Sound legal opinion and the betting markets agree, Gaetz will not be Attorney General.
Note: my original image was about Gaetz being confirmed. This is a much better line of thought. Polymarket current odds are 36 percent
Constitutional Showdown
This morning Trump threatened a Constitutional Showdown that I am increasingly confident he not only should lose, but will lose.
“Trump has sent word to the Senate Majority Leader Thune that if the Senate doesn’t confirm AG Gaetz, he will appoint him using the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which allows for temporary appointments for up to 210 days, with a possible 210-day extension. This individual would not require Senate confirmation.”
And of course we have the expected, non-thinking reply “Say hello to AG Gaetz.”
A few of us, very few of us, no make that a miniscule number of us, go beyond cheerleading everything Trump says or does (or the exact opposite), to a genuine focus on ideas and repercussions.
Is Gaetz Qualified?
The answer to that is clearly no. Some will disagree, and many just don’t give a damn.
But here’s the setup.
Gaetz is woefully unqualified for the job. He only practiced for two years in a small law firm in tiny Fort Walton, Florida. He went into politics two years after law school, getting elected to vacant seat in the Florida state senate.
There’s no indication he ever practiced law after that. And he has no sense of what can be done.
Gaetz is largely responsible for all the House infighting that led to the ouster of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. The deal Johnson got was hundreds of billions of dollars deeper in the red.
Gaetz has never run anything. Look at the House infighting making a farce of their budget demands.
Qualifications Be Damned
It’s not my opinion that matters.
Rather it’s a constitutional right of the Senate to make that judgement.
We already know what that judgment is.
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998
Did any cheerleaders bother to look at the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.
I did.
Please consider the Congressional Research Service article The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview, emphasis mine.
The legislative history of the Vacancies Act sheds some light on the purpose of this exemption, suggesting that Congress sought to exclude these “unusual positions” from Section 3348 because these officials are meant to be independent of the commission or agency in which they serve.
The Senate report accompanying the Act suggests that for at least some of these positions, Congress intended “to separate the official who would investigate and charge potential violations of the underlying regulatory statute from the officials who would determine whether that statute had actually been violated.”
Apart from the first assistant, the President “may direct” two other classes of officials to serve as acting officers instead. First, the President may direct a person who has been confirmed to a different advice-and-consent position to serve as acting officer. Second, the President can select a senior “officer or employee” of the same executive agency, if that employee served in that agency for at least 90 days during the year preceding the vacancy and is paid at a rate equivalent to at least a GS-15 on the federal pay scale. Section 3345 places an additional limitation on the ability of these three classes of officials to serve as acting officers for an advice-and-consent position. As a general rule, if the President nominates a person to the vacant position, that person “may not serve as an acting officer” for that position.
Constitutional Considerations
Some have argued that temporary service under the Vacancies Act might violate the Appointments Clause by allowing government officials to act as “Officers of the United States” absent appointment through the proper constitutional processes. Justice Thomas expressed this concern in a concurring opinion in NLRB v. SW General, Inc., arguing that the President could not act alone to appoint someone to serve as the NLRB’s general counsel.
Another possible concern not raised by Justice Thomas is that even if acting officials could be considered inferior officers rather than principal officers, the Vacancies Act may violate the Appointments Clause to the extent that it allows nonofficer employees to automatically serve as acting officials by virtue of being first assistants.
It is likely that litigants challenging the validity of acting officials’ service will continue to raise constitutional arguments under the Appointments Clause. Further judicial consideration of the issue may shed additional light on what types of acting officials are constitutionally problematic and which of the theories described above may justify acting service.
The Constitution
The Constitution gives the Senate the power advise and consent, consistent with the system of checks and balances which is the foundation of the entire constitutional system. That great responsibility was not put in place, just so that it can be subverted at will.
The central driving principle of the Constitutional system was a system of checks and balances. It was sine qua non to the entirety of the structure structure. Having created that Senatorial power by specific language as one such check they did not intend to have the person subject that check opt out as a conscious way to subvert the system.
The recess appointment provision was written at a time when Congress was not in session most of the time, and it might take a week or two to get the word out that a vacancy occurred and then a week or two to get everyone back to Washington.
A constitutional expert friend of mine told me to “Read Scalia’s concurring opinion in NLRB v Canning.”
Here is a pertinent law review of NLRB v Canning.
Justice Scalia also examined the government-structuring provisions of the Constitution and the responsibilities of the judicial branch.[11] He emphasized the Court’s duty to interpret the Constitution in light of its text, structure, and original understanding.[12] He first analyzed intrasession breaks and vacancies by examining the plain meaning of the text.[13] This Essay focuses specifically on the sources Justice Scalia used for his plain-meaning argument to define “[v]acancies that may happen,” the credibility of these sources, and whether there are other sources that substantiate his argument.
Justice Scalia cites Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language[30] to define “[v]acancies that may happen.”[31] Johnson’s Dictionary is a credible source for interpreting the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.[32] In fact, Johnson’s Dictionary was considered the “standard authority at the time when the Constitution was drawn up in 1787.”[33] Justice Scalia invoked Johnson’s Dictionary by writing: “ ‘Happen’ meant then, as it does now, ‘[t]o fall out; to chance; to come to pass.’ Thus, a vacancy that happened during the Recess was most reasonably understood as one that arose during the recess.”[34]
Other dictionary sources that support Justice Scalia’s definition of “happen” include: William Perry’s Royal Standard English Dictionary, which similarly defines “happen” as “to come to pass, to light on”;[35] Thomas Sheridan’s A Complete Dictionary of the English Language, which defines “happen” as “to fall out by chance, to come to pass; to light on by accident”;[36] John Walker’s A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language, which also defines “happen” as “to fall out by chance, to come to pass; to light on by accident”;[37] and the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “happen” as “to take place; to occur, betide, befall.”[38] While citing all of these dictionaries may have been unnecessary, given that many of them include Johnson’s Dictionary’s definition of happen (“to fall out; to chance; to come to pass”[39]) and are likely reprints of Johnson’s Dictionary, examining these additional sources further supports the credibility of Justice Scalia’s analysis.
Many other historical documents use the words in the phrase “[v]acancies that may happen” that confirm Justice Scalia’s argument. For instance, George Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton: “I shall not be surprized [sic] at any event that may happen, however extraordinary it may be.”[53] Although Washington does not speak directly to “[v]acancies” here, this does imply that the phrase “that may happen” often refers to unexpected or extraordinary occurrences, which would again support Justice Scalia’s conclusion that “[v]acancies that may happen” must arise during the recess.
Force vs Happen
Trump proposes to force an event.
Moreover, Trump proposes to use the House of Representatives to force that event.
That Gaetz is totally unqualified for the job is a secondary matter, and one for the Senate to decide, not the President and the House.
Trump’s game is to get the House to call a 10+ day recess, then if the Senate refuses to go along (it won’t), use his alleged constitutional authority to force a recess.
Not only is this unconstitutional (but to be determined), it is blatantly stupid.
If it were to succeed, then future presidents (democrats) acting with a House could and would do the same thing.
Just as I was finishing this article, a friend emailed this WSJ Op-Ed.
Would Trump’s Justices Approve His Recess Appointments?
Please consider Would Trump’s Justices Approve His Recess Appointments? by Jed Rubenfeld.
Even if Congress adjourns voluntarily, there’s a problem. The Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause states: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” Critical here is National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014).
Noel Canning struck down the recess appointments before the court, which Barack Obama made in 2012. But Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion includes two findings that would be favorable to Mr. Trump. First, “the Recess” can refer to any adjournment of sufficient length (generally at least 10 days), even if taken in the middle of a congressional session. Second, the clause applies to all vacancies in existence at the time, regardless of when the vacancy occurred. Mr. Trump would need to rely on both these rulings.
The problem is that Justice Antonin Scalia’s concurrence, joined by three other justices, rejected both those rulings. Scalia said that “the Recess” refers only to the annual year-end recess in the middle of a congressional term. He also said that the words “happen during the Recess” mean that the clause applies only to vacancies that open up during the recess, not to those that predate it.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito all joined Scalia’s concurrence in 2014. Mr. Trump’s three appointees—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett—pride themselves on being text-first originalists, and Scalia’s concurrence accords with this approach. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson might also join the Scalia position if she believes Mr. Trump is improperly attempting to circumvent senatorial power.
The silver lining for Mr. Trump is that only the Supreme Court can overturn its precedents. If he can get the Senate into recess, the lower courts would be obligated to follow the Noel Canning majority and uphold the president’s recess appointments. That would buy him some time. But once the case reaches the high court, which could happen quickly, Mr. Trump should be prepared to see his recess appointments declared null and void.
Mr. Rubenfeld is a professor at Yale Law School and a First Amendment lawyer.
Hypocrite’s Mission
We may disagree on Gaetz’s qualifications. I am OK with that.
But …. My God, if Biden or Obama had tried to do this, Republican hypocrites would be screaming like mad!
These hypocrites now look away as Trump tries to trash the constitution.
The betting markets, common sense, and legal experts are in alignment: Stripping the Senate of its constitutional role to approve appointments would be unwise and the Supreme Court should not and would not approve.
Do you really want the next Biden clone (or worse), to have the same power Trump demands?
If so, seek help for TDS Type II (Trump can do nothing wrong).
I call these issues case-by-case. Unfortunately, It’s a very rare thing. You get beaten up by the true believers Right and Left if you try.
So have at it.
Meanwhile, I am happy to report Trump Pushes for Peace in Ukraine as Biden Accelerates War Effort.
Note: I replaced the lead image.
My original image was about Gaetz being confirmed. This is a much better line of thought. Polymarket current odds are 36 percent.
This post is not about Garland or at this point even about Gaetz’s qualifications.
Rather it is about the constitutional authority the Senate has on appointments.
I do not want to tangle this thread with Gaetz vs Garland nonsense.
Second, if you want to argue law, then rebut what I posted, especially Eric Vahlbusch.
1: The intent of the constitution is clear. 2: NRLB v Canning is Clear. 3: Scalia and Thomas both question unbridled authority (I will look for the Thomas reference but I saw it). 4: There are 3 liberals on the court that won’t want Trump to have this authority. 5: I thjnk we can count Roberts in so we are at 5 already. 6: I don’t know about the rest but I suspect Kavanaugh would side with Trump. 7: So if this gets to the SC, then look for Kavanaugh to write the dissenting opinion.
Points 1-3 are statements of fact.
Points 4-7 are my estimates of what will happen.
Amazing Biden got some real awful cabinet people , yet the Deep state will do what ever it takes !
There is nothing “deep state” about insisting someone be qualified for for the job. I accurately detailed why Gaetz is unqualified.
Are you really telling me there is no one better qualified to do the job?
Who decides its it the voters ???
Davis & Clark, very well known and highly respected Attorneys, absolutely disagree with you. They have both clearly outlined, why there may be sour grapes, there is absolutely no reason why, and how it could and should legally be done.
You are a lawyer as well, I do believe but I am not sure. If so if it’s in law, then please listen to them, as lawyers, and let me know where, because I have not seen anyone say so as of yet? If it’s not in law, then please digest it, and repost a more accurate assessment that’s legally represented.
Thank You!
Lawyers disagree
I posted comments from a constitutional expert and a friend who graduated top of Harvard Law Review.
I am not a lawyer, but I have cited clear references, and you offer nothing but names. I also offer my personal opinion.
The founders clearly, and you have to be an idiot to deny it, wanted a system of checks and balances.
Do you deny that?
Assuming not, then what happens to the Senate if the President and the House collude against it.
It ends up as tyranny of the executive.
There would never be another Senate confirmation the moment the Legislature and Executive get together to force a recess.
Do you disagree with that?
Will the SC go along?
We can agree on this: You don’t know and I don’t know, and nobody does.
But I suggest logical sanity would prevail. It’s possible the Supreme Court nullifies the Senate. I doubt it.
I suspect that your Davis & Clark duo are simply arguing for Trump, possibly out of TDS Type II, but you posted nothing for me to look ay. Regardless, I stand by the logic I presented.
– Lawyers disagree > In the end only 1 can be right, or the law needs to be changed for being too ambiguous. Correct?
> You did, and I cannot find the video I was referring to (maybe scrubbed?), but here are their names (One may be the AG if not Gaetz), and something about them:
“Matt Gaetz is an outstanding lawyer and constitutionalist,” Clark said. He is among those chargedalongside Trump with participating in an alleged scheme to overrun the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, and has pleaded not guilty. (NOTE: Jeffrey Clark has been dropped from Donald Trump’s election-fraud case.)
Meanwhile, Davis wrote on X: “The next Attorney General must clean house and hold accountable those responsible for politicizing and weaponizing intelligence agencies and law enforcement. Matt Gaetz has the backbone to do the job.”
If I find it I will send it along.
– The founders clearly, and you have to be an idiot to deny it, wanted a system of checks and balances. > The Founders clearly did, but time has eroded many of them. A perfect example is Biden be pushed aside. So “No” I won’t say I deny it, and I am clearly not an idiot by my example, or the World is. I will say this may be a gray area yet TBD by the powers to be, so let’s let it play out, and we shall see. I still say he gets confirmed, but again we shall see…
– what happens to the Senate if the President and the House collude against it. > That’s not going to happen, but if it somehow did, then we can discuss that, then. So “No” I don’t agree with something that hasn’t happened yet.
– Will the SC go along?
> Again, who knows, and it hasn’t happened.
– We can agree on this: You don’t know and I don’t know, and nobody does.
> Yes We Can, and I Do!!!
Thank you for your time!
Hi Mish, so as you stated: “I posted comments from a constitutional expert and a friend who graduated top of Harvard Law Review.”
Where I did not read that, I can’t assume what he said, and was referring to, but perhaps it was in regards to the below?
OK, so Mish, I heard some others referring to what I was talking about. It is in regards to “The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998” to (FVRA) is a United States federal statute that establishes the procedure for filling vacancies in executive branch agencies that require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. The act aims to ensure stability and continuity in government by setting time limitations and requirements for temporarily filling vacant positions.
It is only for a set number of days (120), but can be rolled over once again, so in essence 240 Days. That’s all Matt will require, and already has much of the paperwork started and based on the past, I dare say finished. He’s just awaiting the confirmation and it off to the races!
I honestly do not see this from being able to be stopped, but hey what do I know right? We shall see, but I see Matt heading right where he rightfully belongs in todays Politics, and it can’t happen soon enough…
By the way, out of curiosity if he did reference this, did he touch upon the temporary order that allows this to occur, and Constitutionally I will have to assume, based upon what’s said?
The debate at had is can Trump force a recess.
I say he can’t
And if he can’t that is the end of it. Because Gaetz does not have the votes.
I am going to write another post on this.
C’mon Mish, on November 10’th,
Trump invoked a (Legal) provision under the US Constitution that would “Allow Him to appoint cabinet members without Senate confirmation.”
Now to take it a step further, “ALL 3 Candidates” for “Senate Leadership” have 100% Agreed already to do so! It’s Done!
The “Only Reason” this is even a controversy, is because the Democrats don’t like Trumps pick. They “Loved Mitch and Others” because “They were RINO’s” and they can’t stand Gaetz and others, because He/They are Not!
Let’s face it Mish, the Dems got there A$&’s handed to them, and they are having a pity party. They see this pick as yet another salvo across the bow. They can’t take any more slings and arrows, as they are the walking dead already. They are broke, unemployed, and have “Zero Direction” and are “Desperate” so as is usually the case… “Desperate Times, Call for Drastic Measures” and the Dems are trying to pull every lever they can think off to toss a cog in the Republicans Wheels, but it won’t work this time IMO.
The overwhelming Public is “For Trump” and “Whatever He Needs” to get the Job He Promised DONE! I dare say, all Politicians that stand in His Legal ways are foolish and the public will let them know in a hurry.
Many of these “Democrat Operatives” are already toast, so they are causing much more pain for themselves in the Public Eye if they insist on being the “Big Bad Wolf” Yet Again!!! They may “Never Work Again” because once destroyed, they are no good to the MSM, all the News Stations, and Every Opinion Station that exist, in other words they are completely done if they keep it up, and the Public will see to that.
I am 100% sure that Gaetz gets the job! They will allow this one, or risk many, many more to follow. “Legal Maneuvers Work” and Trump plays by the book and legally, which is why he is rarely challenged, and typically Wins, when He is… I see this as Legal, I see this as Warranted, and I see nobody standing in the way, of any Prominence, as they are far to smart for that…
Hi Mish, I did respond below.
– Note: I replaced the lead image. > Note: First mistake
– My original image was about Gaetz being confirmed. > The correct Image
– Polymarket current odds are 36 percent. > On 11/01/24 Polymarket Boosted the Odds of a Kamala Win. They had her at 60% Odds of a Win at one point. Sure I trust them, NOT.
– This post is not about Gaetz’s qualifications. > Obviously because He Has ALL of Them!
– 1: The intent of the constitution
> That’s a joke! This has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. It’s up to the people in office to decide whom. Nothing written down that states such an opinion as factual as you state in your paragraph, but I could be wrong as well.
There may however, be some/many such statements within the Constitution, that apply to other areas and those may have been in “Clear Violation” of the Constitution, but all I hear is Crickets! (Ex. President is to Protect U.S. Border. Acting President is to Protect U.S. Border.) but I digress…
I see no reason whatsoever, as to why he won’t or shouldn’t be sworn in, if chosen to be that Candidate. Roughly 70% of the Popular Vote wants Him, and also many others in other positions of office. You see Mish, when the President Wins roughly 70%, then it’s ALL the politicians duty, to help enact his legislation. If they don’t agree, then there vote will show, if it’s a Republican, then they should either switch parties and vote accordingly, or shut up, and vote with Your Party, and The Presidents Party, and The Peoples Party!!!
Damn it, let’s start acting like the “United States” and learn to get along, and work for the Majority of Americans on the bulk issues, and All Americans on all the issues that they can. Trump was elected by a “Clear Majority”, so let’s start acting like it, and vote for what the “Clear Majority” has asked ALL to do For America and by Americans. Geez…
Mike, even if confirmed, Gaetz will not act alone. It’s almost obvious that he is the appropriate “front image” of a team that Trump may (or may not) be assembling. Maybe you have over-dramatized this particular topic?
DOJ & FBI need a wrecking ball. Gaetz is thoroughly qualified for the job.
George Bush, Clinton and Obama made recess appointments although these were not for top cabinet positions. Bush 171, Bill C 139, Obama 32. So there is precedent
What do you have against a child rapist being AG?
Yea, well, how’d all those qualified lawyers, from Robespierre, Lincoln, Lenin, Mitchel, Holder, Barr, etc, etc. work out MIsh? At least a few lost their heads for their qualified war time deeds during the absence of law when a war crime is a contradiction in terms among other nonsense..
I guess MAGA has morphed into MSGA
Make sex trafficking of underage girls great again! (& maybe even legal)
Would you hire Gaetz to defend you? I would.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdZC55JpA0Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo6IjISCHhI
It’s funny, really; or maybe it’s me. Last night, Zelensky (with US support) fired six long-range ATACMS missiles some 75 miles into Russia. This follows approval by the blithering idiot currently in the White House. Currently, Putin has not responded.However, Sweden and Finland are actively preparing for war. To me, this would seem to take precedence over anything concerning Gaetz.
That said, is there is a better person to demand the release of the Robert Hur tapes of Biden’s ‘deposition,’ and to follow it up with legal beheadings of the guilty parties?
WHO is this better candidate, untainted by decades of deceit?
BTW, I’m willing to wager DOJ is guilty of perjury with respect to the transcript HUR released. If I’m right, the ‘deep state’ is in plain sight. How far will it go? As far as it takes. They are the same people who concocted RussiaGate, and are ready to start WW3.
Hmm… bit more concerned about the demented Democrat US president authoirising the US military/intelligence to assist Ukraine in firing long-range missiles into the territory of the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth, which has stated clearly that doing so invites nuclear armageddon, merry christmas, eh.
I mean, I guess it’s one way of avoiding handing over power to Trump, just take down millions of innocent civilians in a needless exchange of multiple nuclear weapons.
Ditto! This is the ‘scared shitless’ effect of elections having consequences–Trump might actually open Pandora’s Box.
IMHO, ‘Gaetz must go’ is a distraction of the highest order. This is a ‘shell game’. Everyone watches the shells being moved, while the guy in the back row gets stabbed.
Let’s hope they get this buffoon out of the way, and quickly!
I’ll have Vladimir send you 8 rubbles for your sh_t post.
Perhaps the term attorney in the office of the Attorney General fools some idealistic people that it’s not a political office to achieve political ends through political means.
Can a sitting president adjourn congress, allowed prorogation, without dissolving congress and declare an emergency rule ?
Putin have changed his nuclear policy : if Ukraine cont to hit targets inside Russia with conventional weapons Russia will strike back with nukes. An attack by one country in the coalition against Russia is an attack by the whole coalition.
It is common knowledge the ATACMS missiles were targeted by US military in Ukraine, using US recon. I suspect this constitutes an act of war, without the approval of Congress.
I think it’s up to the Country being fired upon, as to whether it’s an “act of war” or not. I am quite sure they don’t give a damn what congress thinks though.
Any way I look at it, giving a green light to His Most-Comical Majesty Zelensky, and then targeting the missiles fired at Russia, places the US in a difficult position. Such an act of aggression (by the US) could irrevocably lead to global conflict–ya think Congress would be a little perturbed? It’s NOT! WHY??
What the Congress’ failure to remove a demented President does reveal is unmitigated disinterest in the welfare of its citizens, and a total lack of responsibility. In other words, the problems are systemic.
With this in mind, it is only to be expected that Congress will not tolerate Gaetz looking at their complicity with DOJ to subvert the laws. Dig deep enough, there are bodies to be found. Perhaps a coverup of Seth Rich’s murder? Or Obama’s chef? Or Scalia’s death?…
The DC Sewer is overflowing. It is long past time for flushing.
You can’t possibly ask a question like that, without knowing the answer…
As long as the msm is against him and floods the airwaves with negative articles against him, I am for him.
Mish blogs provoke his readers, pit them against each others, force them to debate think and learn. Mish is raising issues that we can discuss here with an open mind and lift us from our shallow, narrow existence. He is the inverse of other bloggers that muzzle us, using their fangs and threats to lead their sheeps to their cage and never ever apologize. It’s a meeting of mind place, so enjoy it as long as it last.
Nice click bait. The US attorney general is responsible for the FBI and gives advice and opinions to the president. Trump has private lawyers for advice . Until the weaponized FBI can effectively be transformed the should be put under Holman and secure the border.
I like it!
Who is going to have standing to sue to get the appointment invalidated? Do you think some senator is going to destroy his chances for re-election by suing Trump and the DOJ? A convicted felon arguing he gets a new trial because Gaetz was appointed improperly even though Gaetz wasn’t involved in the trial? Who has standing?
It seems that most in the comments section approve of Gaetz. For those that do, I wonder, is there anyone that Trump could appoint or anything that he could do that would cause you to criticize Trump and/or cause you to no longer support him? I’m just curious as to what it would take?
LOL, troll.🙄 Yes, A DEI/CRT/BLM/Antifa pick would make us revolt from Trump. However, he’s not going to do that.
Thanks for the reply. Not trolling at all. It was a serious question. It just seems to me that in the last 20 odd years people have become sycophants for thier candidate of choice. Thier rational mind stops working and they either ignore, explain away, or go down some nutty conspiracy rabbit hole to rationalize every stupid thing thier candidate does. As someone who believes that all of these politicians are self serving charlatans, it is fascinating to behold otherwise intelligent people falling for propaganda.
The problem is how many of those conspiracy theories have since been proven as fact. Not all, by a long shot, but the important ones now have credibility: like Epstein’s friends n high places, RussiaGate, Obama/Biden collusion with respect to Trump, Hunter’s laptop, Biden’s corruption in Ukraine… PizzaGate was always a farce
Oh, I have no party affiliation and vote based off of what the candidates put forward. Therefore, I’m not really the guy to ask about that.🤷♂️
At least one person has testified that Gaetz had sex with an underage girl. Why is Mike Johnson trying to bury the House ethics report? We are becoming a true banana republic under Trump.
gee, and so many others …….
the ME TOO bs is returning
It’s been a banana republic under Biden.
You might check ‘Candace Owens.’ It seems she might have relevant info on the underage girls thing.
Everyone is asuming that Gaetz does not get confirmed because of a salious report that was made up in some democrats imagination. This is also a test of the republican party in the Senate. Rhino’s will get along or get destroyed. The power now lies with Trump. A lesson from history is FDR destroyed the opposition in his own party first, Huey Long. Thune will tow the line or get destroyed. Trump learned the lesson of first term. Don’t let someone hold your lifevest when tieing your shoe on a sinking ship.
Sliding Scale -WAY DOWN!
Anyone recall how Clinton’s WELL QUALIFIED nominee for AG Zoe Baird was dropped over a whopping $80 failed payment for a maid’s FICA funding.
(Further, then only to turn around and whine over straight arrow Janet Reno.)
Now near ANY SHIT FLIES FOR TRUMP.
I remember the events on which Gaetz’ reputation as a Rambo were built only vaguely, but I do believe it was all about McCarthy making a solemn pledge that he would not cut a deal to keep the government open, and stabbed the country in the back and cut a deal anyway. Mish seems to be in the same camp as those who worship at the alter of pure pragmatism, and found no fault in what McCarthy did. Gaetz realized that we had all been betrayed, and that the consequences would be unimaginably huge. I recognize that what we got in Johnson was not an upgrade, but I felt at the time that not blowing up the Congress over that kind of betrayal would have the bigger price tag. I think that the subsequent events have borne that out.
Oh, and https://x.com/i/status/1858635331920187799
At some point, a person with integrity will do the right thing, and those without integrity will do everything to stop him/her..
Mike-well thanks for the shout out. LOL. I really do love you. I’ll attempt to respond.
One thing to consider. Under English Law the King had the right to dissolve Parliament at anytime. The Framers did not want to give POTUS that much power. But they did confer the Power to adjourn one of the Congressional bodies, if they could not agree on when to recess. That power has never been tested. Hence, anyone who says they know the outcome of testing that power is merely guessing.
But the power, or the threat of the power, exists. As does the actual power of the FVRA. Obama used the FVRA. He eventually got his hand slapped by SCOTUS due to the circumstances. In the meantime, his appointees were in their positions.
At the end of the day, I believe Gaetz will get confirmed. I don’t think he’s the best choice. But Trump holds all the cards in this fight.
Just researched this – and also heard this from my friend in the Pen – Steve Bannon’s guest – #### Best movie ever!
@mish – I have been following you for years. You are the best!!!
Thanks, I was going to email you. I removed a “clueless” taunt I made to you so perhaps you did not see it.
I have a friend who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court. He said to review Scalia’s concurring opinion in NLRB v Canning. And that Scalia’s wording was clear.
And the article I referred to said this:
Justice Thomas expressed this concern in a concurring opinion in NLRB v. SW General, Inc., arguing that the President could not act alone to appoint someone to serve as the NLRB’s general counsel.
The central driving principle of the Constitutional system was a system of checks and balances. It was sine qua non to the entirety of the structure structure. Having created that Senatorial power by specific language as one such check they did not intend to have the person subject that check opt out as a conscious way to subvert the system.
Your one hope against the above is easy to state.
We do not KNOW how the court would rule. I cited Kavanaugh specifically because my friend stated Kavanaugh is extremely in tune with original wording and intent but may bow down to Trump anyway. Now that’s an opinion but if not, then Kavanaugh would go the other way.
But I believe were are at 4 in need of 1. You need 5. I am confident there are not 5 votes.
Mish, the most persuasive of your arguments to me was actually the Polymarket odds. Thing is the FBI raided the home of the CEO of Polymarket and many of us are wondering if the reason why is Polymarket showed those media polls were so off. If so, that is the exact sort of nonsense we want the new AG to stop.
The argument that Gaetz is not qualified to be AG is ridiculously weak.
I agree that using the not in session way to approve Gaetz is rife with risk. It may just be a negotiating tactic though.
But I think you are massively underestimating how much passion there is in the Republicans/MAGA movement to reform justice. The usual smear campaigns are not going to work. Trump voters gave the DOJ the middle finger in voting for Trump.
The perception is Gaetz has the stones to reform the DOJ. Apparently, during the whole fight with McCarthy, there were true MAGA folks fighting on principle angry with Gaetz because he was grandstanding for campaign donations.
In the end, this is a Republican issue, and apparently, a lot of Republicans do not like Gaetz. For me, it is not about Gaetz but getting DOJ back to being nonpartisan. For us and for Trump, it was really frustrating having Sessions and Barr as AGs, and we do not want that again. If those who oppose Gaetz have a an alternative acceptable to Trump, I think he will listen.
Of course they’ll still be partisan – they’ll be MAGA.
If Trump wants an alternative, he can just ask his team (who have had a list all along).
If Gaetz showed you up to be little different to the opposition pond scum, would you like him?
I’m reminded of General George Patton, who was booted by Eisenhower for two slapping incidents of soldiers with ‘battle fatigue.’ However, when the US was desperate to breakout from Normandy beaches, they needed a bulldog. Recalled, Patton’s Third Army led the way into Germany. Again and again, Patton broke rules to win. BTW, the troops adored him.
We need more Pattons.
Absolutely shocked he’s not even in office yet and he’s attempting to end run the Constitution.
Mish do you actually want change? My impression so far is that you acknowledge Trump won but what I seem to be hearing, if I extrapolate just a little, is that he should resign himself to the role as little more than a place holder,
Something has to change because the math no longer works.
Mish is a liberal at heart. He will spend the next 50 months fighting against Trump.
I agree with you on this one. It’s like the filibuster rule, you get rid of it and then later it is used against you. Gaetz was very problematic to McCarthy that showed very public opportunistic disloyalty. I would not hire him just on that alone.
That’s exactly why he is the correct person for the job. He stands on principle not party.
Seems more likely than not Gaetz gets in.
https://x.com/2waytvapp/status/1858635331920187799
How the Hell does that make it likely that Trump gets in.
Gaetz will either be the Attorney General or the next Senator from Florida. Either way Matt Gaetz is here to stay.
The problem I have with this is the eagerness of non-lefties of no political account to micro-critique the government Trump is putting together. There may be one very short opening to a major housecleaning. It will be opposed screechingly by the left, subverted by uniparty Republicans, and nattered sidewise by half the website mavens in the U.S., apparently yourself included. Gaetz’s qualifications don’t matter; if he’s loyal to the MAGA cause and can shovel manure out of the barn, he’ll do. If the RINOs block him, Trump should put forward MTG.
Saving her for Supreme Court
I think Trump wants to run the DOJ himself.
lol, Gaetz is ‘unqualified’ but the blad luggage theif, Buttigieg, Karine Abdul Jabbar and Xavier Becerra – someone with zero experience in healthcare – leading HHS. OK fellas, I don’t care about Democratic party whining. They had a chance to do it right, but when Biden’s dementia and Kamala’s astounding stupidity rule the day, you have no ground to stand on to gnash teeth. Just sit there and behave yourselves.
Want to blame someone? Grab a mirror.
Ah yes, realityczech weigh in with the inevitable
“Biden appointed clueless idiots, so Trump can too, and nobody should care.”
I was wondering who would be first with that idiotic line of thinking
Mike, Are you saying that Gaetz is the equivalent of buttigieg, becerra or whoever that bald guy was? IIRC, none of those carnival barkers had any experience in the fields they had been selected to lead. Gaetz is an attorney. Maybe you only want AGs that have held the job before? That hasn’t worked out very well, has it?
If you’re saying you want someone apolitical, which I’m guessing is what you’re saying, let me know when the shuttle lands on that.
Gaetz is not a clueless idiot.
A first-year law school student could be the AG.
Do you have any idea of the number of lawyers that report to the AG?
The AG only needs two things in this order: loyalty to the Constitution & to POTUS.
Just like Trump, Gaetz is a disruptor.
If the Biden DOJ didn’t charge Gaetz, then there’s a pretty good chance there’s nothing there. In fact, almost everything about these allegations has been in the public eye for years now.
All of the Dems are running around acting like the sky is falling. Why? Because they’re scared to death about the mandate Trump has been given & the potential disruption his administration could wrought on their lives.
It’s time for real change & Trump was elected to do just that.
Thank you for this. Maybe just maybe, the winds of change may turn out to be tornados of The Establishment’s destruction.
Biden appointees were mostly DEI hires. A clueless idiot would be a compliment for a Transportation Security that implies that our highway system is inherently racist. Americans want an Attorney General that will uphold the constitution and hold criminals accountable – how exactly is Matt Gaetz not “qualified” for that?
I am waiting for the Democrats in the Senate to do a Haka when Gaetz comes before them.
Qualifications?
Since when have such appointments pivoted around qualifications rather than politics?
How can you get someone from outside the reigning system if qualifications even were a criterion?
The Vacancy Act is different than filling vacancies during congress recess.
There will be no stopping Trump.
The reason there is so much opposition to his nominees is because there are a lot of Swamp creatures with a lot to hide.
One analyst I just listened to says there are estimates as high as 100,000 Federal Jobs where nobody shows up.
Mafia words for this is no shows. Phantoms collecting a paycheck and not coming to work.
He will be getting his appointments even if they are temporary. Once in place the SHTF.
By the way apparently he does have at least two (spelled out in US Constitution) use of Presidential powers to accomplish this.
Rinos take note he really does mean what he said. Promises made are Promises kept is the Moto.
Yes! Trump was Amazing!
Got us out of Syria as promised
Undid Obamacare as promised
Got us out of Afghanistan as promised
Got Mexico to build and pay for the wall as promised
Reduced the budget deficit as promised
Declared and proved many times “Trade wars are good and easy to Win”
All promises made and kept. Am I missing any others?
With a scorecard like that, RichardF is undoubtedly correct, there is no stopping Trump
Well he certainly is raising Hell and he has not even gotten sworn in.
How did that Alice Cooper jingo go.
No more Mr. Nice Guy
Good and accurate rebuttal IMO
As always – great stuff – are you playing mind game with us?
“…Am I missing any others?…”
Yes, you forgot Trump’s moronic repeated promise to “lock her (Hillary) up” that he quickly backtracked on after he won in 2016. LMAO…..no stopping 8D chess Trump indeed.
The amazing Biden flew to McCain before his death and convinced him to stab Trump in his back. .
Well he murdered one of my heroes, Soleimani-the slayer of ISIS. He couldn’t leave Syria because if he did, we could not steal their oil. He bombed Syria twice of false premises-sarin gas attacks. I’m no fan of Trump. If the Marxist Democrats had not scared the hell out of me, and RFK Jr. and his allies had nor endorsed Trump, I would have voted for Jill Stein. So if not Gates, then who? Ken Paxton of Texas? I’m a Texan but I’m not convinced Paxton would have the zeal and drive to do what Gates would attempt to do. Who are the other choices?
“…100,000 Federal Jobs where nobody shows up…”
There’s alot of bloat in the government for sure, but to say that there are literally 100,000 people getting paid to stay at home is insane. Someone would have blew the whistle by now if it were true
By the way, where is the evidence/analysis to back up this claim? Oh yeah, evidence doesn’t matter anymore so long as your favorite pundit said it, right? This is propaganda, and it clearly worked on you. Good grief.
What I posted was from someone I follow who has been reliable.
That Patronage positions or no shows existed was no doubt in my mind, but to such extent will soon enough be revealed.
Being as I have been around long enough have been witness to some incredible Liars. The resistance to Trump and now the Majority of voters is at the magnitude which says to Me said Liars are scared to death of getting exposed.
As I expect this to bear out once Trump gets his cabinet the People who work and can not afford to live are going to be quite angry.
Be prepared however when it gets revealed there are Government employees making 6 figures and nobody in their department even know who they are.
Federal Government will have many whistleblowers once Trump becomes President. They will no longer fear getting destroyed financially because of speaking up.
That Dam will burst starting Inauguration Day.
Now if you need some statistic to prove that there are people afraid to say what is going on as they do not wish to harm their own family, well you are entitled to your own opinion.
People Like me however do not wait for a statistic in a matter such as this as it is plain human Behavior to act as I have outlined.
Here is a followup thought. Once Trump becomes President whistleblowers are going to come forward in droves.
Why would that be a person might ask?. For the simple reason that same person does not want to be found complicit in covering up wrongdoings in government.
And if they don’t, then what?
“…Being as I have been around long enough have been witness to some incredible Liars…”
You do realize this goes both ways don’t you? Is it possible that this person you follow is lying? Care to share who it is? I’ve also been around a long time. People lie (especially to themselves), hard stop. It’s not a feature specific to one political party or the other.
I’d be careful with what these online pundits say and do. I’ve caught them (both left leaning and right leaning) in lies many many times. Alot of the time they are just telling you what you want to hear to gain clicks and make money (i.e. they are grifters). What they are doing is more akin to entertainment than journalism.
Unless somone shows hard evidence this is nothing more than self serving conjecture. I’m sure it makes your souce money and validates your feelings so it must be true, right? Both sides of the political isle have lost thier minds.
You can certainly stay with the Orange Man Bad shtick that has circled the drain many times over past 8 years..
Mish does that all the time.
However the country has moved on as witnessed in this recent election. The country having lived with Systemic dissonance for more decades then they are willing to tolerate any longer choose Trump.
That is mainly due to there not being many persons willing or able to Buck the establishment.
He entered the Battle and now has his second four year term to elicit change.
I would point out he was stymied in his first administration mainly because he underestimated the entrenchment of status quo.
He is now addressing that by picking non-establishment personalities to staff his second go at it.
The Cries of outrage shows how fearful DC is of what he brings.
Will he be successful? I believe he has good chance.
At end of his term there will be statistics and you can then opportunely analyze data, after the fact, which is what statistics allow.
You wanted a dictator, you got a dictator
Did you want censorship and roughly 700k killed in Ukraine? I’m betting no. You voted for them anyway.
Say more…I want to learn..
Democrats want to dictate. Trump cut regulations during his first term. He will cut regulations during his second term.
Thomas Berry Cato institute , Noel Canning law of the land : If senator Thune adjourn for ten days a sitting president can confirm every single vacancy for almost two years.
Gaetz alone couldn’t oust McC. He needed Hakeem the regime change and his gang.
That is correct. But Thune won’t do that.
Your friend should have told u about the Noel Canning option.
Ask him if a sitting president can adjourn congress if Thune refuses.
Trump has surprised us these last four years by doing something only one other president has done before and that as in the 19th Century so I wouldn’t want to say what he can do and what he can’t. This was not an off-the-cuff decision but well thought out beforehand. I don’t know what his game is but I would not underestimate him. Edwin M. Stanton who was Lincoln’s Attorney General said the anyone who thought Lincoln was country bumpkin in politics would find himself flat on his back in a ditch in five seconds flat. I think a lot of politicians Left and Right saw Trump as a “country bumpkin”, underestimated him and found themselves flat on their backs in a ditch.
Sorry. You are wrong on the facts. And wrong on the law.
First, on the facts. Obama did it. He used the vacancies act to install Holder. Granted, it was only for a very short period of time. But the POTUS precedent is already there.
In regards to the law (see above) and every President has used recess appointments. Some have made 100+. The precedent is well established and unless SCOTUS plans on legislating from the bench, Gates will be AG.
While it is true that the POTUS power to adjourn Congress has not been tested, that doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.
In regards to the law, perhaps you might want to do some reading on “advice and consent” and what that meant in its original intent.
Lastly, your entire premise of lack of qualifications is just bootstrap BS. The AG does not try cases.
Wrong on the facts. Wrong on the law. When I went to law school and you found yourself in that situation you had to choices. Just argue for the hell of it. Or sit down.
You’d be wise to choose the latter.
Presidents get to pick who they want.
PS. Stick to economics where you excell.
If you bothered to read the cases I posted, the Court invalidated Obama appointees.
Now rebut the view posted or shut up.
My wife is an attorney. She took a Constitutional Law class too; she freely admits she’s not a constitutional expert.
You remind me of many of the small-time business lawyers I work with that feel like they have to yell loud and insult people to be heard. How many constitutional cases have you argued before even a state Supreme Court?
It sounds like Mish is watching your comments closely. And now you just told him to “sit down” on his own blogsite. If you’re right in your analysis, I hope you get a mea culpa (I like markets, including for ideas). If you’re wrong, I hope Mish bounces you off the blog since you are so adamant and insulting
Gaetz — usually described by the press as an insane choice for Attorney General — has been welcomed by certain Trump aficionados because of his strong backing for the president-elect.
The thing is, the Senate confirmation process is not strictly based on such nebulous concerns as qualifications. If it were only about qualifications almost every traditional candidate would be automatically accepted. It’s more often, in fact, about IDEOLOGY.
Because the Repubs control the Senate, and because there is currently a lovefest between the incoming president and the rank-and-file, it is quite possible Gaetz will, in fact, be confirmed. The naysayers are going with historical precedent, neglecting the political reality on the ground, and Washington will quake before Trump is done.
You can read more of my writings by going to: dark . sport . blog … on the net
You supported this mother character knowing that he would do this. Now s-k it up. It is lame to complain now when everyone knew this would happen.
Look clueless, I did not vote for Trump or Harris.
I am proud of my vote and my reasons.
https://mishtalk.com/economics/i-wrote-in-mish-for-president-of-the-united-states/
Could you? Having ready your blog forever – you are telling the truth…..
Pity party, table for 1. Pity party?
Well, we’ve seen how the allegedly qualified have run things at Justice, tight? But to your constitutional point I agree. If deployed the democrats will, in the future, use this in the same manner Trump later used Harry Reid’s nuclear option to get his SCOTUS picks thru. Politicians never think that just maybe they won’t always be in power and the opposition can and will use the same loopholes.
As to your Harris-Dem Senate question… the democrats are always united to get their agenda and have msm, the current government and academia to back any play. They would back anyone so chosen. But they want net no change….it’s why they lost
So Harris wins and they end the filibuster and pack the court….now they don’t want that. Let the court decide. You are getting 5 to 1 on your money that he’s in there. Trump was near 4 to 1 to win popular vote. Hardly unfathomable
I respectfully disagree with you. Time will tell.
Question Mish,
Do you suppose that Gaetz knows it’s against the US Constitution for the federal government to coerce private platforms to censor speech? As AG, Gaetz doesn’t need to know how to practice law he just needs to know what is unlawful to be a step ahead of AG Garland. You can also throw in, does Gaetz know it’s against the law to hold US citizens in jail for 4 + years without charging them. Obviously, AG Garland doesn’t?
This post is not about Garland or at this point even about Gaetz’s qualifications.
Rather it is about the constitutional authority the Senate has on appointments.
I do not want to tangle this thread with Gaetz vs Garland nonsense.
While I am fine with Gaetz becoming AG, as his role is to clean house, I also agree that perverting the appointments process by forcing it in 2 different ways (questionable use of recess appointment power and forcing a recess) would be very unwise.
And yes. Everyone would scream bloody murder if a libtard did it.
The question really is have we already jumped the shark or not.
Should Trump act responsibly after Biden and the people who control him already have destroyed the Rule of Law and our justice system and maintained political prisoners in violation of the Constitution?
Or should he says f* it. They already destroyed it, so I will continue down that path.
Despite my worse inner self frankly hoping for the latter after 2020 and the following 4 years changed everything, my inner better self says we should reign things back in.
That will likely not help us when the evil ones regain power though.
I would add, I have heard of one or two other choices for AG that would also be able to clean house without going through these shenanigans. So it would likely be better to preserve the political capital that would be expended on Gaetz.
Gaetz is as perfectly suitable as any other candidate ever was.
People who don’t like/want his politics are just pretending its about ‘qualifications’.
We have had the most egregious bafoons, griftes and parasites not just in the past 4 years but endlessly. Qualifications have NEVER been an issue if you’re doing the right bidding.
Its so dishonest to pretend otherwise. So very.
The qualifications for these positions are oversee and ensuring what is intended to be done is DONE.
Its not to be an expert in every detail. Its to direct and ensure the experts do what the mandate is.
This is basic to and directorship, or election.
Does the Head of Health have to know anything about health??
About surgery? About othopedic surgery, brain surgery, peritoneal surgery?
You know the answer.
It is 100% clear Gaetz is not qualified.
Now if you wish to say you don’t give a damn, I have no argument.
If you wish to pretend he is qualified, I cannot stop you, but the Senate can and will.
And you duck the constitutional case I posted.
We can expect this will be decided by lawyers. And we all love lawyers. Right??
Think ahead. IF it gets that far, it will be decided by a Republican-Appointed Supreme Court and some of them have already made their thoughts clear.
Mike, you keep repeating ‘he’s not qualified’, but I think you mean he’s underqualified. he doesn’t have experience from a bigger law firm, hasn’t worked for a dc firm, etc., right?
Draw the line for me from having that experience to being qualified. And help me understand how running for/winning office and somehow fending off the charges that ultimately got dropped (which we will never know the details of) means he doesn’t know how to select/manage/prosecute.
We the people just want a Bull Dog – how the heck would we know – if he was qualified – BTW – is “qualified” a requirement? This about “we the people” taking back ownership – along the way we are going to fuck it all up….So what!
Bring in Rear Admiral Levine. More medals than Patton.
You called this one correctly.
I think so. We may never find out, Trump might back down.
I don’t think Trump will try to force a recess due to the reasons you cited. If that’s backing down, then he backs down. I don’t think he’ll withdraw Gaetz’ nomination. If Gaetz is rejected by the senate, so be it. Let the Republican senators take a win on that and let his Deputy Atty General pick become his AG pick.
My main hope is that Gabbard get confirmed as DNI.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/washpost/6f7aec6f-b695-4795-90c0-65bc9b6bb001.jpg&h=196&w=196
By George F. Will
November 17, 2024 at 1:26 p.m. EST
Accelerant: noun. A substance used to aid the spread of fire.
Donald Trump, a political accelerant, has ignited, with malice aforethought, a conflagration that will singe him. And because of him, the hard, gemlike flame of James Madison’s intellect will again illuminate Washington, if the Senate is provoked into rediscovering its role.
Some of Trump’s nominees for high executive branch responsibilities radiate contempt for everyone except the small American minority that resides on the wilder shores of MAGAdom. His coldest contempt is for the Senate. Like King Ferdinand VII, who upon regaining Spain’s throne in 1813 vowed to end “the disastrous mania of thinking,” Trump expects the Senate to tug its forelock and forgo independent judgment.
Some of his nominees are so ghastly they could be salutary. They might jolt the Senate, united in nausea, into a declaration of independence. Which is what Madison, the Founders’ best mind, had in mind in Federalist 51.
Explaining “the necessary partition of power among the several departments,” he emphasized that each branch “should have a will of its own.” Congress, proud of its agency and jealous of its prerogatives, should not flinch from frequently being rivalrous rather than collaborative with the chief executive, whose primary duty is secondary: It is the faithful execution of the laws Congress initiates….
In 1980, George Will described Reagan Republicans as Kamikaze Conservatives. He’s a Washington swamp creature who’s made a fine living being the token, nerdy conservative at the liberal table. Nobody cares what he says about anything.
George Will? I thought he was dead. what a disappointment.
Is this what they meant when they said he will be a dictator?
Possibly. But look. A Republican Senate, seeks to stop him.
Would a Democrat Senate have tried to stop Harris?
It was a half hearted joke,but I do agree with everything that you said
I think so, if her selections had been unqualified for the positions.
Mish, Trump knows full well Gaetz will never be confirmed. His appointment was nothing more than Trumpian political theatre to drive the Pelosi’s, Shiff’s and Schumer’s of the world into conniptions. Mission accomplished.
Let’s assume you are correct.
It is ill-advised for Trump to start an open feud with the Senate.
He will either back down or get upended in the Supreme Court.
You believe Trump started a feud? You don’t recall Schiff or Nancy’s actions, eh? Trump’s an a-hole, but their actions created most of the mess that has led to TDS sufferers to suffer more.
So you are saying this is a ‘troll’ by Trump . When has he ever trolled the left? Oh, yeah, forever. And in large part it worked. He did get re-elected.
Trump is going to appoint Gaetz as the FBI Director. He will work with the DOJ to “Clean House”. Trump was looking for 2 qualifications: Loyalty and draining the swamp.
Sorry, Trump won, and we won’t have DEI picks any more.
DEI has nothing to do with this. Make a coherent argument that refutes the legal analysis I presented.
…because a coherent argument was needed for Levine? or Granholm? or Garland?
Holy Hypocrisy, Batman.
yeah, this past administration really was a low point in presidential appointments. You may not like Trump’s picks, but morbid stupidity is not a shared value as it was the last 4 years (excepting FTC).