Dem 47
image description
   
GOP 53
image description

Confirmation Hearings: Trump May Not be Able to Ram Gabbard, Kennedy Through

Yesterday, the Senate voted to confirm Doug Burgum as the new secretary of the interior. It is true that he's a fawning lackey, and that he's also one of these people who claims the government can be run like a business. However, those are not disqualifying characteristics for any president's Cabinet nominees, and they certainly are not disqualifying characteristics for THIS president's Cabinet nominees (given the problems with some of the others). Further, secretaries of the interior are pretty much always politicians from the West (the last non-Westerner to be confirmed was Donald P. Hodel, of Virginia, appointed in 1985). The upshot is that Burgum was clearly acceptable enough to be easily confirmed, and indeed he was, by a vote of 79-18.

With the now-former North Dakota governor taking his seat, Donald Trump has now gotten eight Cabinet or Cabinet-level positions confirmed (in chronological order, with the final vote tally in parentheses):

If you are a Californian, or a Van Halen fan, you might know that 5150 is the statewide police code for "may have mental issues, should be involuntarily detained." That certainly adds a poetic dimension to Hegseth's confirmation vote.

Yesterday, there were a couple more high-profile, potentially controversial nominees who headed to The Hill to receive the third degree. If you are rooting for rough times for the Trump administration, then we have one piece of bad news for you, and one piece of good news. The bad news, if that's your vantage point, is that controversial FBI-Director-designate Kash Patel's hearing was mostly drama-free. You should expect him to be confirmed. The good news, meanwhile, is that controversial DNI-designate Tulsi Gabbard's hearing was something of a train wreck.

Entering into yesterday's hearings, you would have thought Gabbard's biggest weakness is her past support for intelligence leaker Edward Snowden. If you actually watched the proceedings yesterday, you would have concluded that Gabbard's biggest weakness is... well, her past support for intelligence leaker Edward Snowden. The Democrats held her feet to the fire on this matter, of course, but so too did several Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The latter list includes Susan Collins (ME), John Cornyn (TX), James Lankford (OK), Jerry Moran (KS) and Todd Young (IN). What everyone, but particularly the Republicans, wanted was some acknowledgment from Gabbard that Snowden harmed national security. Ten different times the would-be DNI refused to say so, agreeing only that he broke the law.

And while Snowden was the main topic of conversation, there were many other issues that came up during Gabbard's appearance, including her support for Vladimir Putin, her opposition to renewing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (that piece of the legislation allows the government to monitor non-citizen communications without a warrant), and her secret 2017 trip to Syria to meet with then-leader Bashar Assad. On the latter point, Gabbard claimed that she "was not aware of any accusations" that the two brothers who arranged the trip are accused of having ties to Hezbollah. As she has said in the past that she did know, it could be argued that she perjured herself with that bit.

Ultimately, the most important thing to know is probably this. After Gabbard's hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Fox entertainer Jesse Watters that, "I'm worried by what I hear from some of my Republican colleagues. I'm worried that her nomination may be in jeopardy." Keep in mind that Hawley, who is in lockstep with Donald Trump on pretty much everything, has no reason to lie here. Keep also in mind that these kinds of interviews, especially when coming from a senator who is very friendly to the administration, are often a warning to the White House to withdraw their nominee in order to save face.

Whether Hawley's words were meant as a warning or not, and whether the White House heeds the warning or not, Gabbard's nomination is clearly in trouble. She might well fail to secure the support of the Intelligence Committee, and she might even come up WAY short (say, 10-5 against). That is not automatically fatal, but it would be very difficult to overcome, especially since: (1) those Republicans who voted against her in committee would also vote against her on the floor of the Senate, and (2) there are Republicans who are not on the Intelligence Committee who have expressed reservations about Gabbard, and who might well join in casting "nay" votes (Mitch McConnell, R-KY, and Thom Tillis, R-NC, are obvious non-Intelligence candidates to vote against Gabbard).

It is also the case that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is shaping up to be a nail-biter, following confirmation hearings that weren't as bad as Gabbard's, but weren't good, either. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who is both a physician and chairman of the committee that will vote whether or not to endorse Kennedy's appointment, is very publicly expressing concerns about the nomination, and has said he may have something to announce over the weekend. If that is not code for "You better think about yanking this nomination, Mr. President," we don't know what is. If Cassidy does formally come out against Kennedy, it will give permission to other GOP senators to do so, in view of Cassidy's professional credentials.

If the Senate really does stand up to Trump, and rejects both Gabbard and Kennedy, then it would be double the total number of times that has happened in the last half-century. So, another record for Trump, kind of like his record for number of times being impeached. So much winning! (Z)



This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news, Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.

www.electoral-vote.com                     State polls                     All Senate candidates