« Harvard Law Review covers some of the notable criminal justice rulings from last Term in SCOTUS issue | Main | New Death Penalty Information Center report presents critical account of federal death penalty history »
November 13, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump selects Matt Gaetz to serve as US Attorney General ... UPDATE: and eight days later he withdraws
As reported in this Fox News piece, "President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday announced Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., as his pick for attorney general." Here is more:
If confirmed, Gaetz will head up the Justice Department after Trump is sworn in for his second term in January.
Early contenders for the post included sitting U.S. senators, former Justice Department personnel and at least one top White House adviser from Trump's first term.
"He's going to want someone who he knows, likes and trusts," Former Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker told Fox News about the role last week. "He's going to want someone who was there from the beginning."
Wow! Here is more from a now-updated piece from Fox News:
Trump first announced his nomination in a post on Truth Social, saying Gaetz "has distinguished himself in Congress through his focus on achieving desperately needed reform at the Department of Justice."
Gaetz confirmed the nomination on the social media site, X, adding "It will be an honor to serve as President Trump’s Attorney General!"
In his statement on Truth Social, Trump praised Gaetz for his experience on the House Judiciary Committee, where he said Gaetz "played a key role" in "defeating the Russia, Russia Hoax," and exposing what Trump described as "alarming and systemic Government Corruption and Weaponization."
"He is a Champion for the Constitution and the Rule of Law."
UPDATE: It seems this pick for US Attorney General is not likely to get a warm reception from the Senate, as evidenced by this new Politico piece headline: "‘Reckless pick’: Lawmakers express doubts that Gaetz can get confirmed as attorney general; ‘I think he has a zero percent shot of getting through the Senate,’ said Donald Trump ally Rep. Max Miller."
ANOTHER UPDATE ON NOVEMBER 21: As this FOX News piece reports, "Matt Gaetz, the former Florida representative and Trump nominee for Attorney General, announced Thursday that he is withdrawing as Trump's pick for the top prosecutor, citing what he described as the 'distraction' his nomination had caused due to a swirl of allegations about paying underage women for sex."
November 13, 2024 at 03:51 PM | Permalink
Comments
Matt Gaetz as U.S. Attorney General is the kind of foolishness I've come to expect during Trump's presidency. You have a guy that's been investigated for trafficking an underage girl that could be the head attorney of the U.S. It wouldn't surprise me if the Senate does push this guy through. These right wingers rant and rave about "protecting the children" but have no problem confirming a possible/very likely pedophile to serve as Attorney General.
Posted by: Anon | Nov 13, 2024 10:55:45 PM
Stop whining. The American people, in their infinite wisdom, have spoken. As was true in ancient Rome, so is it true today: "Ad victorem spolia."
Posted by: anon | Nov 14, 2024 10:05:41 AM
"A very likely pedophile"---do you think that the DOJ would have dropped the investigation if they had any shred of evidence that was true? But riddle me this, and Doug, I'd be interested in your take. When Xavier Becerra was California AG, the state accidentally released a data file of all cops that had been convicted of a crime while a police officer. Becerra threatened the journalists who received that information with arrest and prosecution if they disseminated the information. This was likely a federal crime, and certainly any officeholder doing such a thing is not fit to serve. So, you guys are going to expect that we're all supposed to get so outraged about a guy who has been smeared when you don't get outraged about a thug who abuses his office? Spare me your pearl-clutching.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 14, 2024 1:35:33 PM
Are you saying, federalist, that you think Matt Gaetz is a good pick for AG and that you would like to see him confirmed by the Senate?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 14, 2024 2:17:43 PM
Matt Gaetz (R.-Fla) resigned on Wednesday, just days before the House Ethics Committee was to vote on Friday to publicly release their embarrassing and incriminating Report on his illicit drug use and sex trafficking with a 17-year old girl (who is now an adult). Because of Gaetz's resignation from the House, the Ethics Committee has now lost jurisdiction over Gaetz and arguably should not release the Report. But the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has already said that he and his Committee Members (and arguably all Senators) should receive copies of the Report, since it will bare directly on Gaetz's fitness to serve as Attorney General. And the Senators would then ask Gaetz questions about the contents of the Report during his confirmation hearings. Many believe that Gaetz's confirmation hearings would become a circus sideshow. It is still possible that the House Ethics Report could be made public and possibly lead to Gaetz being indicted in Florida, D.C. or Northern Virginia. Of 10,000 random voters surveyed, only 36% believe that Gaetz should be confirmed as A.G., with 54% saying he should not be confirmed and 10% undecided.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Nov 14, 2024 2:47:24 PM
He very well may be. I am not utterly familiar with his record. I doubt he'd walk guns into Mexico without any apparent purpose--the tracking them rationale was always BS because it wasn't like they were going to prosecute the possession of those guns in Mexico. I doubt he'd bring a SWAT team to the home of a guy who protected his kid from a ranting lunatic. My point, of course, is that Gaetz' critics look at the speck in his eye while ignoring the logs in the eyes of confirmed cabinet members. And what about that kook, Kristen Clarke?
Posted by: federalist | Nov 14, 2024 2:54:16 PM
I am still unclear, federalist, if you would like to see Matt Gaetz confirmed by the Senate as AG. Obviously, there are lots of other folks that Trump could have picked for the slot, and someone else will get the job if Gaetz gets rejected by the Senate. Do you want him confirmed or would you prefer possible Trump AG pick #2?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 14, 2024 5:04:18 PM
I am still unclear, Doug, as to whether you think that someone like Becerra or Kristen Clarke should be nominated, let alone confirmed. As for Gaetz, assuming that the allegations are unfounded, then yeah, I'd like to see him confirmed--I certainly want the report released. The DOJ in this country is a malignant force, and Gaetz would clean house.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 14, 2024 6:05:34 PM
There are a great many nominations in recent years that I have disapproved of coming from Presidents of both parties, federalist. But at issue in this post is the nomination of Gaetz to DOJ, and I wanted to know if you were a fan of the pick. It sounds like you are.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 14, 2024 8:18:47 PM
I find it hilarious how quickly defense attorneys and their bootlickers throw away “innocent until proven guilty” when it is someone they don’t like.
FTR, I hate the pick and he is the product of some of Trump’s worst impulses.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 14, 2024 8:24:30 PM
you can just say “impulses” - the “worst” part is implied.
Posted by: Da Man | Nov 14, 2024 9:54:18 PM
The Doug non-answer answer. And my basic point about Gaetz goes unaddressed. Obviously, Trump doesn't believe the allegations that have swirled around, and I think the DOJ would have hammered him if they were true, but who knows what the ethics report will say. Given Becerra's appalling record (for which he should have spent a decade in federal prison), what's so bad about Gaetz: "If that's the way Kilgore fought the war, I began to wonder what they had against Kurtz."
But if we look at what matters, namely, the corruption of the DOJ, then Gaetz may be the perfect pick. So yeah, assuming that Gaetz is clean, I am good. He cannot possibly be worse than Garland or Eric Holder. Remember, Eric Holder got people killed through Fast & Furious, and then he stonewalled Congress. Merrick Garland then prosecuted Bannon and Navarro. Disgusting, and I find all this whining about Gaetz to be supremely besides the point. Let's see what the Ethics Committee says.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 15, 2024 9:35:42 AM
federalist, I am not sure of your "basic point about Gaetz," other than that you like him better than people nominated by Dems. I was asking if you thought Gaetz was a good pick and wanted him confirmed, not whether you like him better than others you dislike. Now you seem to be calling him "the perfect pick" to clean up "corruption of the DOJ." If that's what you believe, I am not sure what the Ethics Committee investigation could include to change that view. What would be disqualifying for "the perfect pick" in your view?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2024 9:58:53 AM
Ah, here we go again with the Doug miasma. I think I've been pretty clear that (a) I am reserving judgment because I do not know what facts the Ethics Committee has established and (b) he may be just what the doctor ordered. Those facts, which we should see in the confirmation process, may be disqualifying--like sex with a drugged-up minor. Putting that issue aside (i.e., assuming that the allegations are baseless), I think it a propos to compare him to say, Eric "Marc Rich" Holder who then went on to get people killed. "Like him better than people nominated by Dems" is an interesting way to put my objections. How can anyone who supported a guy like Becerra be heard to complain about Gaetz?
Posted by: federalist | Nov 15, 2024 10:26:02 AM
The 11th Circuit, Northern District of Florida is unique in it's prosecutorial zeal. Matt Gaetz was not indicted for the charges he was threatened with.
You might check the articles about Gaetz and the former Federal Prosecutor David McGee from 2021,
Posted by: beth curtis | Nov 15, 2024 11:17:44 AM
He won't get confirmed.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 15, 2024 11:58:07 AM
People have various different perspectives, federalist, about what makes a nominee qualified and potentially disqualified. I was just seeking your views on Gaetz, which I am still not sure about. According to the Hill, Gaetz was being investigated "over illicit drug use and sexual misconduct, among other allegations." And now Jim Jordan is seemingly saying "it shouldn’t go public." https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4992351-jim-jordan-matt-gaetz-donald-trump-attorney-general-pick/
Gaetz has been a big supporter of marijuana reform, and I do not know if you would view that as a kind of "illicit drug use" that should be disqualifying. (Of course, lots of folks have been elected Prez with a history of illicit drug use). I also do not know if you would view sex with a sober "minor" to be disqualifying. I surmise you disagree with Rep Jordan about the release of the House Ethics report, and perhaps also would oppose recess appointment of Gaetz until this report is released.
I get you think others ought not complain about Gaetz when you believe they supported certain people nominated by Dems. But I was just inquiring of your perspective on Gaetz, not whether you thought him better than Dem appointees.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2024 12:06:48 PM
Great to hear from you, Bill, and your prediction reinforces my instinct here. But federalist's comments highlights that, for some in the MAGA coalition, he "may be the perfect pick." I will be very interested to see how aggressively Trump pushes for this pick, and it seems like more than just federalist on team MAGA are already getting on the Gaetz bandwagon.
If your predction is right, Bill, do you think Trump would then put Todd Blanche up for the AG position?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2024 12:14:34 PM
Interesting deflection, Doug. It is telling, in my opinion, that a law prof would be able to stomach a Kristen Clarke or Xavier Becerra . . . .
I want to see the ethics report. And no I wouldn't be ok with him having sex with a sober minor who has reached the age of consent. But Dems don't get to make that argument, see Studds, Gerry R.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 15, 2024 12:54:18 PM
I am still shocked by how many lawprofs defended Bill Clinton after his sexual misbehavior with an intern and lies under oath. But that does not lead me to be a fanboy of others who engage in lesser misbehavior.
Will you advocate that Gaetz not be confirmed if the ethics report is not made public?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2024 2:31:52 PM
Doug, Senators will demand access to it, and it will therefore be made public.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 15, 2024 2:43:28 PM
I asked if you would advocate against confirmation if the report is not made public, federalist.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2024 2:52:45 PM
I guess I would also be curious, federalist, if you think it problematic for folks to see to suppress the report, which reports suggest some are eager to do.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2024 2:55:23 PM
I would like the report made public. I trust the confirmation process.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 15, 2024 3:27:38 PM
Good to know, federalist, but I asked whether you would advocate against confirmation if the report is not released (in full) and whether you find problematic the calls to suppress the report.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2024 4:48:17 PM
Late to the conversation, but as I’ve seen this thrown about quite a bit lately by folks when it serves their purpose- “Innocent until proven guilty” is the standard that should be applied to criminal legal proceedings, but no such requirement is necessary in either the court of public opinion or for an honest assessment of appropriateness to hold the position of AG (or President, fwiw). The idea that the same standard of proof needs to apply when objectively looking at someone’s character or integrity (or lack thereof) in the public forum ignores that the rich, wealthy connected and powerful are hardly ever subjected to criminal prosecutions to begin with.
Posted by: Jon S - public defender | Nov 17, 2024 5:40:27 AM
Jon S,
When someone uses the line, “…a very likely pedophile…,” they are going beyond an opinion and trying to establish guilt.
We have literally almost no evidence. Just an accusation. How about a shred of evidence from the ethics report before associating a guy with the word “pedophile?”
My criticism was appropriate.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 17, 2024 5:58:24 PM
Parsing the credibility of allegations is appropriate, but framing those allegations as completely incredible or without support whatsoever ignores we have the luxury of a fair amount of information and context based on his own known actions and history. Even without the ethics committee's report (which would certainly put much of the debate to rest one way or another) the idea there is "literally almost no evidence" beyond just the victim's allegation ignores the report of separate eye-witness testimony corroborating the allegations, not to mention Gaetz's, reported, reputation amongst colleagues in Congress bragging about somewhat similar sexual exploits, and former associates of Gaetz pleading guilty to similar crimes and implicating Gaetz in the same. Even just that is all more than a shred of evidence, even if some, or much, of that is the type of evidence that would ultimately be excluded in a criminal trial. Hence my comment solely focusing on the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. My opinion is that he deserves no such presumption beyond his involvement in defending criminal charges against him.
Posted by: Jon S - public defender | Nov 18, 2024 3:50:53 AM
Supposedly, but who knows, Gaetz had consensual relations with a 17 year old. That's not pedophilia. And I would argue that Democrats have no business whatsoever criticizing him on those grounds, see, e.g., Studds, Gerry R.
But here's the thing, Jon S, I doubt you had anything to say about Xavier Becerra and his illegal threats to reporters who obtained, through a FOIA request, a state database of criminal LEOs. You are the rankest of hypocrites.
And Jon, don't ya think that, if DOJ had anything, they would have gotten him indicted.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 18, 2024 3:22:27 PM
federalist, you clearly like to complain about the positions of others, but still are not clear about your position. Because I am genuinely interested, I will keep inquiring whether you would advocate against confirmation if the House Ethics report is not released (in full) and whether you find problematic the calls to suppress that report.
Earlier you said "I want to see the ethics report" and that you "wouldn't be ok with [Gaetz] having sex with a sober minor." Perhaps your views have changed, and I am still hoping to hear your view as to whether you would advocate against confirmation if the House Ethics report is not released and whether you find problematic the calls to suppress that report.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 18, 2024 5:16:41 PM
Doug --
"If your prediction is right, Bill, do you think Trump would then put Todd Blanche up for the AG position?"
Very hard to say. Blanche has better qualifications in my view. Still, I'm looking for the return of Michael Mukasey. Sessions and Barr were first rate and well-qualified, but I doubt either would accept the job now.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 18, 2024 5:43:53 PM
Anyone who thinks adults having sex with children is worthy of criticism would do so regardless of political affiliation of the alleged perpetrator, and not sure our legal framework surrounding the discussion at hand assumes a 17 yr old has the capacity for”consent.”
I know very little about the issue surrounding Becerra you speak of, so perhaps that makes me a hypocrite in your estimation. Oh well.
And I think the reasons for DOJ not pursuing are as endless as our imaginations, but internal assessment that they cannot meet the burden of proof to overcome any presumption of innocence could definitely be one. I continue to stand by my assertion that no such presumption is necessary for someone seeking confirmation for AG, much less someone whose reputation seems pretty well deserved. But perhaps he’s truly a victim of character assassination. Seems an investigative report from some sort of investigative body of his peers could shed Phiri on how unfairly he is being maligned.
Posted by: Jon S - public defender | Nov 18, 2024 5:55:54 PM
Jon S,
What do we have beyond hearsay?
Leaked info isn’t worth a damn. “Russian collusion” is a perfect example. How many times did Adam Schiff come out saying they had the goods on Trump and they ended up with less than zero?
There is enough to disqualify Gaetz (in my mind) by his behavior on the floor. He’s a jackass. But, let’s at least have something credible before throwing around the word “pedophile” and using that as a reason.
You are correct that there is no “right” of “innocent until proven guilty,” in our opinions. However, we have always had a culture that respected that allegations are not necessarily fact.
At this moment, there is better evidence both Bill Clinton and Biden are rapists. I still don’t call either rapists, though.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 18, 2024 7:54:15 PM
My strong preference is for the ethics report to be released, but if they confirm without it, so be it. If he had consensual sex with a minor, then I would not support confirmation and I wouldn't be ok with it, but it's not a hill to die on. I don't 100% support Trump on Ukraine either.
And Dems don't get to say a word--Gerry Studds. And Xavier Becerra is far more of a disgusting human being than Gaetz (assuming that he only had sex with a minor) as is Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Kristen Clarke, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, James Comey etc. etc. Therefore, spare me the histrionics over him.
MAGA baby.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 18, 2024 8:16:51 PM
Thanks for clarifying your MAGA principles, federalist.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 19, 2024 9:49:13 AM
"And I think the reasons for DOJ not pursuing are as endless as our imaginations, but internal assessment that they cannot meet the burden of proof to overcome any presumption of innocence could definitely be one."
Ha ha. Gaetz is loathed---they didn't have squat. Jon S., do you really think that Gaetz got the pre-whistleblower Hunter treatment. And by the by, Doug, notice how you have been pretty silent about the appalling treatment of the Hunter whistleblowers. They helped make the system that much more like the ideal of "Equal Justice Under Law". I would think that a law prof who runs a blog like this would have something to say.
MAGA baby!!
Posted by: federalist | Nov 19, 2024 10:15:51 AM
Ha ha, Doug. At least I answer the questions . . . .
Posted by: federalist | Nov 19, 2024 10:52:13 AM
Actually, federalist, you still have not answered whether you find problematic the calls to suppress the House Ethics Committee report. This morning there are all sorts of press reports about testimony to the House Ethics Committee, so I think it quite problematic that anyone would rather have the Senate and the public rely on media accounts of reported testimony over the actual Committee report.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 19, 2024 11:49:47 AM
Fed,
Doug has made it quite clear that things like “equal rights” and “civil rights” are not of interest to him. He also likes censorship. He is the oxymoronic “big government libertarian.”
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 19, 2024 12:51:24 PM
I want it to come out, but I don't really care at this point. As you point out, the salacious stuff (true or not) is out:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/11/reporting-rumor-as-news.php
Remember, he'll be questioned in Committee. Sheldon Whitehouse vs. Matt Gaetz--comedy gold!!
In other news, the lawless "Judge" Merchan kicked the can down the road again.
Your silence is deafening.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 19, 2024 1:09:21 PM
Still no answer to whether you find call to suppress problematic, federalist. And I have been on a plane and have not seen any formal ruling from Justice Merchan. I have said before I expect he wants this to go away, and I assume he would like AG Bragg to so recommend.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 19, 2024 1:23:16 PM
Tarls, I like on-topic discussions, and I have embraced a moderation policy urged by Bill Otis to advance that end.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 19, 2024 1:25:45 PM
I don't care. That's pretty clear. I presume that Speaker Johnson has his reasons, and I don't know that he is suppressing a document when the subject has left Congress. But if we want to get on the topic of suppression, there's the Hunter laptop story LOL.
Merchan and Bragg should get LWOP.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 19, 2024 1:42:13 PM
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/11/about-those-allegations-against-matt-gaetz.php
Interesting. What say you Jon S.?
Posted by: federalist | Nov 20, 2024 9:55:27 AM
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/california-attorney-general-threatens-reporters-legal-action-over-public-record/
And here you go, Jon. Sickening.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 20, 2024 9:56:26 AM
One more update:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2024/11/20/lindsey-graham-gives-an-update-on-his-meeting-with-matt-gaetz-n2648032
Posted by: federalist | Nov 20, 2024 1:00:11 PM
It seems the author of the blog post re: Gaetz (and Lindsey Graham, ha!) should probably look at the news today and some of the hacked files just released. I'm sure Gaetz's own subpoenaed Venmo records showing $10k in payments that seem to directly corroborate the deposition testimony from the victim that he paid her (then a 17-year-old) for sex is just a one off. Not only does it seem the guy's a complete scumbag who plies women with illicit drugs and alcohol to get in their pants (pedophile or not depending on definition, aside), he's an idiot for leaving a paper trail! Gaetz for AG!!!!! MAGA!!!!! LOUD NOISES!!!!! (am I doing it right?) In the end (and even before the most recent hack of pretty troubling material), I simply don't agree that these were unfounded smears against Gaetz, but rather not-quite-confirmed reports from those in the know that spoke, it seems pretty accurately, about both his, alleged, actions but most importantly his known character and reputation that he seemed to have very little interest in protecting. And if he would be eventually charged criminally for his actions (can't imagine that is still a possibility, but crazier things have happened), I believe he should be presumed innocent by the judge and jury until proven guilty. But not by me, cause that ship has sailed.
To your Becerra outrage: what specific federal illegal act are you referencing when you welcomed me to the thread by calling me rank hypocrite for something completely unrelated (as complete whataboutism to the very simple and direct point I was making about the presumption of innocence not applying in the court of public opinion, btw)? More to the point - why, even if I make erroneous assumptions about Gaetz based on, at worst, just rumor and innuendo, am I a hypocrite on the Becerra issue? That I might choose to take his actions as a heavy-handed law enforcement official out over his skis in making unfounded threats to intimidate someone into compliance with his wishes as more par for the course in my experience with leos and prosecutors rather than completely disqualifying to hold his now position as Secretary of Health? Any analysis based on his prior actions may lead to that conclusion, or not, but that's a different debate entirely, and has nothing to do with Gaetz. And fwiw, I promise you will meet no one in this lifetime who is more comfortable airing police officers' felonious pasts than I. Kudos to the journalists for journalisting.
Btw, instead of juvenile name calling and treating people like absolute garbage in response to honest conversation on issues of the day, in the future feel free to just point me to relevant information that may or may not either support a point you are trying to make or refute one I am attempting to make. Or whatever works to get that dopamine dump, I guess. Thanks.
Posted by: Jon S - public defender | Nov 20, 2024 3:15:11 PM
Jon,
Fed already provided it. It’s the Powerline link from an article by Mollie Hemingway.
It’s anonymous claim from two women via an anonymous hacker and has to do with a guy who has made unfounded accusations of a similar nature in the past.
Again, the rape accusations against Biden and Clinton are more credible (not to mention claims that Biden showered with his teen daughter).
But who knows if this comment will even get through to you. We have someone who is practically a book burner when it goes against his narrative as a host.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 20, 2024 10:49:27 PM
Tarls, assuming you view the accuracy of various claims of criminal lawbreaking as germane to former Rep Gaetz's soundness to be the nation's top law enforcement officer --- correct me if you do not --- do you think the House Ethics Committee report should be released to the public, to enhance transparency and accountability, and to provide a fuller record to assess the accuracy of various lawbreaking claims?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 21, 2024 9:17:15 AM
When have I called you names? My point is that the chattering class (and the left) have double standards. And yes, you are a rank hypocrite. Becerra could be charged with 18 USC 242 (violation of rights under color of law) as well as extortion. And here you are saying that he just abused his office like so many others so it's all good. After all, why not reward thugs who make America more like China? Didn't know that the defense bar was chill with that.
What you call "whataboutism" is really a call for unilateral disarmament on the part of Trump. If President Biden (who was alleged by his own daughter to have taken showers with her) can appoint Becerra/Holder/Kristen Clarke and various and sundry thugs in office, then why are we having the vapors over Gaetz? And by the way Jon, I trust you know that Biden's DOJ prosecuted the two who found Biden's diary (and roughed up James O'Keeffe in the process). Since when do the feds get involved in prosecuting someone for finding abandoned property and selling it. Oh, that would be never.
Doug, should unfounded accusations be made public?
Posted by: federalist | Nov 21, 2024 10:12:37 AM
I don't consider saying that someone is a rank hypocrite as name calling. It's just an accurate assessment.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 21, 2024 10:14:00 AM
And Doug, we finally have a lively thread. A lot less of that, nowadays . . . . And your readers learned something about Becerra.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 21, 2024 10:15:45 AM
And Jon, here's an example of why we need housecleaning at DOJ:
https://nypost.com/2024/11/20/opinion/weaponizing-of-doj-was-a-hatchet-job-against-the-american-people-and-the-new-trump-admin-must-restore-trust/
Posted by: federalist | Nov 21, 2024 10:21:32 AM
Did he? Am I just missing said powerline article by Mollie Hemingway that specifically notes the federal crime Becarra allegedly committed? He listed two powerline links specific to Gaetz stories, and tlisted he US Press Freedom Tracker article specific to Becarra that certainly contains innuendo about Becarra's actions being generally wrong and improper, but doesn't list any alleged federal crime. Again, perhaps I am just missing it?
Again, though, and much more to the point - why bother with all of the whataboutism? It adds nothing to whether Gaetz's character or alleged actions make him fit to be AG. Why wouldn't we want a comprehensive reckoning of any potential criminal behavior from anyone nominated for the top law enforcement position in the country? Why wouldn't we want the ethics committee report, much more so if it completely destroys all of the liberal talking points and proves your all's points that the allegations are completely unfounded? What's the downside?
What I am still trying to understand, though, is that constantly trying to shift the conversation away from the topic at hand and engaging in projection and insults makes it seem like...I don't know? The two of you are extremely miserable people or really don't care about the conversation at all? Why bother reading such an idiotic blog and engaging with such a group of complete imbeciles? The research is definitely in that the dopamine dump from anonymous commentary from behind a screen is powerful giving outsized feelings of importance and relevancy, but did Berman kill your dog or something? Put more simply - are you ok?
Posted by: Jon S - public defender | Nov 21, 2024 10:26:54 AM
federalist, this thread is back to the kind of waste of time and energy (for me) that always prompts me to urge you to use other spaces for partisan prattling. There is nothing about sentencing policy or law here, and you are back to oft-repeated talking points and linking to your favorite partisan sources (with no sentencing-related content). It prompts me to want to use my moderatation tool more rigorously, which I may do.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 21, 2024 11:22:16 AM
Doug,
I will almost always come out in favor of transparency from government. There are no national security issues here, so absolutely release it.
It should be a requirement in law that they do so.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 21, 2024 1:18:33 PM
Doug, you are right that this isn't really about law/sentencing. But the thread deals with the pre-nomination of Matthew Gaetz. Obviously, a lot of people have gotten the vapors over this proposed nomination, and I just provided some perspective. Whatever one thinks of Gaetz' pre-nomination, it's plainly obvious that Gaetz' peccadilloes (whatever they may be, and who knows?) certainly don't make him stand out as uniquely bad. And even you have to chuckle at Jon S. a self-described public defender who is excusing First Amendment challenging threats by an AG.
I think the only thing remotely dealing with sentencing is my upthread comment linking to the NY Post article.
Lastly, even you have to admit that my Gerry Studds reference was on the nose.
But you are right that we aren't getting anywhere. Jon is now playing psycho-analyst, and the thread is going to hit the bottom of the page.
I'll give Jon the last word.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 21, 2024 1:37:43 PM
Doug,
You don’t see the irony and humor of you, of all people, using the phrase, “favorite partisan sources,” to scold federalist?
An overwhelming majority of your posts are from “favorite partisan sources.” That the partisan sources are often academic makes it worse, not better.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 21, 2024 3:24:52 PM
I’d further point out that the original post is not about “sentencing policy,” so your criticism is even more curious.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 21, 2024 3:26:40 PM
Tarls: As I've said before (and may have to keep saying), the sound way for you and/or federalist to have whatever discussions/links/sources you would prefer or find "lively" would be to create your own space on the big wide web. To my knowledge, you keep failing to take this advice and instead want to keep spending time complaining here about how I decide to manage the space I have created.
Of course, I have all sorts of (ever-evolving) biases in what and when I post, and now how I moderate comments in this space. That bias now includes a growing disaffinity for wasting time/energy with comments and links that make little effort to connect to sentencing law or policy and are more akin to partisan discourse so common in so many other web spaces. That's what I was seeking to explain to federalist; he suggested an affinity for a "lively" thread, whereas it made me sorry not to be using the moderatation tool more rigorously.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 21, 2024 4:27:32 PM
Doug, I don't complain at all. I mention when people attack me personally, not that I care, I just enjoy pointing it out.
And what did you expect when talking about Gaetz? He wanted to clean house at DOJ. He didn't have any real sentencing views, and one of your commenters called him a pedophile, which is just inaccurate, given that pedophilia has an age cutoff at 13.
It certainly is fair to call out the histrionics, given the records of Dem cabinet appointees. As for Becerra, here's another example of his appalling record:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2024/11/21/bidens-hhs-sent-kids-to-strip-clubs-where-they-were-pimped-out-n2648110?utm_medium=widget&utm_source=slider
Posted by: federalist | Nov 21, 2024 5:00:47 PM
I thought you were giving Jon the last word, federalist. :-) And Gaetz actually has a notable CJ record on topics ranging from marijuana legalization to J6 resentencing. (I did not do substantive posts on those specifics in part because I figured he was toast, but that’s what would make for productive discussion in my eyes, rather than off-topic attacks on Ds.)
Meanwhile, if the comment section was given to calling out lefty “histrionics,” we’d need more server space. Serious discussion of what a nominee like Gaetz — or whomever Trump nominates next — might mean for actual federal criminal/sentencing law and policy is what I would hope to cultivate. Partisan/off-topic links and sniping --- not to mention the attack back/forth that you say you "enjoy" --- bores me in so many other online spaces and here distracts from the law and policy discussions I'd find far more interesting. So I will moderate more rigorously, as needed.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 21, 2024 6:01:45 PM
Doug,
As I previously mentioned, your original post above does not even address sentencing policy.
It seems kind of strange to ride fed for not turning it into a sentencing thread for you.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 21, 2024 8:02:56 PM
Not riding anyone, Tarls, just making sure federalist knew that the "lively" thread he seems to fancy is not the kind I am eager to foster in this space.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 21, 2024 8:28:38 PM
Professor—it looks to me like federalist isn’t the only violator in this thread. The anti-Trump bias is palpable.
Getting a public defender to defend a ham-handed Attorney General is a neat trick. You can bet your bottom dollar thaf a Republican with a history such as Becerra wouid be flayed in the media and by the left.
Gaetz is toast. We will have to see what Bondi does, as I suspect she will sail through the Senate.
Posted by: Yet-Yet | Nov 21, 2024 11:05:44 PM
I am never expecting folks to makes comments without biases or partisanship, Yet-Yet, as that is to expect the impossible. It is the off-topic prattling -- ranging from Becerra's HHS tenure to Hunter's laptop to the IRS whistleblowers to James O'Keeffe to "Merchan and Bragg should get LWOP" -- that distracts from more focused and thoughtful sentencing/CJ law and policy discussions I much prefer here.
(Also, perhaps here it is worth mentioning federalist's disappointing failure to admit to his cosplay with others' comment monikers.)
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 22, 2024 12:13:37 AM
"Getting a public defender to defend a ham-handed Attorney General is a neat trick. You can bet your bottom dollar thaf a Republican with a history such as Becerra wouid be flayed in the media and by the left."
Nice!!
Posted by: federalist | Nov 22, 2024 11:21:05 AM
Yeah, you use that term "neat trick" in a number of comments, federalist.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 22, 2024 4:49:25 PM
Sure, Yet, considering I only acknowledged that Becerra's actions fit squarely within some of the worst impulses of those with power and particularly law enforcement, then caging that it might, in fact, make him unfit, all while attempting to move the conversation back to the actual topic at hand equals a defense?
Much like fed's hypocrite "assessment" early in the thread when I hadn't even taken a position on the veracity of any allegations against Gaetz. In any event, I look forward to his continued downplaying of predatory behavior against children by letting us all know that "ACKCHYUALLY" Gaetz is not really a pedophile.
And TarlsQtr, still waiting for you to let me know where that powerline article that I missed is at....? Credibility matters, even on the mundane.
Last comment on this thread from me, but considering this was the first post I think I've ever engaged with, it's rapidly apparent that certain posters do everything in their power to shut down real conversation in exchange for their playing "gotcha" with their own misrepresentations, re-interpretations, whataboutism, cherry picking, oversimplification, straw man arguments, red herrings....am I missing any?
Anyone taking odds that federalist (or his anonymous minions - says plenty about standing behind your supposed convictions in anonymity in the true spirit of classic internet trolls tip-tapping away at their screens from their dimly lit basements, btw) has even a modicum of self-control to not further comment here and actually give me the last word...... Not name-calling, of course, but simply my "assessment." See how easy that is when my certainty has no basis in any accuracy whatsoever?
Posted by: Jon S - public defender | Nov 24, 2024 4:19:02 AM
Jon S,
It’s a cute game you have. Ask for something, and then talk about a lack of “self-control” if I were to provide it. 😂
Not to mention, you are as anonymous as any here.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/11/about-those-allegations-against-matt-gaetz.php
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 24, 2024 12:38:47 PM
Which you cited in response to my query on the specifics of the supposed federal crimes committed by Becerra…..an article with no such information. Accuracy sacrificed at the altar of your certainty.
Posted by: Jon S | Nov 25, 2024 1:01:06 AM
"Becerra could be charged with 18 USC 242 (violation of rights under color of law) as well as extortion."
Jon, I believe that I am still giving you the last word. I believe that you must have missed this in your zeal to do battle with Tarls and me.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 25, 2024 1:19:30 PM
Accuracy? Let’s talk “accuracy.”
Roll the tape.
You stated: “ Btw, instead of juvenile name calling and treating people like absolute garbage in response to honest conversation on issues of the day, in the future feel free to just point me to relevant information that may or may not either support a point you are trying to make or refute one I am attempting to make. Or whatever works to get that dopamine dump, I guess. Thanks.”
I replied: “ Jon,
Fed already provided it. It’s the Powerline link from an article by Mollie Hemingway.
It’s anonymous claim from two women via an anonymous hacker and has to do with a guy who has made unfounded accusations of a similar nature in the past.
Again, the rape accusations against Biden and Clinton are more credible (not to mention claims that Biden showered with his teen daughter).
But who knows if this comment will even get through to you. We have someone who is practically a book burner when it goes against his narrative as a host.”
I was talking about Gaetz (as were you with Fed.). You then ignored it and turned it into 100% about Becerra.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 25, 2024 2:44:38 PM
