President-elect Donald Trump has promised to have special counsel Jack Smith and his entire team within “two seconds“his inauguration.
Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt spoke on Thursday morning Trump asked whether he planned to pardon himself or fire Smith on the day he would take his oath of office.
“It’s so simple – I would fire him in two seconds,” Trump said, adding that he “Supreme Court immunity” and called Smith a “crooked person.”
He has also hinted that he might appoint his own special counsel to investigate the 2020 election, which the media continually claims is as pure as blowing snow.
MOLLIE LINE: The Washington Post reports that President-elect Trump plans to fire the entire team that worked under special counsel Jack Smith at the Justice Department. These Justice Department employees worked on two federal lawsuits against the up-to-date president. The report adds that Trump plans to create teams within the department to investigate suspected fraud in the 2020 election. Let’s work on unpacking some of this as we move forward. More on President-elect Trump’s plans, especially for the Justice Department.
Joining us is former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasky. Thank you for giving us some time this Saturday afternoon, Andrew. We really appreciate that. It starts right from the first start. The idea that an entire team could be fired.
Now, it is not uncommon for a up-to-date president or administration to bring in up-to-date people and up-to-date teams, especially when legal concerns are raised, and AGs across the country. What do you think of this headline?
ANDREW CHERKASKY: When you look at the people who worked under Jack Smith, you have to think about the credibility of the actions they took. First, we have an election that clearly demonstrated that the American public vehemently disagrees with what Jack Smith has done over the last four years. But then you have to look at the fact that these lawyers working under Jack Smith were pushing a novel legal issue that was almost impossible to consider because it was going to the Supreme Court.
So if these are the lawyers who worked there, does Donald Trump really want these lawyers to stay at the DOJ? And that’s why I think it’s absolutely appropriate to think and talk about the idea that these people might be well suited to leave the DOJ. We’re not talking about prosecuting these people, but I think the idea of kicking them out is probably clever.
MOLLIE LINE: And now I’m going to switch gears a little bit, to the AG pick, Pam Bondi. This is a good choice, a Trump loyalist, someone he predictably has a lot of trust in, but there is also criticism.
This is Elie Honey. He is the former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York who is speaking about Bondi’s election.
CNN VIDEO: There is nothing wrong or unusual about an attorney general advocating the same policies and ideology as the president. That’s how these things work. But I think the massive problem with Pam Bondi is that she has vocally denied the 2020 election, and I think that raises legitimate questions about her independence and credibility, and I expect that will be a sticking point if she comes before the Senate.
MOLLIE LINE: So he’s sitting on something that’s also covered in the Washington Post article about President Trump looking back at the 2020 election and looking for answers. Your thoughts on how the president picks Bondi, and what he thinks about it too, may be focused on looking back at the 2020 election.
ANDREW CHERKASKY: Well, Pam Bondi really gives President Trump everything he was hoping for from Matt Gaetz and more. Her credibility as a very effective AG in the state of Florida, which is particularly MAGA type and politics, and she has proven to be effective. Matt Gaetz had not run a similar office.
So I think she’s really a stronger choice to maintain the policies and ideas that Donald Trump has for the Justice Department. As for criticizing her, I mean, if you want to go back and move on…
MOLLIE LINE: Oh, Andrew, I’m so sorry. We’re running out of time. I’ll have to pack this up a little quicker than I expected. But, Andrew Cherkasky, thank you very much for coming. I really appreciate it. I really appreciate you sharing your insights with us.
Curiously, rumors are mounting that Matt Gaetz might be exactly the guy Trump has in mind as his special counsel, whether for the 2020 election or, more deliciously, to investigate the actions of Merrick Garland’s house of political criminals.
In my opinion, appointing Gaetz as Attorney General was a long shot. The numerous ethics investigations against him and the FBI’s criminal investigation would obviously become public and make it very arduous for at least four Republican senators to vote for him. When he announced his withdrawal from the exam, he had this message:
Hmmm…I wonder what that means? “In combat,” but from a “new perspective.”
Then there was this:
This interaction took place between Gaetz and a major MAGA X account, formerly Twitter.
Gaetz has also made stock trading an issue in Congress. He even teamed up with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Sponsor legislation Prohibition of the operate of inside information. Could that be the goal?
And no MAGA political shenanigans would be complete without Roger Stone.
Obviously none of this means anything. Gaetz could quietly leave Congress and the media spotlight, return to Florida and do something unexciting and low-profile. On the other hand, the appointment of Gaetz as special counsel to investigate the true purpose of Jack Smith’s investigation and its coordination with Trump enemies in Georgia and New York, or the activities in the Justice Department or the misconduct on Capitol Hill and Jack Smith’s own Using investigations to defend his activities would be the ultimate trolling of the NeverTrump Lawfare scam.
