Whitaker grilled

And he got off to a fine start.

"Mr. Chairman, I see that your five minutes is up," Whitaker said during the questioning of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.).

"I am here voluntarily. We have agreed to five-minute rounds," he added.

His remarks prompted gasps and gaped mouths as lawmakers on the panel and audience members looked back and forth between Whitaker and Nadler, in a fiery moment that suggests the tone of the hearing.

His quip came after Nadler asked whether he has had a role in approving any "request or action to be taken by the special counsel."

Under questioning from Chairman Nadler, Whitaker insisted he had not taken steps to impeded Mueller’s investigation.

[...]

Whitaker said that he has not discussed the special counsel investigation with President Trump or any other senior officials in the White House.

[...]

“I have not talked about the special counsel investigation with senior White House officials,” Whitaker said.

He said that he has "followed the special counsel regulations to a T."

[...]

Nadler repeatedly asked Whitaker about the nature and number of briefings he has received, but he declined to answer, saying it would be inappropriate.

“I cannot talk about ongoing investigations,” Whitaker said.

“I have said all that I am planning on saying about the number of times or the briefings I have received on the special counsel’s investigation,” Whitaker said. “I think it would be very improper of me.”

[...]

[Whitaker] said that the Carter Page FISA application, which made reference to the Steele dossier, is currently being looked at by the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General and U.S. Attorney James Huber, who is examining conservative allegations of surveillance abuse at the FBI and the Justice Department.

Whitaker said that those matters are “part of a confidential human resources process” and that he could not comment further.

  The Hill

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the ranking member of the committee, requested a roll call vote to adjourn the hearing, requiring that each member of the committee say whether or not they would agree to do so. That vote failed along party lines, with all 24 Democrats on the committee opposing the measure.

[...]

“This hearing is pointless,” he said. “This is not about what the good men and women at the Department of Justice is doing.”

[...]

Nadler in his opening remarks raised concerns about Whitaker's decision not to recuse himself from the special counsel probe, pointing to the recommendation of ethics officials.

[...]

"In other words, even though you apparently did not ask for their advice on this topic, these career officials went out of their way to tell you that your many public past criticisms of the Special Counsel’s investigation were grounds for you to step aside," Nadler said.

"You decided that your private interest in overseeing this particular investigation — and perhaps others from which you should have been recused — as more important than the integrity of the Department.

[...]

He also raised concern about Whitaker's public appearances before he took the interim role as the DOJ's top cop."

[...]

"Why did President Trump choose to replace Attorney General Sessions with an outspoken critic of the special counsel, instead of with any number of qualified individuals who had already received Senate confirmation," Nadler said.

Maybe you should get Trump before the committee with that question.

“There has been no change in the overall management of the Special Counsel investigation,” Whitaker wrote in his opening remarks.

“I have and will continue to manage this investigation in a manner that is consistent with the governing regulations,” he said.

[...]

“I want to assure you that I will seek to answer the Committee’s questions today, as best as I can, but I also must make clear that I will continue the longstanding Executive Branch policy and practice of not disclosing information that may be subject to executive privilege, such as the contents of deliberations or conversations with the President,” Whitaker writes.

So, pretty much, the hearing was set up for Democrats to bombard Whitaker with questions he will not answer.

In a back-and-forth with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the lawmaker pressed Whitaker over whether he had shared his thoughts about the Mueller investigation prior to his arrival at the Justice Department in 2017 with anyone at the White House, including Trump, Trump family members and surrogates for the president like his attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Whitaker initially did not directly answer the question, but said that he did not make any promises or commitments to the White House about the special counsel’s probe or any other investigation.

Lofgren, noting that her time was almost expired, asked that she be given the chance to ask the question again during a deposition that Nadler said he would hold for Whitaker at a later date.

Nadler said he would allow Lofgren to ask the question again despite her time elapsing.

“And I will ask the witness to answer the question specifically, and not continue filibustering,” he added.

Whitaker then said that he did not discuss his views on the Mueller probe with any White House officials prior to his hiring.

If he didn't, that would hardly be surprising since his views were well-known from his TV appearances.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) cited the several guilty pleas and indictments that have resulted as part of the special counsel’s probe in asking his question.

“Would you say the special counsel’s investigation is a witchhunt? Are you overseeing a witchhunt?”

“The special counsel’s investigation is an ongoing investigation so I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment,” Whitaker replied.

“You wouldn’t oversee a witchhunt, would you? You’d stop a witchhunt, wouldn’t you?” Cohen pressed.

“It would be inappropriate for me to talk about an ongoing investigation.”

[...]

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) asked Whitaker whom he had consulted with during the [recusal] decision-making process, and if they had advised him not to recuse himself.

Whitaker said that he had spoken with his senior staff as well as career ethics officials and the Office of Legal Counsel.

[...]

“[Brad Weinsheimer] actually could not identify any precedent for me to recuse,” Whitaker said. “He said it was a close call, he said that my other public statements did recognizer the professionalism and competence of the special counsel.”

“He said that out of an abundance of caution that if asked he would recommend a certain course,” Whitaker continued. “He also said the decision was mine to make.”

The "certain course" Weinsheimer recommended was recusal.

[Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)] pointed to an August 2017 memo written by Rosenstein authorizing Mueller to investigate potential collusion by former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, suggesting that had amounted to a change in the scope of the probe.

[...]

“The special counsel understands the scope of its investigation and is complying with all the regulations and orders related to that,” Whitaker replied.

[...]

Whitaker defended himself against questions of why he was hired to serve as the acting attorney general, stating that he believes he had been chosen for "a couple reasons,” including his involvement in carrying out key administration priorities at the Justice Department while he worked as Jeff Sessions’s chief of staff.

[...]

Democratic Chairman Nadler and ranking member Collins briefly battled over a question posed by another Democratic lawmaker to Whitaker.

Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) was asking about Whitaker’s work before he joined the Department of Justice when Collins raised a point of order. He claimed that the question outside the scope of the hearing.

Nadler ruled that the point of order was not valid and said Bass could continue with her question.

“Are you just going to overrun a point of order?” Collins asked.

“I ruled that it was not a valid point of order,” Nadler replied.

“I was not through with my point of order,” Collins said, asking to appeal the ruling and resulting in a roll call vote.

The vote passed along party lines, with Democrats voting in favor to table the appeal.

Turn-about being fair play and all, Democrats in charge is going to be painful for the Republicans.

[Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.)] Jeffries [...] asked [Whitaker] about a tweet he had made in August 2017 in which he referenced an opinion piece that was titled "Note to Trump's lawyer, do not cooperate with Mueller's lynch mob."

"Do you recall that?" Jeffries asked.

"I did not necessarily agree with that position, but my point was that it was an interesting read for those that want to understand the situation," he responded.

Uh-huh.

"And how the heck did you become the head of the Department of Justice? Hopefully you can help me work through this confusion," continued Jeffries, who is seen as a potential future Speaker of the House.

When Whitaker began to respond, Jeffries promptly cut him off and chided: "That was a statement, not a question."

"I assume you know the difference," he added.

Well, to be fair, Hakeem. You DID ask a question. But way to humiliate the guy.

[Jeffries] warned Whitaker not to interfere in Robert Mueller's investigation during his final days at the head of the Department of Justice.

[...]

"The investigation into Russia's attack on our democracy is not a witch hunt. It's not a fishing expedition. It's not a hoax. It's not a lynch mob. It's a national security the fact that people suggest otherwise comes dangerously close to providing aid and comfort to the enemy," he added.

[...]

"Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Cohen, Papadopoulos and Stone are all in deep trouble. One by one, all of the president's men are going down in flames," Jeffries said.

"It is often said where there is smoke, there's fire. There's a lot of smoke emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania avenue right now."

[...]

"In your final week, keep your hands off the Mueller investigation," Jeffries told Whitaker emphatically, ending his line of questioning with a statement.

Whoa.

The hearing became heated when Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) disagreed with a line of questioning by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and later suggested Swalwell should stop “running for president.”

Sounds like the hearing stayed heated pretty well throughout.

Collins objected to Swalwell grilling Whitaker on whether an organization he ran prior to joining the Trump administration received contributions from foreign donors.

“This is outside the scope of this hearing,” Collins said. “This is not when he was employed here.”

[...]

“Mr. Collins, if you want to sit down there with his lawyers, you can go sit down there,” Swalwell said. “But you’re not his lawyer.”

[...]

“Neither are you, Mr. Swalwell, and if you asked questions that are actually part of this instead of running for president we could get this done,” Collins countered.

[...]

Collins’s effort to stop Swalwell’s line of questioning failed, and Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) allowed the California representative to continue to press Whitaker on whether his prior organization – known as the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) – received contributions from foreign donors.

“I do not believe, as I sit here today, that it did,” Whitaker said. “Our main donor was a U.S. entity.”

I'm going to guess that in fact FACT did take foreign contributions or Swalwell wouldn't have come up with the question and Whitaker wouldn't have qualified his answer with a "belief".

Whitaker said [...] "Y]es I believe [Mueller]’s honest.”

And he also said that he believes that staff at the Justice Department are following regular order, and are therefore not conflicted.

“You believe he’s honest, you don’t believe he’s conflicted,” Swalwell said. “Can you say right now, ‘Mr. President I believe Bob Mueller is honest and not conflicted’?”

Whitaker repeatedly dodged making that exact statement.

“I am not here to be a puppet, to repeat terms and words that you say that I should say,” Whitaker said.

I think that qualifies as a, "No, I'm not telling the president that."

Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) grilled Whitaker on whether he agrees with President Trump on his negative characterizations of the Justice Department, specifically referring to a September 2018 rally at which Trump pledged to get rid of the “lingering stench” at the department.

Whitaker, whom Trump tapped to helm the department in November, said he had “reestablished a positive relationship between the Department of Justice and the White House.”

[...]

“I have actually a very high estimation of the people at the Department of Justice,” Whitaker said.

“I feel very strongly that as the acting attorney general, I have to set the tone for the entire Department of Justice,” he added.

[...]

“That’s your answer?” Demings replied. “That’s pretty pitiful.”

They are cutting this guy zero slack. The party is over for Trump enablers in the House. On the other hand, maybe he shouldn't have come in with such a haughty attitude. That's probably especially important for someone who doesn't have a brilliant mind or a sterling reputation.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) carried out a passionate questioning of Whitaker over the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) separation of migrant families at the border, asking him if he “understood the magnitude” of the policy.

[...]

She said that the DOJ had “imposed a zero-humanity policy” at the border for families trying to seek asylum, instead of offering them protections within the country.

[...]

“So these parents were in your custody, your attorneys are prosecuting them, and your department was not tracking parents who were separated from their children,” Jayapal said.

“Do you know what kind of damage has been done to children and families across this country? Children who will never get to see their parents again?” she asked to a silent room.

“Do you understand the magnitude of that?”

“I understand that the policy of zero tolerance,” Whitaker began to say.

“Has the Justice Department started tracking parents and legal guardians who were separated from their children at the border?” Jayapal asked, cutting him off.

“I appreciate your passion for this issue, I know you’ve been very involved on the front lines,” the acting attorney general said.

“This is about more than my passion this," Jayapal fired back. "This is about the children's future, Mr. Whitaker."

Oh, yeah. Asshat doesn't deserve any slack.



Oh my.

Switching to Aaron Rupar's coverage:







That clip is interesting because Raskin lays out the scenario whereby Trump's DOJ assisted Sheldon Adelson in clamping down on gambling competition.



OUCH!  Double ouch.  Whitaker is no doubt happy to be getting out of his job.





They have worn him down.



He'll need drugs.

If you want to watch Rupar's video clip live-tweet of the hearing, it starts here.

Any time you come to a post like this one that has a notation like "__ more replies", click that link, because anything below that will be other Twitter users making comments.  The link will open the next Rupar post on the hearing.

Eg:



Here's the clip of Whitaker getting off to a great start:



Unbelievable.  Nadler just laughs.

You can watch the whole thing from end to bitter end or various portions of it on YouTube videos.  Just search for "Whitaker testimony judiciary".

Also...



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:



Amazing.

Also...

Spanked by Sheila Jackson-Lee



UPDATE:

Whitaker was seen at the Trump Hotel after his testimony.