Speaker 1: Throughout the Trump era, I've had to sort of disabuse
Speaker 1: myself of various kinds of assumptions about politics, assumptions about
Speaker 1: the ways in which politics can or do or should work,
Speaker 1: and a lot of the conservative reliance on certain kinds
Speaker 1: of institutions. I've found more and more of the course
Speaker 1: of the last years to be somewhat hollow. Everyone and
Speaker 1: their mother trumpeted how wonderful the Federalist Society is for
Speaker 1: helping pick judges, and certainly they're better at picking judges than, say,
Speaker 1: you know, anyone on the left is. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, the Federalist Society has its limitations. It has
Speaker 1: certain things that it's obviously oriented towards that are more
Speaker 1: in the interest of extremely wealthy Republican gazillionaire business donors
Speaker 1: then they are, you know, aligned towards the things that
Speaker 1: I care about. And this is reflective in the fact
Speaker 1: that a lot of Federalists society sort of tycoons in
Speaker 1: the conservative legal space wind up all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: somehow abandoning ship when it comes to conservative social justice issues.
Speaker 2: Yes, they did get Roe v. Wade overturned, but.
Speaker 1: Look at you know, Justice Gorsich, who might as well
Speaker 1: have come off of a factory line by the Federalist Society.
Speaker 1: It's right out of central casting and all of a sudden, oh, actually,
Speaker 1: somehow originalism means that laws that were meant to protect
Speaker 1: against discrimination on the basis of sex actually prevent discrimination
Speaker 1: on the basis of sexual orientation, even though they don't
Speaker 1: say sexual orientation or god forbid, gender identity. So I've
Speaker 1: the Trump era has caused me to rethink the old Guard,
Speaker 1: the wisdom and the thoughts of the old Guard in
Speaker 1: a number of respects for me to say, well, my
Speaker 1: preconceived notion of this is maybe wrong. And it's not
Speaker 1: so much Trump himself, but the sort of anti establishment
Speaker 1: ara that Trump has brought with him atmosphere that Trump
Speaker 1: has brought with him into politics, that he's not going
Speaker 1: to rely on those the same old guard kind of
Speaker 1: people that you know, a President Marco Rubio would have
Speaker 1: relied on, or a President Ted Cruz would have relied on,
Speaker 1: or a President George W. Bush would have relied on,
Speaker 1: or a President Mike Pence would have relied on. So
Speaker 1: I have tried to keep an open mind to Trump
Speaker 1: World and people in Trump World. I think often people
Speaker 1: will and especially with a lot of Trump's cabinet picks,
Speaker 1: I've kept a pretty open mind. When Pete Hegseth got nominated,
Speaker 1: there was immediately sort of a circular firing squad from
Speaker 1: some conservatives saying, this guy sting, what is this guy
Speaker 1: has got a Fox News house bubb blah blah. But
Speaker 1: then I sort of was like, well, he's got some
Speaker 1: interesting qualifications in this regard, in that regard, in this regard,
Speaker 1: in that regard, Tulci Gabbard gets nominated Director of National
Speaker 1: Intelligence and the sort of neocon foreign policy blob is
Speaker 1: furious about it. Everyone keeps running with this slander that
Speaker 1: she's a Russian agent or something, which I find to
Speaker 1: be nonsense. I'm open to the idea of Tulci Gabbard
Speaker 1: within that role. But then we come to Robert Kennedy
Speaker 1: Junior as Secretary of Health and Human Services and Matt
Speaker 1: Gates as Attorney General, and I want to talk about
Speaker 1: both of them, and maybe I'll give a segment to
Speaker 1: each one at the start of the show. I don't
Speaker 1: like either one, and I say this as someone who
Speaker 1: largely agrees with some of the overriding goals Trump has
Speaker 1: for both of those departments. I understand the deep, deep
Speaker 1: problems at the Department of Justice and at the Department
Speaker 1: of Health and Human Services. I think pretty darn well
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice is clearly riddled with people in
Speaker 1: the FBI, especially who openly operated against Donald Trump as
Speaker 1: a candidate in twenty sixteen while he was president, did
Speaker 1: stuff that was clearly designed to politically help out then
Speaker 1: candidate Joe Biden. I think the FBI has been a
Speaker 1: disaster and in need.
Speaker 2: Of reform for decades.
Speaker 1: It's always been a horrible institution in various respects. I
Speaker 1: completely agree that DOJ needs an overhaul. It needs someone
Speaker 1: with razor sharp, aggressive thinking who can reform the institution,
Speaker 1: who will ruthlessly pursue conservative goals, and not just as
Speaker 1: far as being an ideological conservative and being a hard driver,
Speaker 1: but also in terms of actually understanding how to get
Speaker 1: it done, knowing whom to appoint as to be his underlings,
Speaker 1: you know, his sub people within the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: to attain the favored goals of the aministration. So I
Speaker 1: think in the first segment, you know I'll get to DOJ.
Speaker 1: But let me switch to HHS. I agree with some
Speaker 1: of Robert Kennedy's criticisms about giving people more choice and
Speaker 1: more latitude when it comes to vaccines. In certain respects,
Speaker 1: I agree with a lot of his criticisms that pharmaceutical
Speaker 1: companies get a free pass in a lot of regards.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 1: The cozy relationship that the FDA has with pharmaceutical companies.
Speaker 1: The number of people who go from being head of
Speaker 1: the FDA to all of a sudden they're on the
Speaker 1: board of directors of Pfizer is a textbook example of
Speaker 1: this thing called regulatory capture. So learned about this in
Speaker 1: law school when I was studying regulatory law. Regulatory capture
Speaker 1: is the phenomenon where a government whole regulator over an
Speaker 1: industry becomes actually very hirable by businesses within that industry
Speaker 1: who are able to pay him more than the government
Speaker 1: can pay him or her. So you work for the
Speaker 1: Department of Transportation, you're overseeing regulating railroads. Well, you understand
Speaker 1: all the regulations overseeing governing the operation of railroads throughout
Speaker 1: the country. You're working with lawmakers, you're working with regulators
Speaker 1: in Washington, d c. Well, a railroad company Amtrak will
Speaker 1: look at you and or Union Pacific or whoever, a
Speaker 1: for profit corporation that makes money will look at you
Speaker 1: and say, hey, you've been working as a regulator of that,
Speaker 1: why don't you come work for us. We'll pay you
Speaker 1: double what the government's paying you. And you knowing that
Speaker 1: that's a likely career path for yourself because you're not
Speaker 1: an idiot. Of course, that's going to shade the way
Speaker 1: the aggression with which you are going to regulate the
Speaker 1: companies you oversee. I think it's much the same within HHS.
Speaker 1: People in HHS don't have a big incentive to really
Speaker 1: crack down on pharmaceutical companies. Why because they get hired
Speaker 1: by pharmaceutical companies. Okay, look up how many former heads
Speaker 1: of the FDA went on to serve on the board
Speaker 1: of directors of a pharmaceutical company. You see this in
Speaker 1: the Department of Defense. How many retired generals go on
Speaker 1: to serve on the boards of directors of you know,
Speaker 1: military contractors. So regulatory capture is a real thing. It's
Speaker 1: a real thing that afflicts HHS and the FDA as
Speaker 1: ah subset of HHS. But the thing to understand is
Speaker 1: that all this stuff that Kennedy sort of made a
Speaker 1: name for himself that's not all the stuff that the
Speaker 1: Department of Health and Human Services oversees. Let me just
Speaker 1: explain what the Department of Health and Human Services is.
Speaker 1: Health and Human Services is the single largest executive branch,
Speaker 1: the single largest executive branch department in the federal government
Speaker 1: by budget, by dollar amount. It has tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of employees. I don't know about tens of thousands, but
Speaker 1: it has thousands of employees. It oversees Medicare and Medicaid,
Speaker 1: as well as the FDA, as well as the National
Speaker 1: Institutes of Health, as well as all of the federal
Speaker 1: government's sort of portfolio of funding scientific medical research. It's
Speaker 1: an enormous department. I don't think Robert Kennedy is actually
Speaker 1: well suited to running something that big. Look if Donald
Speaker 1: Trump had made Robert Kennedy like his czar for health
Speaker 1: related issues, and it was a non Senate confirmed position,
Speaker 1: and Kennedy was going to have big time influence over
Speaker 1: FDA decisions or something, or even just make him the
Speaker 1: head of the FDA, I would be slightly less concerned.
Speaker 1: I just don't think the guy should be running the
Speaker 1: single biggest division of the federal government. I was ranting
Speaker 1: and raving when Javier Basera got nominated to be the
Speaker 1: Secretary of HHS, someone with no medical background whatsoever other
Speaker 1: than having been his loan qualifications were being a congressman
Speaker 1: for twelve years, Attorney General of California, and super pro abortion.
Speaker 1: That was it. Oh, and let's talk about abortion. Robert
Speaker 1: Kennedy's sort of flip flopped on what exactly his abortion
Speaker 1: stance is. My guess is that he favors legal abortion,
Speaker 1: at least through the first trimester. He has at various
Speaker 1: points stated that he favors legal abortion, no holds barred
Speaker 1: beyond the first trimester, even while he was running for president.
Speaker 1: That was the position he sort of staked out for
Speaker 1: himself at one point. He's all over the map. I
Speaker 1: have no idea what he thinks about the abortion pill
Speaker 1: and how it should be regulated or shouldn't be regulated,
Speaker 1: or what its status should be, what sort of person
Speaker 1: should be, what the FDA's position on it should be.
Speaker 1: I have no idea what he thinks about, say, Title
Speaker 1: ten funding for abortion, sixty million dollars a year that
Speaker 1: goes to Planned parenthood. I have no idea what he
Speaker 1: thinks about the High Amendment. I have no idea what
Speaker 1: he thinks about out California not allowing health insurance plans
Speaker 1: to be sold that don't include coverage for abortion, California
Speaker 1: not allowing health insurance plans to be sold that don't
Speaker 1: include abortion coverage. I have no idea what Rober Kennedy
Speaker 1: thinks about any of those things. I know nobody wants
Speaker 1: to hear Mike Pence's opinions about anything at this point,
Speaker 1: and I guess I understand that. But he pointed out
Speaker 1: today in a couple of tweets, Robert Kennedy Junior would
Speaker 1: be the most pro abortion HHS secretary ever appointed by
Speaker 1: a Republican, and I guess I just can't be silent
Speaker 1: about that.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, I.
Speaker 1: Think there were probably people, if you listen to my
Speaker 1: show pretty consistently, there were probably people who were frustrated
Speaker 1: that I wasn't more like Bellicos in my Trump support guys.
Speaker 1: I'll be frank, He's moderating his stance on abortion throughout
Speaker 1: the campaign. That's a real blow for me, and it's
Speaker 1: not something I can just sort of breeze by and overlook.
Speaker 1: A major part of who I am as someone involved
Speaker 1: in politics. Obviously, has to do with the life issue.
Speaker 1: And you know Trump effectively ran saying he doesn't even
Speaker 1: support six week abortion bands at the state level. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: Trump can say all he wants abortions the state issue,
Speaker 1: abortions the state issue. If he truly wants to make
Speaker 1: it a state issue, He's going to have to pick
Speaker 1: several abortion fights. He's going to have to aggressively work
Speaker 1: to defund abortion at the federal level if he's really
Speaker 1: going to be consistent there, if he's going to really
Speaker 1: merit the votes of pro lifers, he needs to cut
Speaker 1: off federal abortion funding every which way possible. I don't
Speaker 1: see how putting Robert Kennedy Junior in charge of the
Speaker 1: Department of Health and Human Services, which is the single
Speaker 1: biggest vehicle for funding or not funding abortion. Are the
Speaker 1: National Institutes of Health going to keep funding embryo destructive
Speaker 1: stem cell research? Are the National Institutes of Health going
Speaker 1: to keep funding fetal tissue research using the bodies of
Speaker 1: aborted children? We're funding that right now. Like I know,
Speaker 1: Kennedy is in general anti establishment, whatever that means when
Speaker 1: it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, but I think people
Speaker 1: are mistaking that for a clear thinking, razor sharp fighter
Speaker 1: who will be able to eliminate every single instance of waste, unaccountability,
Speaker 1: cozy relationships between the federal government and pharmaceuticals, and snuff
Speaker 1: out the gazillions of dollars that are being spent on
Speaker 1: pro abortion things to eliminate them. I don't know that
Speaker 1: Kennedy wants to eliminate all those things. I don't know
Speaker 1: that Kennedy will have the motivation to do any of that.
Speaker 1: And if that's the case, what kind of an as
Speaker 1: a pro life voter? What did I vote for? Did
Speaker 1: I vote for anything? I mean sure, I voted not
Speaker 1: for Kamala Harris, which would have been the worst thing
Speaker 1: in the world. Would have tried to enact the federal
Speaker 1: law to codify ROW, which at one point in his
Speaker 1: meanderings on the abortion issue, Kennedy himself said he supported.
Speaker 1: So no, I'm not gonna just sort of take it
Speaker 1: easy and say, oh, well, you gotta trust Trump. Why
Speaker 1: Why should I trust Trump's cabinet picks. His cabinet picks
Speaker 1: have always sucked. His cabinet picks from his own perspective
Speaker 1: and admission all four years sucked in his first term,
Speaker 1: Why should I grant him such grand deference. He thought
Speaker 1: Bill Barr sucked. He thought who he appointed three years in?
Speaker 1: He thought this were how many Trump appointees did he
Speaker 1: wind up firing? When we return, I'll shift my attention
Speaker 1: to Matt Gates. I really think reforming the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice is important. I share all of Trump's goals for
Speaker 1: reforming DJ. I just don't know that Matt Gates is
Speaker 1: the right person to do it. Next on the John
Speaker 1: Girardi Show, let's talk about Matt Gates as Attorney General. Now,
Speaker 1: let's set aside the ethics investigations. Let's set aside the
Speaker 1: weird thing of you know, I think two days ago
Speaker 1: Mack Gates resigns from his seat in the House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: and apparently today it was scheduled that the House Ethics
Speaker 1: Committee was going to release a report on Matt Gates
Speaker 1: the results of its ongoing ethics investigation. I don't see
Speaker 1: how the Senate wouldn't get that report, and that's going
Speaker 1: to have to be revealed to the public what exactly
Speaker 1: Gates was involved in. Let's set that aside. I completely
Speaker 1: share and support Trump's vision for how the DOJ should
Speaker 1: be reformed. You can even talk me into I think
Speaker 1: we should have almost retributive prosecutions against people who abuse
Speaker 1: their power in DOJ during the Biden years, people who
Speaker 1: undermined the Trump administration in ways that might have been
Speaker 1: illegal during the Trump years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm all for it. Let's go.
Speaker 1: I concur with almost with basically everything Trump wants to
Speaker 1: do at DJ.
Speaker 2: I concur.
Speaker 1: I think the FBI is a disaster. I think the
Speaker 1: ways in which the DOJ tried to provide cover for
Speaker 1: Joe Biden during the twenty twenty election, while a Republican
Speaker 1: was in charge of it, I think we're horrible. I
Speaker 1: completely completely think the DOJ needs to be I think
Speaker 1: there are a lot of career employees there who need
Speaker 1: to be rooted out. I think there's all kinds of
Speaker 1: problems at DJ. Totally concur and if Trump had appointed
Speaker 1: somebody like I don't know, even like I've used this example,
Speaker 1: even somebody like Jeff Clark, who is sort of very
Speaker 1: prominent in sort of Trump aligned media. He's a constant guest,
Speaker 1: very frequent guest on Steve Bannon's show.
Speaker 2: He was.
Speaker 1: The focus of criminal prosecution for his involvement with Trump's
Speaker 1: efforts to not have Congress certify the election results around
Speaker 1: January sixth. Even if you would pick someone like Jeff Clark,
Speaker 1: I think I would have been Okay, I would have
Speaker 1: been Jeff Clark at the very least is had been
Speaker 1: a high level attorney within the Department of Justice. Is
Speaker 1: a very experienced, good lawyer. And that's what you really
Speaker 1: need at DOJ. Is not just someone who wants to
Speaker 1: fix things, but someone who knows how, someone who understands
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, understands whom to trust, understands whom
Speaker 1: to hire, understands how to clean house, knows where the
Speaker 1: bodies are buried. I just think Matt Gates is a
Speaker 1: bad pick if that's your goal. Like, he's very aggressive
Speaker 1: and agrees with Trump. Okay, that's great. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of people who are super aggressive and agree with Trump.
Speaker 1: You know my neighbor who flew a F Joe Biden
Speaker 1: flag in his front yard for you know, several years,
Speaker 1: kind of to my annoyance to someone of the small
Speaker 1: kids who doesn't want them to be reading the F.
Speaker 2: Word all the time.
Speaker 1: You know, he's super aggressive and completely agrees with Trump.
Speaker 1: But I don't think he's necessarily qualified to be the
Speaker 1: Attorney General of the United States. Matt Gates is a lawyer.
Speaker 1: He was on the House Judiciary Committee, so I guess
Speaker 1: he has more than zero qualifications.
Speaker 2: But I just think it's a.
Speaker 1: Very weak pick for the kind of surgical work that
Speaker 1: needs to be done. That the stuff that I agree
Speaker 1: all the things Trump wants to do. I guess I
Speaker 1: haven't reviewed the entire list, but I'm guessing I ninety
Speaker 1: nine percent agree with every single thing Trump wants to
Speaker 1: do a DJ I want those reforms to happen. I
Speaker 1: think those things are important. I just don't think Matt
Speaker 1: Gates is a good pick for it. And by the way,
Speaker 1: unless you think this is some residual like, oh, you're
Speaker 1: just sticking up for Kevin McCarthy or so, I have
Speaker 1: no relationship with Kevin McCarthy, you know, I certainly understand
Speaker 1: why Kevin McCarthy doesn't like Matt Gates. I kind of
Speaker 1: think that getting rid of Kevin McCarthy was a foolish
Speaker 1: move in retrospect by Republicans because Mike Johnson is not
Speaker 1: that much different from Kevin McCarthy. Nonetheless, I just think
Speaker 1: this is not the right guy to be ag And
Speaker 1: then let's think about what the skeletons might be in
Speaker 1: this guy's closet. I mean, you know, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of smoke there with him that isn't there even with
Speaker 1: other heavily Trump aligned people. You can't just wave off
Speaker 1: everything as oh, they just don't like him because he
Speaker 1: tells the truth. Well, maybe they don't like him because
Speaker 1: he did some bad stuff. I don't know, but I
Speaker 1: guess I just wouldn't nominate someone who is clearly strategically
Speaker 1: resigning from his office in order to dodge the release
Speaker 1: of a House House ethics investigation. I don't know. I again,
Speaker 1: maybe he'll get nominated, maybe he'll get confirmed, and maybe
Speaker 1: he'll do great things at DOJ that would be swell.
Speaker 2: I guess, you know.
Speaker 1: I also, I guess I just find it hard to
Speaker 1: trust a guy who's clearly using as much botox as
Speaker 1: he is. But maybe that's a story for another day.
Speaker 1: When we returned the idea of the Senate's advice and
Speaker 1: consent and why I think it's helpful right now in
Speaker 1: this particular moment, that's next on the John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: So shortly after Trump gets elected, he sends out this
Speaker 1: tweet as the Republicans were trying to sort out who
Speaker 1: their Senate majority leader should be, which ultimately wound up
Speaker 1: with the most boring choice possible, John Thune. Republicans are
Speaker 1: trying to figure out who their next Senate majority leader
Speaker 1: will be, and Trump sends out this sort of declaration
Speaker 1: from mar A Lago saying that the next Senate majority
Speaker 1: leader needs to support recess appointments. That's what the American
Speaker 1: you know, and blah blah blah, this is what they
Speaker 1: need to expect now, recess appointments. This all of a
Speaker 1: sudden became this big thing. The normal way that presidents
Speaker 1: nominate officers of the United States, so top to going
Speaker 1: down into mid level appointees to the veryious executive branch
Speaker 1: offices of the federal government, is that the President nominates
Speaker 1: them with the advice and consent of the Senate. And
Speaker 1: this again reflects sort of the attitude of the founders.
Speaker 1: This was a kind of check on presidential power that, yes,
Speaker 1: the president is in charge of the entire executive branch
Speaker 1: of the government, and he can direct executive officials to
Speaker 1: do things as he sees fit. But the framer said, well,
Speaker 1: we don't want him to be able just to appoint
Speaker 1: any total loser possible, who's just a complete hack into
Speaker 1: all these positions. He needs to get the advice and
Speaker 1: consent of the Senate. And the idea was the Senate
Speaker 1: of the United States, which was modeled after the Roman Senate.
Speaker 1: The Roman Senate was this you can tell by the name.
Speaker 1: It was the council of elders within the city of Rome,
Speaker 1: from the Latin word senex, which literally means an elderly.
Speaker 1: So the Senate was supposed to be and is sort
Speaker 1: of in various ways as far as how it's structured.
Speaker 1: Is the wise, deliberative, less directly democratic body within the
Speaker 1: structure of our government, within the legislative branch, far more
Speaker 1: so than the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: everyone is elected with proportional representation. Everyone's up for reelection
Speaker 1: every two years. The whole House of Representatives can just
Speaker 1: change on a dime if the American people have a
Speaker 1: change in mood. The Senate can't do that, okay. They
Speaker 1: have six year terms of office, the longest terms of
Speaker 1: office of any officeholder in the federal government prior to
Speaker 1: the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment in nineteen tens, senators
Speaker 1: were not even directly elected by the people of their states.
Speaker 1: They were picked by the state legislatures, so they had
Speaker 1: a bit more stability. They were sort of older hands,
Speaker 1: maybe people a bit wiser, who didn't need to appeal
Speaker 1: to sort of populist sentiment. And the Framers thought, well,
Speaker 1: if presidential appointed officers need to be confirmed by the Senate,
Speaker 1: then that sort of ensures that the president's not going
Speaker 1: to be appointing a bunch of scoundrels and obviously unfit,
Speaker 1: unqualified people. And I thought it was weird that as
Speaker 1: a result that Trump was yelling that we need to
Speaker 1: do recess appointments. Recess appointments are away for the president
Speaker 1: to temporarily install someone as an officer while the Senate
Speaker 1: is out of session, okay, and the president can just
Speaker 1: appoint this person as a recess appointment. If the Senate's
Speaker 1: not in session, president wants to make an appointment, he
Speaker 1: can appoint them via recess. Now, the sort of messaging
Speaker 1: from Trump World was Trump needs to be able to
Speaker 1: make recess appointments in order to get started quick, because
Speaker 1: last time it took forever for Trump appointees to get confirmed.
Speaker 1: And that is true. In twenty seventeen, it took Trump
Speaker 1: appointees forever to get confirmed. But let's remember the different
Speaker 1: political circumstances between then and now. In twenty seventeen, Republicans
Speaker 1: only had fifty one of the one hundred Senate seats.
Speaker 2: Two of those.
Speaker 1: Republicans were Liberal Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
Speaker 1: The Senate rules at that time were also much different.
Speaker 1: Debate on presidential nominees was set per the Senate rules,
Speaker 1: could last as long as thirty hours within the Senate.
Speaker 1: In twenty nineteen, Mitch McConnell changed that rule and shortened
Speaker 1: it to three hours. Now, the president's going to have
Speaker 1: at least a fifty It looks like Republicans are going
Speaker 1: to have a fifty three seat majority in the Senate.
Speaker 1: They don't even have to listen to Lisa murkowskiir Susan
Speaker 1: Collins that much anymore. Debate is shorter. There's no reason
Speaker 1: why Trump couldn't get his appointees confirmed in a normally
Speaker 1: swift timetable. A LA Joe Biden's appointees in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: a LA Barack Obama's appointees et cetera. He could get
Speaker 1: people appointed fairly quickly. It's not Actually, I don't think
Speaker 1: there's some crisis that's likely to happen as long as
Speaker 1: Trump picks good, reasonable appointments. Well, I think we now
Speaker 1: see why Trump wanted recess appointments, because he's picking a
Speaker 1: bunch of people that it seems pretty implausible that the
Speaker 1: Senate's going to confirm. I think pro life senators should
Speaker 1: have real concerns about voting for Robert Kennedy Junior as
Speaker 1: HHS Secretary unless they get some very firm commitments from
Speaker 1: him about things he's going to do. I think everyone
Speaker 1: should be concerned about Matt Gates until they see the
Speaker 1: outcome of that House Ethics investigation. And here both sides
Speaker 1: hear from Gates, read the House Ethics investigation and figure
Speaker 1: out what exactly they were ethics investigating, and you know,
Speaker 1: kind of work through if Gates actually has the right experience,
Speaker 1: qualifications whatever to actually serve as Attorney General. So, and
Speaker 1: that's the thing I think a lot of messaging from
Speaker 1: Trump World has been a majority of Americans voted for Trump,
Speaker 1: and they voted for his appointees. If you don't support them,
Speaker 1: you don't support Trump and you're fighting against the American people,
Speaker 1: and you will be primary. It's like, well, no, not necessarily.
Speaker 2: Let's just do some math here, guys.
Speaker 1: I'll guarantee you this. Just looking at Matt Gates, there's
Speaker 1: no way Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, or Mitch McConnell are
Speaker 1: going to vote for him. You have one more Republican
Speaker 1: defection and he can't get confirmed. And guess what it.
Speaker 1: Susan Collins is not going to lose her seat because
Speaker 1: she votes against Matt Gays Gates. Lisa Murkowski is not
Speaker 1: going to lose her seat because she voted against Matt Gates.
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell's gonna retire at the end of this term.
Speaker 1: He doesn't care. And there are other Republican senators who
Speaker 1: are in their last term who don't care who over
Speaker 1: whom Trump has Trump or Trump World or Trump supporter.
Speaker 1: Voters have no leverage, so you can pretend all you
Speaker 1: want that if you don't support everything. And also, what
Speaker 1: is this If you don't support President Trump's picks, you
Speaker 1: don't support President Trump. I agree completely with how Trump
Speaker 1: wants to reform the Department of Justice. I think the
Speaker 1: FBI stinks. I think the way in which various actors
Speaker 1: within the Department of Justice have acted from twenty fourteen on,
Speaker 1: more or less, and probably from much longer before that,
Speaker 1: has been despicable in various respects. I want Trump to
Speaker 1: succeed in that goal. I just don't think mac gats
Speaker 1: is the right person to do it. And by the way,
Speaker 1: it's not like Trump has this great track record of
Speaker 1: appointing awesome cabinet secretaries. He appointed people who stunk repeatedly
Speaker 1: all four years when he was in office. He kept
Speaker 1: and it wasn't like he appointed a bunch of losers
Speaker 1: at the start and then learned his lesson and was
Speaker 1: appointing better people by the end. No, he kept appointing
Speaker 1: people whom he didn't like and whom he wound up
Speaker 1: firing and embarrassing circumstances. He hired John Bolton, of all
Speaker 1: people who completely disagreed with him on most things with
Speaker 1: regards to foreign policy, and wound up just trashing him
Speaker 1: the whole. Ever since he left, Trump consistently appointed terrible people.
Speaker 1: Are you really a friend of Trump? If you just say,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, keep appointing these terrible people, I'll vote for
Speaker 1: it because that's what the voters wanted. That's not how
Speaker 1: our democratic system works. The Senate has is a locus
Speaker 1: of power within the federal government. It is a.
Speaker 2: Locus of power.
Speaker 1: They are elected by their voters. They are responsive to them,
Speaker 1: and they are elected to give advice and consent, and
Speaker 1: maybe they tell Trump no with regards to this guy
Speaker 1: or this gal or whoever, No, this is not a
Speaker 1: good person for this job. I want you to succeed.
Speaker 1: I just think this is a bad pick. And I
Speaker 1: just hate the sort of circular conservative firing squad of
Speaker 1: like these loyalty tests that Trump people sort of put
Speaker 1: in place, like if you don't support Matt Gates, you're
Speaker 1: not true, a true America. If you don't support Matt Gates,
Speaker 1: then you need to get primary Why no one in
Speaker 1: America who's voting for Donald Trump was voting for Matt Gates.
Speaker 1: That wasn't stated. That wasn't part of the deal. The
Speaker 1: deal was, I want to reform the Department of Justice. Great,
Speaker 1: nominate someone who'd be good at that. Nominate a lawyer
Speaker 1: who has lots and lots of experience within DJ who's
Speaker 1: totally aligned with your vision. This isn't a question of
Speaker 1: being of objecting to Trump appointing quote loyalists, as a
Speaker 1: lot of media have described it. Yeah, the president should
Speaker 1: appoint loyalists. They're supposed to enact his agenda. Of course
Speaker 1: he should appoint loyalists. That's totally fair. What should he
Speaker 1: appoint people who hate his guts? That was the problem
Speaker 1: in the first administration. He kept appointing people who hated
Speaker 1: his guts. And by the way, if there's anyone in
Speaker 1: America who seems likely to turn around and stab Trump
Speaker 1: in the back over something, it's Matt Gates. Sorry, So
Speaker 1: I think the founding fathers were sensible. Now, if you've
Speaker 1: got a recalcitrant Senate who is refusing to do their
Speaker 1: job for silly reasons, and you can't staff your administration
Speaker 1: the way you want it, and they go into recess
Speaker 1: and you do a recess appointment to sort of temporarily
Speaker 1: fill those seats, Okay, that's fine. I mean, it is
Speaker 1: a provision in the Constitution to do recess appointments. I'm
Speaker 1: not denying that. I'm not saying that that isn't a
Speaker 1: tool that presidents could or should use in certain circumstances.
Speaker 1: This isn't those circumstances. Trump's just appointing. And by the way,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying all of his picks, these two picks
Speaker 1: Kennedy at HHS for ideological reasons that in fairness, maybe
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't share. Maybe Trump is just pro choice now
Speaker 1: and is okay with HHS and it's various subdivisions, continuing
Speaker 1: to fund abortion in the various ways that it has
Speaker 1: under the Biden administration, continuing to let the abortion pill
Speaker 1: be shipped out with minimal restrictions as it is now.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's just the Trump administration now when it comes
Speaker 1: to abortion. I don't know. Maybe it is. If it is,
Speaker 1: that's a very sad thing. It's a very sad thing
Speaker 1: for the Republican Party, and it's a very sad thing
Speaker 1: for this country. But it's because I agree with Trump
Speaker 1: on DOJ that I don't want Matt Gates to be
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, and I think it's wise for the
Speaker 1: Senate to exercise its power of advice and consent when
Speaker 1: we return. I think I might have spoken too soon
Speaker 1: about the whole Terrence Fraser Granite Park thing.
Speaker 2: Next on the John Girardi.
Speaker 1: Show, So Terrence Fraser, the CEO of Central Valley Sports Foundation,
Speaker 1: which has been Central Valley Community Sports Foundation, which has
Speaker 1: been the tenant at the Granite Park Athletic con Complex,
Speaker 1: which has been just a total eyesore for the city
Speaker 1: in terms of basically his inability to run it.
Speaker 2: Fraser was a business partner of T. J.
Speaker 1: Cox, the former congressman who has been I think he
Speaker 1: pled guilty to a bunch of different fraud schemes. They
Speaker 1: did a audit of Granite Park and found all kinds
Speaker 1: of deficiencies. They are I think over a million dollars
Speaker 1: behind in their various bills, and so the city said
Speaker 1: they need to leave. Fraser has said, hell no, quote,
Speaker 1: hell no, I'm not giving it up. I may give
Speaker 1: up all my real estate and all my investments, but
Speaker 1: my purpose is to save these kids' lives, because that's
Speaker 1: what God did for me, Fraser said during a news
Speaker 1: conference at the complex on Friday afternoon.
Speaker 2: This is the GV wire story.
Speaker 1: City said that the Central Valley Sports Foundation, led by Fraser,
Speaker 1: owes the city one point three million dollars in unpaid rent,
Speaker 1: utilities and profit sharing from a digital billboard on the property.
Speaker 1: Present City manager Georgia and White sent the nonprofit a
Speaker 1: letter Wednesday with a three day termination notice. I was
Speaker 1: really hopeful that this would I mean, he's apparently saying
Speaker 1: he's going to try and fight the need this order
Speaker 1: to vacate.
Speaker 2: Legally somehow.
Speaker 1: I just want the city to be extricated from this
Speaker 1: whole nightmare, from the SIA, Terence Frasier, TJ.
Speaker 2: Cox, this whole nightmare needs to go away. That'll do it.
Speaker 2: John Girardi shows you next time on Power Talk