Former President Trump shocked and appalled some Republican lawmakers on Wednesday by announcing plans to nominate Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) for attorney general.

Why it matters: Republican reaction to even Trump’s most controversial nominations has been muted so far, but placing the scandal-prone right-winger in the nation’s highest law enforcement role is a step too far for many.

“We wanted him out of the House … this isn’t what we were thinking,” quipped one House Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly about Trump’s decision.

What we’re hearing: Trump’s announcement was met with audible gasps by House Republicans during a conference meeting on Wednesday afternoon, multiple sources in the room told Axios.

One House Republican in the meeting described the conference’s response as “stunned and disgusted.”

What they’re saying: “Gaetz has a better shot at having dinner with Queen Elizabeth II than being confirmed by the senate,” said Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), referring to the British monarch who died in 2022.

Rep. John Duarte (R-Calif.), noting that Gaetz is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, said he would be “a compromised AG” and that “there are better choices.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she was “shocked” by the pick: “This shows why the advice and consent process is so important and I’m sure that there will be a lot of questions raised at his hearing.”

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said Gaetz has “got his work really cut out for him” to get confirmed.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point
*

In tatters?

Mate up until I saw the election results, I associated myself with moderate conservatives. After the election, I’m trying to reconcile with the fact that my county, my state, and my government elected Trump again.

Like, the part of me that wants to claim conservative fully supports your right to vote whoever you think is right.

But we voted him out in 2020?

Like how do you vote for someone who incited an insurrection?

How do you vote for someone who nominated a judge to the Supreme Court and then tried to waive the background check? Pick someone else on the shortlist or let the process prove him innocent.

How do you vote for someone who nominated a judge wjth so little federal court experience to the Supreme Court?

How do you vote for someone who nominated someone who nominated Aileen Cannon? She has made a mockery of the legal system.

How do you nominate someone with so many scandals you can’t even remember all of them? And is guilty of at least some of those through a court of law?

How do you vote for someone with which there is picture proof of him being friendly on multiple occasions with a pedophile/sex trafficker?

And yes, I’ve never been a CHRISTIAN conservative because I’m not Christian. But what the fuck are they trying to conserve? Off the top of my head, he is trying to topple the rule of law, precedence, trying to bypass the senate confirmation process, already ignored the norm by not welcoming Biden in 2020? He tried to dismantle the post office ffs.

His choices directly led to Dobbs. If you are against abortion, don’t get one. It was that fucking simple. Now, I have others beliefs hoisted upon me. What happened to separation of church and state? What happened to the American value of freedom of religion?

Did they not take the same civics class I took in high school? Do they not have brains? Like what the fuck is going on here that I don’t understand. 47 already showed us what kind of disaster he was as 45. Does nobody remember how he handled COVID?

Like how can I be an independent conservative when so many of my “fellow” conservatives voted for the antithesis of the status quo?

Yes, I get that we shouldn’t be afraid to challenge the status quo where needed but there is almost literally no benefit to anyone by his decisions. Shouldn’t the government make the country better and not worse? Like he is taking us into the past with no improvement

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You’re only incorrect on one point: he’s not taking us into the past. There has never been a time in the past that was comparable to the future he’s dumping us into.

The problem is that he’s spread such a large volume of misinformation that people select bits of it that THEY want to believe and accept those lies as truth while dismissing the rest.

One of the lies is that he’s returning America to how it was in some mythical golden age. That’s not where he’s taking it at all. That lie just gets buried under the others.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I get that. I was just trying to have a positive outlook

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 463K

    Comments