Triple Feature of Disorder
Terry H. Schwadron
Jan. 31, 2025
The Senate served up a triple feature of administrative distress yesterday, with simultaneous confirmation hearings on Donald Trump’s three most controversial nominees.
There was disorder and dysfunction in every direction despite attempts by Republican Senate loyalists to smooth the path for Tulsi Gabbard, under review as National Intelligence Director, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as head of the nation’s health systems, and Kash Patel to lead the FBI.
At the end of day, the outcome would depend on whether a few Republicans withheld support for a confirmation vote, since Democrats were aligned in opposition to all three as nominees who would work to overturn alliances, traditions, fairness and independence. Only four no votes will sink any of them.
In a sense, the main questions, particularly from critics, were the same for all three: What in their experience would make them successful in the job, despite significant, longtime records that show the opposite? And what, if anything, would prompt them ever to say no to Trump, who is showing us he is driven by personal partisanship and retribution and by a desire to undercut the very agencies these people would head. It was a slow contest to see if truth or competence mattered, or just votes.
Since separate Senate hearing had started the Kennedy review on Wednesday, my attention turned to those who had not yet had a chance. Gabbard had to defend a variety of public statements, votes and visits to America’s enemies, positions that disbelieve U.S. intelligence, and questions about what happens when our allies do not share spy findings because they don’t trust how she will use it. For Patel, the equivalent were questions about using the nation’s foremost law enforcement agencies for partisan probes and prosecutions of those he and Trump have identified as political “enemies,” and how he could possibly separate his views from Trump’s.
Kennedy joined them in facing furious questions about whether he had lied in the past or was lying in front of the senators about his anti-vaccine vehemence and work, about his changing stances on abortion medicines, about an insistence on promoting debunked academic studies that he says put vaccines, foods, and medications into question.
Throughout, the nagging question was why these three people were the best in the country to serve in these roles. Trump insists on sending the Senate underqualified candidates as managers of complex systems requiring trust to get senators to have to eat his choices whole. For their part, Republican senators seem willing to give up advice and consent power to promote their guy in the White House.
The Patel hearing
The issue with Patel is accepting his history of conspiracies, overstatements and partisanship of the sort that makes his adorable to Trump. He — and Trump — want to remake the leadership of the FBI and to move agents out of Washington’s control and area.
The partisan line was there from the start. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, used the hearing to attack the FBI’s choice to investigate Trump and dismissed suggestions of Patel’s lack of management experience or inappropriate partisanship. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the ranking Democrat, said flatly that Patel is a conspiracy theorist, election denier, friend of extremists, and “does not meet the standard” of being FBI director.
There was something weird about Patel arguing that he is there to right a sinking FBI ship from “weaponized” justice while he has a book and appearances 60 listing Trump critics in government and media who should be investigated for criminal wrongs and promoting those convicted for Jan. 6 crimes.
Patel’s views towards the use of law enforcement as a political tool reportedly even makes Republicans nervous, even if they are not speaking publicly. In answer to Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., Patel ducked whether he would open an investigation or stop it on the order of the White House.
Patel, a former federal prosecutor and Florida public defender, repeatedly has vowed to change FBI, dismissing its intelligence division, ridding its top ranks, and turning its headquarters into a museum for the so-called deep state. Patel appeared to break with Trump about commutations for those convicted of violence against Capitol police and seemed to distance himself from QAnon conspiracists whom he has praised. Patel said he appeared with extremists publicly to “debunk” their ideas. Hmm.
The Republican strategy at the hearing seemed to be to tie any investigation of Trump or election denial to partisanship by the FBI. Democrats kept using Patel’s own words to him; Patel insisted they were grotesque misquotes, including the list of enemies in his book.
Generally, Patel was controlled and relatively smooth, though he got exercised over questions relating to the “J6 Choir,” a group of Jan. 6 participants convicted for violence against police, despite promoting their recorded rendition of the national anthem and a push from Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to apologize to Capitol police.
Patel told Sen. Cory Booker, D-NJ, that he witnessed Trump ordering declassification of some documents, though he did not know if those eventually went to Mar-a-Lago; he would not disclose what he told a grand jury about declassifying documents under oath. Patel denied obstructing inquiry into that case.
The hearing was unlikely to change minds about the past or about the vote to come.
The Gabbard Hearing
Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Gabbard was seeking to defend a lack of experience in any intelligence job and her public adoption of positions on Syria and the war in Ukraine that many national security officials see as Russian propaganda at odds with U.S. interests. It seemed doubtful that a couple hours of hearings would change anyone’s minds.
An Army National Guard veteran, she fell out with Democrats, changed poitical parties, and is seen as supportive of policies of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, including blaming NATO for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Allied intelligence agencies say openly that they do not trust her to hold onto intelligence and sources or to communicate their findings truly to Trump. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., committee chair, declared her to be “clean as a whistle,” after an FBI background check. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the lead Democrat, simply said he questions her judgment.
Sticking with the overall theme, a well-prepared Gabbard avoided direct answers to her past and said she wanted to “end the politicization of the intelligence community,” a statement that was never explained. She said she had no love for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, with whom she met at least twice, and never met with Hezbollah, as identified in a leaked White House memo. Gabbard railed against “political opponents” and “Democrat senators” who she said launched anti-Hindu bigotry against her and painted her as a “puppet” of Trump, Russia and others. In questioning, her big issue seemed the unnecessary growth of the office she would head.
Senators questioned her flip-flop to support renewal of investigative warrants and support for convicted spy Edward Snowden, and the possible concerns over a Chinese-owned TikTok as examples. More questions were coming in private, but they seemed unlikely to change outcomes likely in place before the hearing.
The Kennedy Hearing
Kennedy continued his efforts with senators to walk away from anti-vaccine statements and work. Before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Kennedy said he would not deprioritize or delay approval of new vaccines or change the standards for vaccine review as head of the Department of Health and Human Services. Chair Bill Cassidy, R-La., who also had questioned RFK on Wednesday, again struck a skeptical note in his questions.
Kennedy repeatedly said the country should focus more on the causes chronic disease than on who should pay the bills and continued to suggest that it is the private individual through living choices who has the most responsibility for health, not the government.
If Trump orders the abortion medication mifepristone off the market, Kennedy seemed to say he would do so — despite lots of medical studies that say it has been considered safe and effective for more than 20 years. It is a remarkable statement only because Kennedy presents himself as someone who insists on repeatable scientific studies before he accepts a truth in the medical world.
Back and forth feistiness emerged over Kennedy’s past assertions of racial differences in vaccines and over Big Pharma influence over health policy.
It could be the abortion issue that sinks Kennedy from both sides of the aisle.
##