[Hopefully, any fans of Agatha Christie’s novels will excuse my adoption of her title to a 1927 mystery referring to four leaders of a global criminal ring. 🙂 ]
All are aware that any incoming president must make literally thousands of appointments to staff the posts discharging the government functions for which s/he is responsible. At the time this is typed, four of President-Elect Donald Trump’s nominees (hereafter herein, the “Big Four”) appear to be garnering the most scrutiny: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., as Health and Human Services Department (HHS) Secretary; former Fox News Commentator Pete Hegseth as Department of Defense Secretary (DoD); former U.S. HI Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI); and Trump Jack-of-All-Trades Kash Patel as FBI Director. Although one might be tempted to suggest that attempting to discern the relative threats each presents to our republic is akin to deciding whether one would rather be executed by lethal injection, electric chair, beheading, or firing squad (I’m a firing squad guy, myself; at least you’d take it standing up 😉 ), let’s take a look.
In a 2019 post about presidential cabinet appointments, I indicated, “… I follow an admittedly simple two-factor analysis in deciding whether I think the nominee should be confirmed: Is the nominee objectively qualified for the position? If so, is there any other objective factor that should nonetheless disqualify him/her from the positon for which s/he has been nominated (e.g., prior criminal conviction, demonstrated drug abuse problem, etc.)? Since the Constitution provides our President the power to nominate whom[ever] s/he considers appropriate, I don’t believe that a nominee’s subjective leanings or policy positions (if within the bounds of law) should be part of the equation.”
If I’m going to be consistent with past Noise, this is what I see looking at Mr. Trump’s Big Four:
Mr. Kennedy: I find Mr. Kennedy more nutty than nefarious, but he’s still dangerous. The New York Times recently reported that in May, 2021, Mr. Kennedy filed a petition with the Federal Food and Drug Administration seeking to have its authorization for the then-recently-released COVID vaccinations rescinded — when estimates were beginning to indicate that the vaccines were saving thousands of lives. It’s obvious that he’s not qualified to lead HHS. He should be rejected on this ground. We don’t need to consider any allegedly questionable personal elements of Mr. Kennedy’s background. That said, there is a silver lining for those who are concerned about the disruption he might cause if confirmed: Mr. Kennedy has had no experience running a huge bureaucracy such as HHS; he is going to have to maneuver through thousands of HHS scientists who are more qualified and knowledgeable about their bureaucracy than he is; and although I am confident that Mr. Trump relishes the consternation that he has caused by Mr. Kennedy’s nomination, I doubt he is going to want to spend a lot of political capital fighting the battles Mr. Kennedy’s inclinations might generate (note how Mr. Trump already assured the public that we are not going to end the polio vaccine).
Mr. Hegseth: It is obvious that Mr. Hegseth, like Mr. Kennedy, is completely unqualified to discharge the post for which he has been nominated. Although — in the words of the pro-Trump, Murdoch Family-controlled Wall Street Journal Editorial Board — Mr. Hegseth “has never run an organization of any size,” he is seeking to lead the organization with either the most or the second most employees in the world (I’ve seen one indication that India’s Ministry of Defence might be larger). During his hearing, he appeared to have limited knowledge of the world or of the strategic issues DoD faces. He should be rejected. There is no need to get as far as his views of women or his multitude of attendant personal failings. [Even so, when your own mom calls you out – even though Mr. Hegseth’s mother has now retracted her reported past comments about her son (without denying she made them) – that’s bad, Man. 😉 ] That said, there is a silver lining for those who are concerned about the disruption he might cause if confirmed: the Pentagon is arguably America’s most entrenched bureaucracy. Although Messrs. Trump and Hegseth can certainly fire a number of generals they find to be “woke,” Mr. Hegseth might find it easier to physically push the Empire State Building than to move our military colossus where it doesn’t want to go. In what I hope will not prove to be the most Pollyannaish comment ever made here, I have trouble believing that many senior officers – who are made of sterner stuff than career politicians — are going to be willing at Messrs. Trump’s and Hegseth’s instance to use American military force against American citizens who may hereafter be demonstrating peacefully against Trump Administration policies.
Ms. Gabbard: It is ironic that one of the two of the Big Four about whom I have the deepest misgivings perhaps fares the best within the framework I have outlined. If I am to be consistent with what I have said before – that a nominee’s subjective leanings or policy positions (if within the bounds of law) should not be part of the determination regarding the nominee’s confirmation – Mr. Gabbard’s clear affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin and sympathy for Russian claims should not be a bar to her confirmation. Mr. Trump’s own affinity for Putin is well established no matter whom he names to be DNI. Whether Ms. Gabbard has the background to be DNI – to deftly sift through the oceans of intelligence gathered by our resources, and effectively inform the President — is seemingly a subjective rather than an objective determination. Her 2020 presidential candidacy, her service in the U.S. House of Representatives, and her interactions in the foreign realm (no matter how misguided they seem to me) arguably lend weight to her resume; on the other hand, I’ve seen a Wall Street Journal report indicating that she recently unsettled some Republican Senators by being unable to describe what the DNI does. Mr. Trump must think she has the necessary qualifications, and he won the election. I am not aware of any reports of extraneous personal issues that would constitute a bar to Ms. Gabbard’s nomination. That said, a conceptual framework only takes one so far. If I got a vote on Ms. Gabbard’s nomination, I would vote NO.
Mr. Patel: I will mostly set forth quotes I’ve gleaned elsewhere:
The ACLU: “Patel has described his desire to target perceived enemies, including the press and civil servants. In September, Patel stated, ‘We [must] collectively join forces to take on the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen, and no it’s not Washington, DC, it’s the mainstream media and these people out there in the fake news. That is our mission!’”
The Washington Post: “Kash Patel, Donald Trump’s pick to lead the FBI, has suggested that multiple individuals previously critical of the president-elect should be criminally investigated, according to a review by The Washington Post of dozens of hours of appearances on conservative podcasts and TV interviews over the past two years.… Patel floated criminal probes of lawmakers and witnesses who gave evidence to the Jan. 6 committee…. Those include former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson and police officers who testified about defending the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack.… If confirmed by the Senate, Patel would have the authority to launch FBI investigations .… In June 2023, Patel told Donald Trump Jr. on his podcast that ‘the legacy media has been proven to be the criminal conspirators of the government gangsters,’ referring to roughly five dozen members of the ‘deep state’ listed in his 2023 book, ‘Government Gangsters.’ And in December 2023, Patel told former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon on his podcast that journalistsshould be investigated,repeating false claims that Trump had won the 2020 election. ‘We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,’ Patel said. ‘We’re going to come after you. Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.’”
The Roll Call (a publication rated “Center” by All Sides): “Kash Patel is set to face questions during a bid to be the next FBI director about his history of fierce criticism of current and former federal officials, including a list of 60 people he has deemed members of the ‘Executive Branch Deep State’ that critics have dubbed an enemies list. The list appears in an appendix of Patel’s book, ‘Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy.’ It includes people such as FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and President Joe Biden. There are high-profile Democrats, Trump administration officials who have rejected his false 2020 election fraud claims and other administration officials who have since spoken out critically about his behind-the-scenes conduct. Patel used the book to fume against what he called the ‘deep state,’ a pejorative term for current and former federal officials, which he said was the ‘most dangerous threat to our democracy.’ … [S]ome critics have raised concerns that he will wield the sprawling investigative authority of the FBI to investigate and prosecute Trump’s enemies, if he’s confirmed. The president-elect, who flirted with authoritarian themes during his campaign, has called for the prosecution of perceived foes…. Patel’s list includes Biden administration officials as well as first-term Trump officials who have been critical of Trump, such as former Attorney General William Barr; former national security adviser John Bolton; Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper…. In his memoir, Barr wrote that he told White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that Patel would get a role at the FBI ‘over my dead body.’ ‘Patel had virtually no experience that would qualify him to serve at the highest level of the world’s preeminent law enforcement agency,’ Barr wrote. NBC News reported that Bolton, who after leaving office lambasted Trump’s fitness for the presidency, said Trump had picked Patel to be his Lavrentiy Beria, an infamous Stalin police chief, and said that the ‘Senate should reject [Patel’s] nomination 100-0.’ … Patel, in the book, said the list was not exhaustive and did not include ‘other corrupt actors of the first order,’ such as Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who will be a senator and able to vote on a Patel nomination.”
A link to the full list included in Mr. Patel’s book is provided below. Unlike the bureaucratic and institutional constraints confronted by incoming Cabinet Secretaries, an FBI Director has fewer restraints. An exhaustive investigation of a private citizen such as Ms. Hutchinson, no matter how unwarranted, has the power to emotionally and financially destroy the subject’s life. Although he has reportedly recently assured a couple of Senators, including Democratic U.S. PA Sen. John Fetterman, that if confirmed he will not seek to prosecute Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies, you make up your own mind. (I do seem to recall Mr. Trump’s first-term Supreme Court nominees assuring the Senate that Roe v. Wade was settled precedent.) Mr. Patel’s statements make it appear that he is blissfully unaware of a little-known provision called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and I’m pretty sure that his declarations are evidence of notions that would be unconstitutional if implemented by an FBI Director. I’m with Messrs. Barr and Bolton on this one.
As anyone following reports of current Congressional machinations is aware, the majority of the Big Four appears highly likely to be confirmed, and perhaps all of them will be – I guess demonstrating that in the last analysis, it really doesn’t matter whether you’re injected, electrocuted, beheaded, or shot.
I’ve been a bit amused by some commentators’ sometimes-painful attempts since the election to provide a more benevolent gloss to the prospective actions of the incoming Administration. (I know, I know; a dark Irish sense of humor 😉 .) Although such is the American way – we have generally tended to rally around a new President, at least initially – Mr. Trump is not a new president. I give the President-Elect unqualified credit for consistency. What you see is what you get. The time for emotion has passed. His nominations of the Big Four, together with his bizarre suggested annexation of Canada and even the implied willingness to use force in Panama and Greenland, constitute compelling evidence that we are entering another staging of the divisive, vindictive, chaotic theater of the absurd we had during the first Trump Administration. I only hope that the Americans who voted for Mr. Trump understood what they’re going to get. You know the wag’s definition of insanity; I would prefer not to think that these citizens are completely insane.
Think this is only so much Noise? I sincerely hope you’re right. To use a phrase that Mr. Trump and I both appreciate: We’ll see what happens.
McCoy's Noise 