On Wednesday, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) announced his intention to defund Special Counsel Jack Smith through the legislative process. This political theatrics comes as a presidential election looms in the months ahead because Smith may seek another indictment of former President Donald Trump. Gaetz took to Twitter to declare his plan, stating that Smith’s actions amounted to a “witch hunt” against President Trump and an attack on democracy through election interference. He emphasized that the United States Congress could stop this interference and urged immediate action.
During his podcast, Gaetz stressed the urgency of defunding the special counsel investigation, dismissing the need to wait for the appropriations process or other legislative procedures. He expressed concern that democracy was under attack and questioned the value of preserving the Republic if Congress couldn’t prevent such election interference.
Gaetz acknowledged that passing the bill in a Democrat-controlled Senate or getting President Joe Biden’s approval was unlikely. Still, he believed citizens had the right to know where their representatives stood. He urged fellow members of Congress to co-sponsor his legislation as a measure of their stance.
Gaetz criticized the failure of Smith’s transparency concerning the special counsel and shared his attempts to get Attorney General Merrick Garland to disclose the team members’ identities. He drew parallels to the Mueller investigation, where knowledge of the team’s composition shed light on their approach and potential biases. Gaetz argued that understanding the political affiliations and connections of Jack Smith and his team was crucial, given the potential impact of their investigation on Washington, DC’s power dynamics.
The Congressman emphasized the importance of the power of the purse in controlling government actions, asserting that it should be continuously wielded to achieve victory for the people and to halt what he perceived as an attack on the essence of free and fair elections. He called for vigilance during the appropriations process to avoid funding a government that, in his view, had turned against democratic principles and the freedom of choice through voting.