starters.  We would be vulnerable to all of those who wish to cause us harm.

Imagine that you are a foreign leader who wishes to destroy the United States.  How could you do so?  The easiest way would be to get Americans to do the work themselves, to somehow induce Americans to undo their own health, law, administration, defense, and intelligence.  From this perspective, Trump’s proposed appointments — Kennedy, Jr.; Gaetz; Musk; Ramaswamy; Hegseth; Gabbard — are perfect instruments.  They combine narcissism, incompetence, corruption, sexual incontinence, personal vulnerability, dangerous convictions, and foreign influence as no group before them has done.  These proposed appointments look like a decapitation strike: destroying the American government from the top, leaving the body politic to rot, and the rest of us to suffer.

I do not defend the status quo. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Department of Defense and the Food and Drug Administration require reform.  But such a reform, of these or other agencies, would have to be guided by people with knowledge and experience, who cared about their country, and who had a vision of improvement.  That is simply not what is happening here.  We are confronted instead with a group of people who, were they to hold the positions they have been assigned, could bring an end to the United States of America.  

It is a mistake to think of these people as flawed.  It is not they will do a bad job in their assigned posts.  It is that they will do a good job using those assigned posts to destroy our country.

However and by whomever this was organized, the intention of these appointments is clear: to create American horror.  Elected officials should see this for what it is.  Senators, regardless of party, should understand that the United States Senate will not outlast the United States, insist on voting, and vote accordingly.  The Supreme Court of the United States will likely be called upon.  Although it is a faint hope, one must venture it anyway: that its justices will understand that the Constitution was not in fact written as the cover story for state destruction.  The Supreme Court will also not outlast the United States.

And citizens, regardless of how they voted, need now to check their attitudes.  This is no longer a post-electoral moment.  It is a pre-catastrophic moment.  Trump voters are caught in the notion that Trump must be doing the right thing if Harris voters are upset.  But Harris voters are upset now because they love their country.  And Harris voters will have to get past the idea that Trump voters should reap what they have sown.  Yes, some of them did vote to burn it all down.  But if it all burns down, we burn too.  It is not easy to speak right now; but if some Republicans wish to, please listen.

Both inside and outside Congress, there will have to be simple defiance, joined with a rhetoric of a better America.  And, at moments at least, there will also have to be alliances among Americans who, though they differ on other matters, would like to see their country endure.

So Matt Gaetz is out, and Trump was ready with his replacement: Pam Bondi, former State Attorney General of Florida.

She will protect Trump. That is his first requirement for that key position. She will be loyal to him. If there is a clash between Trump and the Constitution, she will protect Trump. She will take an oath to the Constitution but she was chosen to ensure that he is never investigated.

Wikipedia says:

In 2020, Bondi was one of longtime ally President Donald Trump‘s defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial. By 2024, she led the legal arm of the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute. On November 21, 2024, president-elect Trump announced she would be nominated for United States Attorney General.

The AP reports:

She gained national attention with appearances on Fox News as a defender of Trump and had a notable speaking spot at 2016 Republican National Convention as Trump became the party’s surprising nominee. During the remarks, some in the crowd began chanting “Lock her up” about Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. 

Bondi responded by saying, “‘Lock her up,’ I love that.”

This is a contest with no prizes.

Please offer your ideas about who will be chosen by Trump as U.S. Attorney General.

First requirement: He or she must be deeply loyal to Trump and promise never to investigate him.

Second requirement: The nominee must have a law degree.

Third requirement: There is no other requirement.

Ready, set, go.

Personally, I would choose the “late, great Hannibal Lecter,” but I fear he lacks a few basic qualifications.

One, he probably does not have a law degree.

Two, he is dead.

Three, he is a fictional character.

Matt Gaetz withdrew from consideration as U.S. Attorney General because he realized there were enough Republicans in the Senate against him to doom his nomination.

The Wall Street Journal wrote:

WASHINGTON—Matt Gaetz has withdrawn as Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, after it became clear Republican lawmakers were prepared to reject his nomination amid swirling sexual misconduct and drug allegations.

“It is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition,” Gaetz said in a post on X. “There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I’ll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General.”

The move marks the biggest political blow for Trump since his election to a second presidential term.  His selection of Gaetz, a longtime ally and fierce Justice Department critic, startled lawmakers and members of the conservative legal community. It also sparked immediate objections from senators of both parties, raising doubts about whether he could be confirmed.

The good news is that some Republicans in the Senate resisted the arm-twisting and refused to confirm an unqualified nominee.