New York Times columnist and supposed conservative half of PBS News Hour’s Friday Brooks and Capehart segment was dismayed that President-elect Donald Trump’s attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, will supposedly help him take a “blowtorch to the neutral institutions of justice.”

Host Amna Nawaz worried, “There is the point I want to ask you about with Pam Bondi, because she is known as a loyalist. The Washington Post is now reporting tonight, citing two sources close to Trump's transition, that he plans to fire the entire team behind special counsel Jack Smith, who brought two federal prosecutions against him, and then use the Department of Justice to probe the 2020 election. Does having someone like Bondi in place mean he can use the DOJ like that?”

 

 

It should be noted that the Post story also says looking at 2020 is “not at the top of the list” of priorities. As for Pam Bondi, she was Attorney General of Florida for eight years, so she is not some random, inexperienced hack. Nevertheless, Brooks agreed she will do what Nawaz feared, although he never mentioned her name in a rambling response, “Yes. These are anti-institutionalists. That's the theme of the whole group of people.”

Despite the fact that the question was about Bondi and that she has no scandals swirling around her, Brooks claimed Trump wants people with scandals around him, “And so many have scandals because they are outside the pale of polite society. So there are not going to be a lot of the Trump appointees like Jim Mattis, who want to be liked, who want to do a responsible job for the government. When you pick somebody who has a sex scandal or a financial scandal, they are totally on your side, because they have no other route to a career in their lives.”

Brooks continued, “So, they are going to be total Trump loyalists. And their mission is to disrupt the institutions. Now, some of the — I happen to think a lot of our institutions need some disrupting. We have got a lot of, like, why can't we make — why can't we build subways in this country? Why can't we build fighter planes in this country?”

He then worried Trump is going too far, “A lot of these institutions have gone creaky. And so they need reform, but they don't need a blowtorch. And especially in the attorney general's office, what we're talking about is not reforming the Justice Department. That's not cleaning out the bureaucracy. That's taking a blowtorch to the neutral institutions of justice.”

Some people might argue Jack Smith was a blowtorch to the neutral institutions of justice.

As for Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart, he would later echo Brooks when talking about Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth, “These folks aren't just about disruption. They're about destruction. And that's what I'm most worried about, that the blowtorch that David is hopeful won't happen, I think that they're off to the sideline flicking the match, trying to get the blowtorch to work in time for them to take their places in the administration once he's inaugurated on January 20.”

Here is a transcript for the November 22 show:

PBS News Hour

11/22/2024

7:40 PM ET

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, there is the point I want to ask you about with Pam Bondi, because she is known as a loyalist.

The Washington Post is now reporting tonight, citing two sources close to Trump's transition, that he plans to fire the entire team behind special counsel Jack Smith, who brought two federal prosecutions against him, and then use the Department of Justice to probe the 2020 election.

Does having someone like Bondi in place mean he can use the DOJ like that?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. These are anti-institutionalists. That's the theme of the whole group of people.

And so many have scandals because they are outside the pale of polite society. So there are not going to be a lot of the Trump appointees like Jim Mattis, who want to be liked, who want to do a responsible job for the government. When you pick somebody who has a sex scandal or a financial scandal, they are totally on your side, because they have no other route to a career in their lives.

So, they are going to be total Trump loyalists. And their mission is to disrupt the institutions. Now, some of the — I happen to think a lot of our institutions need some disrupting. We have got a lot of, like, why can't we make — why can't we build subways in this country? Why can't we build fighter planes in this country?

A lot of these institutions have gone creaky. And so they need reform, but they don't need a blowtorch. And especially in the attorney general's office, what we're talking about is not reforming the Justice Department. That's not cleaning out the bureaucracy. That's taking a blowtorch to the neutral institutions of justice.

NAWAZ: Well, Jonathan, back on the Trump transition here, because there's still a lot of questions around the nominee for Secretary of Defense. That is Pete Hegseth, some questions about allegations of sexual assault and some troubling details that came out in a recently released police report related to that.

We saw a number of senators voice concerns over Gaetz and the allegations that he was facing. Do you expect those senators to stand up and voice the same concerns about Hegseth?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes, I expect them to do that. Do I actually think they will do that? I'm not sure.

I haven't heard much from the senators when it comes to the nomination of Hegseth in the way that we saw with former Congressman Gaetz. And to just jump on something that David was saying, you know, I'm all for disrupting the bureaucracy and disrupting sleepy agencies. But with all of these — with most of these appointments that we have seen, these folks aren't just about disruption.

They're about destruction. And that's what I'm most worried about, that the blowtorch that David is hopeful won't happen, I think that they're off to the sideline flicking the match, trying to get the blowtorch to work in time for them to take their places in the administration once he's inaugurated on January 20.