On May 8th, former President Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate Fox News host Jeanine Pirro for the position of interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., the chief prosecutorial role in the nation’s capital. The choice was met with widespread criticism and disbelief, prompting concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department and the potential for abuse of power.
The author contends that the nomination is so patently absurd that it almost defies commentary. However, the author feels compelled to address it to underscore the pattern of questionable nominations emanating from Trump and the disconcerting likelihood of Republican approval. Pirro’s elevation, according to the author, is merely the latest in a series of ill-advised appointments by Trump, highlighting the extent of his autonomy and the urgent need for increased oversight.
Despite Pirro’s lack of government experience since her departure as a district attorney in 2005 to pursue political ambitions, Trump maintains that she is an exceptionally qualified candidate. In the author’s view, Pirro is an ideal choice for Trump because she is a fervent defender of the former president and a long-standing loyalist. The author notes that Trump’s pardon of Pirro’s ex-husband during his final hours in office in January 2021 likely plays a role in her selection. Furthermore, Pirro has demonstrated unwavering support for Trump, even at the expense of her employer, Fox News. Her actions contributed to the network’s nearly $800 million settlement in a defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems.
The author asserts that Trump seeks prosecutors who will carry out his directives, and Pirro fits this profile perfectly. There is little reason to believe that she will exercise independent judgment in her position, but it is certain that she will pursue Trump’s prosecutorial goals. The author draws a parallel to Pete Hegseth, another former Fox News host who now serves as Secretary of Defense. Like Hegseth, Pirro’s competence is secondary to her loyalty.
Trump’s nomination of Pirro is not merely a token gesture of gratitude. The position of U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., carries significant weight. The appointee serves as the chief prosecutor for the nation’s capital and possesses the authority to investigate numerous Trump adversaries in Washington. The author believes that Pirro would undoubtedly use her position to target Trump’s perceived enemies.
Trump has considered nominating Pirro for various positions since his first term, but the idea was deemed too outlandish for the political climate at the time. Now, Trump commands unwavering deference from the Republican Party, and his primary criterion for hiring is loyalty. The author describes Pirro as a political attack dog without principles, making her the perfect prosecutor for Trump to use in his pursuit of revenge for perceived wrongs.
Pirro’s nomination is for an interim capacity, meaning she does not require Senate confirmation. An interim appointment lasts for a period of 120 days, after which the D.C. District Court selects an acting U.S. Attorney. However, if Pirro were to be nominated for the full-time position, she would need to be confirmed by the Senate.
The author argues that by confirming Pirro, Republican senators would openly admit that they prioritize loyalty to Trump over competence and qualifications. They would further erode their credibility, which has already been damaged by their approval of other questionable nominations, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services and Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, and of course, Hegseth. Nevertheless, the author believes that approving Pirro would represent a new low.
The author expresses hope that Republican senators will find the resolve to oppose Pirro’s potential nomination, but their cynicism is at an all-time high given the fates of Trump’s previous appointees. The author concludes that Americans can no longer count on cooler heads prevailing in the Senate. They are likely subject to Trump’s whims regarding nominations, even if it means accepting a deeply flawed and inappropriate choice like Pirro. The author is concerned that this appointment reflects a disregard for the integrity of the Justice Department and the rule of law. The author argues that the decision is a blatant example of political cronyism, where loyalty to the former president is valued over qualifications and experience. The author fears that Pirro’s appointment would further polarize the political landscape, undermining public trust in the justice system and setting a dangerous precedent for future administrations. The author emphasizes the need for independent and impartial legal professionals to uphold the principles of justice and ensure that the law is applied fairly to all citizens. The author urges Republican senators to consider the long-term implications of their decision and to prioritize the interests of the nation over partisan politics. The author believes that the confirmation of Pirro would send a message that political loyalty trumps competence and integrity, further eroding public confidence in the government and its institutions. The author hopes that reason and patriotism will prevail, and that the Senate will reject this unqualified nomination, sending a clear signal that the pursuit of justice should never be compromised by political considerations. The author emphasizes that the independence of the Justice Department is essential for safeguarding democracy and ensuring that those in power are held accountable. The author emphasizes the need for checks and balances and the importance of a strong and independent judiciary. The author asserts that Pirro’s nomination is a threat to these fundamental principles and that it must be resisted. The author calls on all citizens to demand accountability from their elected officials and to insist on a justice system that is fair, impartial, and free from political influence.
