Analysis: Main argument behind Gaetz candidacy: Democrats are worse

Philip Multiply
| Washington Post

To understand why President-elect Donald Trump has nominated former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz to serve as attorney general in his incoming administration, you need look no further than Trump’s announcement.

The statement describes Gaetz as a William & Mary Law School graduate and an “extremely talented and driven attorney,” both of whom offer to check the most basic box the job requires. (“Aspiring lawyer?”) Then we come to Gaetz’s actual qualifications.

“There are few issues in America more important than ending the partisan Weaponization of our Justice System,” the announcement reads. “Matt will end the Armed Government, protect our Borders, dismantle Criminal Enterprises, and restore Americans’ Faith and Confidence in our badly shattered Department of Justice. “On the House Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of the Department of Justice, Matt played a key role in defeating Russia, Russia, and the Russia Hoax and exposing alarming and systemic Government Corruption and Proliferation.”

Hyperactive capitalization aside, it is worth noting that the priorities defined here are largely imaginary. The “weaponized government” reference is based on Trump’s impeachment for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and failing to turn over classified documents when requested. The “badly shattered” faith in the Justice Department is a function of Trump’s relentless badmouthing of the agency for having the courage to investigate him.

That includes an investigation into whether Trump or others in his 2016 campaign tried to aid Russian efforts to boost his candidacy. The patter that the investigation was a “hoax” is now well worn, but the investigation was based on real concerns and ultimately found multiple points of contact between Trump allies and Russian actors. But casually calling it a hoax was a surefire way to get Trump’s approval, so Gaetz and many others did it without hesitation.

But here’s the bottom line: Gaetz will undo the things Trump said happened, even if they didn’t.

That means undoing things that Trump and his allies don’t want to happen, even if they shouldn’t be undone. A person close to Trump told Axios that appointing Gaetz was meant to “stop things like this,” referring to the FBI’s search of the home of the CEO of Polymarket, a prominent betting marketplace during the 2024 presidential election. In a statement, the company called the call, which correctly stated that Trump would win, “clear political revenge.”

Just as politics is the central channel through which Trump fights his own accusations, individuals and organizations loyal to Trump (or those who can present themselves as such) may find their own legal troubles disappear. Because, you know, this is just “weaponization”.

Trump’s allies have offered different versions of this argument in defending Gaetz’s selection. The problem wasn’t just that the Trump-loyal Floridian was taking on the Justice Department, it was also that the bar for what qualifies as a good attorney general had already been lowered by Democratic appointees.

Vice President-Elect J.D. Vance took this step to promote the Gaetz candidacy on social media.

“The real problem with Matt Gaetz is that he uses his office to prosecute his political opponents and empowers federal agents to harass parents who peacefully protest at school board meetings,” he wrote. Then: “Oh wait, that’s actually Merrick Garland, the current attorney general.”

Garland oversaw the prosecution of his boss, President Joe Biden’s political rival; But only after that political rival attempted to overturn the 2020 election and refused to respond to a subpoena for material marked as classified. The Department of Justice has historically engaged in decidedly questionable prosecutions. But the public evidence that the narrow federal charges Trump faces are being pursued is pretty solid.

As for parental abuse, that’s more of a MAGAland fiction. In the early stages of the Biden administration, protests at school board meetings occasionally turned into threats against school officials. The Department of Justice issued a statement saying violent threats would be addressed. This slowly evolved into Vance’s proposed topic: The Justice Department was targeting parents at school board meetings, stating that violent threats were unacceptable.

But that’s Vance’s defense. You think Gaetz is bad? No, he’s a good relative for a straw man who vaguely resembles Garland.

On Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) expressed a similar view.

“I say this to my Democrat friends: Elections have consequences, whether you like it or not,” he said, suggesting that Gaetz should be taken into consideration, even if only because he is the next presidential candidate.

“You’re accusing Matt of doing the same thing you did,” he continued. “Matt Gaetz did not lie when he was sworn in. Matt Gaetz did not sign orders based on Russian disinformation (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)). So we’re going to give the president a chance to put his people first. To every Republican: Give Matt a chance.”

Graham’s speech was visibly reluctant; “Give it a chance” is not quite the same as “get it done.” But still, notice how confident Gaetz is compared to others. Gaetz did not sign the FISA warrants Graham mentioned; but Garland didn’t sign either. They were signed in 2016 and 2017, when the Justice Department was trying to spy on Carter Page, a former adviser to Trump’s first presidential campaign. Part of the permit application was based on information gleaned from a dossier of reports compiled by investigator Christopher Steele.

You may remember some elements of the previous paragraph from the years-long fight over the Russia investigation. Carter Page FISA warrants play a huge role in the effort to undermine the validity of the investigation; this is simply because it provides one of the few points of objective critique of the process. (But there’s really no question that Page’s ties to Russia are worth investigating.) And here’s Graham using this issue to defend Gaetz’s candidacy. Not because it’s perfect, but because it could be worse?

This is reactionary. Trump’s candidacy is a response to genuine anger at facing a wide range of investigations. His supporters’ defenses of the nomination are mostly based on the idea that his standard of service as attorney general has already deteriorated because of Democrats’ bad behavior.

But when you remove the lens through which Trump has viewed his administration of justice, the nomination will look very different. It looks like a nomination of a target of a federal investigation by a target of a federal investigation for the purpose of taking revenge on federal investigators.

Related Posts