On the menu today: Alabama Republican senator Tommy Tuberville argues that the “advice and consent” role for the Senate in the president’s cabinet, laid out in the Constitution, is a role solely for the opposition party, not the president’s party. Meanwhile, Iowa senator Joni Ernst says she is “not seeking to be secretary of defense,” and that she wants to give Pete Hegseth the opportunity to “rebut any allegations.” Meanwhile, the short-lived nomination of Hillsborough County sheriff Chad Chronister to be the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration is a microcosm of the problems of how Trump selects his team members. Trump isn’t getting the full record of the potential nominees, leaving everyone blindsided later on.
Senator Tuberville on the Constitution’s Advice and Consent: ‘That’s Not Our Job to Do That.’
Consider the philosophy of Alabama Republican senator Tommy Tuberville, who said to CNN’s Manu Raju on Thursday that Republican senators have no right to second-guess Trump’s selection of cabinet picks:
TUBERVILLE: Who are we to say that we’re a better vetter and picker of people than Donald Trump?
RAJU: You’re — you’re advise and consent. That’s your job.
TUBERVILLE: We’re advise and consent. But that’s more the Democrats.
As a reminder, the U.S. Constitution states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) The Constitution does not say anything about that advice and consent duty applying to just one party or the other:
RAJU: But don’t you think both sides should do the vetting?
TUBERVILLE: Well, you know, to some degree. I mean, but we have to be convinced. I mean, they should do all the background work. They should go after our nominees. I’ve not heard very little from the left. Donald Trump did all the vetting they needed to do on Pete Hegseth. And I just can’t believe we even have people on our side there saying, “Well, I’ve got to look at this. Got to look at that.” What they’re doing is they’re throwing rocks at Donald Trump. They’re not throwing them at Pete Hegseth, they’re throwing them at Donald Trump because they’re saying, “Well, we don’t believe you did the right vetting and we don’t believe he can do the job.” Wait a minute. That’s not our job to do that. That’s the Democrats.
As noted yesterday, Tuberville sounds as if he believes that Trump can do no wrong and that his job is to carry out Trump’s orders. A person like that is probably better suited to the executive branch of government, rather than the U.S. Senate. Perhaps if the Hegseth nomination fails, Tuberville would make a good secretary of defense. He did spend many years as a defensive coordinator.
Contrast Tuberville’s approach with that of Iowa GOP senator Joni Ernst, who laid out her thinking on Hegseth to RealClearPolitics:
“I am not seeking to be secretary of defense,” Ernst said after some on the left suggested she would make a better candidate than Hegseth and after critics on the right accused her of trying to sink his nomination for personal gain. A combat veteran herself, she explained that while “I absolutely have interest in the military,” her focus is on continuing her work in the Armed Services committee, not joining President-elect Trump’s cabinet. . . .
“I’ve known Pete for a very long time,” Ernst said of Hegseth, a former Fox News host and decorated veteran, adding, “I really appreciated the time that he took to sit down with me and walk through a number of issues.” The senator described the conversation as “thorough” and the nominee as “very forthcoming.” A sexual assault survivor, she confirmed that the two discussed the misconduct allegations during their 45-minute sit-down. . . .
“I don’t have a campaign against Pete,” she reiterated.
When the history of Trump’s second term is written, the name “Chad Chronister,” the sheriff of Hillsborough County, Fla., is not likely to take up more than a paragraph; maybe it will be only a footnote. But Chronister’s short-lived nomination to be the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration is a microcosm of the problems of how Trump selects his team members.
Wednesday, Trump took to Truth Social to insist that Chronister did not voluntarily withdraw, as the former nominee had written on social media:
The Wall Street Journal is becoming more and more obnoxious and unreadable. Today’s main headline is: “Trump’s DEA Pick Pulls Out In Latest Setback.” With all that’s happening in the World, this is their Number One story of the day. Besides, he didn’t pull out, I pulled him out, because I did not like what he said to my pastors and other supporters.
Okay, but “what he said to my pastors and other supporters” occurred back in 2020. (Notice someone at the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office took down the webpage announcing the arrest.) Chronister’s decision to arrest a pastor who held services in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic wasn’t hidden. It was national news — CNN, the New York Times, USA Today, Axios.
Similarly, at least two figures in the Trump circle offered the president’s version of events to the New York Post:
President-elect Donald Trump used a “forceful hand” to get his Drug Enforcement Agency pick to drop out on Tuesday after hearing “concerns” about the Floridian’s record, sources familiar told The Post — leading outgoing Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY) to make a bid for the position.
Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister issued a lengthy statement indicating he was withdrawing his name for the DEA slot — but did not reveal the specific reason he was dropping out of the confirmation process after just three days.
“Everyone knows President Trump calls the shots,” a well-placed source spilled. “The president heard the concerns about Sheriff Chronister and acted accordingly.”
“It was the president’s forceful hand that led him to remove his name,” a second source said.
No one expects the president to know every detail about the life of his selection to head the DEA. That’s what he has staff for; whoever recommended Chronister to Trump for that job probably didn’t mention the arrest of the pastor.
(I suspect they also didn’t mention Chronister’s June 2023 message to his county that his sheriff’s department “does not engage in federal immigration enforcement activities. We do not target individuals based upon immigration status. That’s the authority of federal agencies. Our goal is to build trust and foster strong partnerships with all residents, regardless of their background. . . . Together, we can build a stronger, safer, and more inclusive Hillsborough County.”)
Who watches the watchmen? Who selects the menu of options that Trump considers? What is Trump being told about his possible cabinet members?
As much as it may frustrate members of the Trump team that Pete Hegseth didn’t tell them about settling a sexual-assault allegation years ago, it is less than shocking that individuals who are up for a major role in the U.S. government are less than fully forthcoming with past scandals, controversies, mistakes, and other reasons they should not be nominated. It’s wrong, but it’s human nature. Everyone’s convinced that their dirty laundry will be kept secret.
Also, the people who really want to see a friend, former coworker, or like-minded ally in a particular cabinet position are either going to ignore or downplay the reasons they would not make a good nominee.
This is one of the reasons that Andy McCarthy is correct; Trump’s nominees for executive-branch positions should undergo the standard FBI background checks. Andy notes that, without passing an FBI background check, the Biden administration will not share any classified information with them. On January 20, Trump “will have authority to grant security clearances even if background checks have not been done (and even if they turn up disqualifying information); but not before. . . . That is not a recipe for hitting the ground running, as Trump says he wants to do and as Americans expect him to do.”
An FBI background check may not uncover political controversies. (In the case of Chronister, all the Trump transition team really needed was Google.) But it will check for any past criminal record, credit history, verification of birth, education, employment history, and military history, as well as interviews — sometimes interviews with past associates. The FBI states, “Residences will be confirmed, neighbors interviewed, and public records queried for information about bankruptcies, divorces, and criminal or civil litigation. The background investigation may be expanded if an applicant has resided abroad, or has a history of mental disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse.”
Keep in mind, one of the points of this process is to ensure that anyone with access to classified information has no dark secret that some foreign power could use for blackmail.
ADDENDUM: In case you missed it yesterday, after years of Joe Biden insisting that no one is above the law, his plan is to start popping out get-out-of-jail-free cards like a Pez dispenser. And Tulsi Gabbard — who in 2019 contended that President Trump “is supporting Al Qaeda” — is on the hunt for the ISIS air force.
