In other Trump related sleaze today...

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler told reporters Wednesday that former Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker “did not deny” that President Trump called him to discuss the Michael Cohen case and personnel decisions in the Southern District of New York.

  The Daily Beast

And that, my dears, is a big no-no. Sitting very near obstruction of justice, which is a favorite thing for Trump to do.

The two met because Nadler had asked Whitaker to clarify comments he made in front of the committee last month.

During that testimony, Nadler said publicly Whitaker refused to answer specific questions about whether he discussed Cohen’s case in the Southern District of New York with Trump and to what extent he had spoken about Cohen generally with Trump.

[...]

Following their closed-door meeting on Wednesday, Nadler said Whitaker was involved in conversations about the Southern District of New York and “whether to fire one or more U.S. attorneys.”

Whitaker doesn't want to go to prison for lying to Congress. I think we all knew that about him as well

Nadler also said that Whitaker was also involved in conversations about the recusal of U.S. attorney Geoffrey Berman and “whether the Southern District went too far in pursuing the campaign finance case in which the president was listed as Individual Number 1,” Nadler said.

My, my, my. As acting AG, did Whitaker not know how improper this all was? He does strike me as kind of stupid.

“We disagree with Representative Nadler’s characterization of the conversation,” said a DOJ official who was in the room.

That's not surprising.

“Consistent with his prior testimony, Mr. Whitaker said that he couldn’t discuss private conversations with the president … and that the president never directed him to do anything to affect that investigation.”

[...]

Another DOJ official briefed on the conversation said Whitaker responded to multiple questions by saying he couldn’t discuss his talks with Trump.

Is Jerry calling that non-denial? Or why did he say Whitaker did talk with Trump?

Only a few people were in the room: Nadler; the committee’s top Republican, Rep. Doug Collins; DOJ lawyers; and staff for Nadler and Collins. No transcript of the meeting was produced.

So we just get a he said - he said reading. Don't mind us. We're just the citizens of this country who want government to behave according to the law.

Collins concurred with the view the DOJ official shared.

[...]

“I think that is [Nadler’s] interpretation of what he said,” Collins continued, according to the paper. “Mr. Whitaker said he did not have conversations with the president about Cohen. ... If Mr. Nadler chooses to say by absence of what he didn’t say and that is how he is interpreting that, then Mr. Nadler will have to answer to that,” he continued.

[...]

“In fact, he said he never talked with the president about Mr. Cohen at all and no conversation with the Southern District of New York either,” Collins told reporters after the meeting, according to The Hill.

Am I supposed to believe a Republican these days?

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

UPDATE:



That's as open to interpretation as any of Whitaker's dodges.  This DOJ probably thinks there's such a thing as proper influence.

Whitaker out

Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has left the Department of Justice.

A Justice Department spokesman told The Hill that Whitaker’s last day was Saturday but did not expand on the circumstances surrounding his departure or his plans after leaving. It is unclear where Whitaker might go, including whether he might seek another role in the Trump administration.

  The Hill

He might be too hot right now to go to another spot in the oven.

Whitaker endured a contentious appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last month during which he was grilled on the Mueller investigation and his communications with Trump. Whitaker insisted he did not interfere with the investigation and that Trump did not ask him to make commitments or promises with respect to Mueller’s probe or other investigations. But he angered Democrats by refusing to directly answer several inquiries during the public testimony.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said last week that Whitaker would return to clarify his testimony before the committee voluntarily, after alleging that his answers were “unsatisfactory, incomplete or contradicted by other evidence.”

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

Speaking of Matthew Whitaker

There have been whispers for a while that Democrats think former acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker may have perjured himself in his testimony before a House panel earlier this month.

And now the Wall Street Journal reports that the House Judiciary Committee is investigating:

The House Judiciary Committee believes it has evidence that President Trump asked Matthew Whitaker, at the time the acting attorney general, whether Manhattan U.S. attorney Geoffrey Berman could regain control of his office’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and his real-estate business, according to people familiar with the matter.

...

There is no sign Mr. Whitaker acted on any request from Mr. Trump, which the New York Times reported last week. But the House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Mr. Whitaker may have perjured himself in his appearance before the panel earlier this month, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.

The first thing to emphasize is that this is just an investigation, and there is no public evidence to prove that Whitaker perjured himself. It could just be a tactic to make Whitaker sweat. But Democrats seem to be moving toward pursuing the matter, so it’s worth looking at precisely what Whitaker said.

[...]

[I]t’s theoretically possible that Whitaker perjured himself — but probably not for the reasons people think.

The Journal and other news outlets have focused on this comment from Whitaker: “At no time has the White House asked for, nor have I provided, any promises or commitments concerning the special counsel’s investigation or any other investigation.”

[...]

[I]t’s not a lie if Trump merely asked about un-recusing Berman; he would have had to ask Whitaker to promise to make it happen.

The other big thing to remember about this quote is that it wasn’t just something Whitaker said off the cuff during an exchange with a lawmaker. It was part of his prepared opening statement. [...] That doesn’t mean it can’t be a lie, but it would represent a colossal foul-up to prepare such a lie and deliver it. Much more likely is that Whitaker chose his words carefully, even as he wanted to leave a perhaps misleading impression.

[...]

A more significant exchange, to my mind, is one the Journal alludes to later in the story. It’s this one with Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.):

CICILLINE: Mr. Whitaker. Did the President lash out at you after Michael Cohen’s guilty plea for lying to Congress about a Trump organization project to build a tower in Moscow?

WHITAKER: The President specifically tweeted that he had not lashed out.

CICILLINE: Did -- did -- I’m asking you, Mr. Whitaker. Did the President lash out at you? Not asking what he tweeted. I don’t have a lot of confidence in the veracity of his tweets. I’m asking you under oath.

WHITAKER: Congressman, that is based on an unsubstantiated ...

CICILLINE: Sir, answer the question yes or no, did the President lash out to you about Mr. Cohen's guilty plea?

WHITAKER: No, he did not.

CICILLINE: And did anyone from the White House or anyone on the President's behalf lash out at you?

WHITAKER: No.

CICILLINE: Mr. Whitaker, did the President lash out to you on or about December 8th, 2018, to discuss a case before the Southern District of New York where he was identified as Individual-1?

WHITAKER: No, Congressman.

CICILLINE: Did anyone on the President’s behalf either out -- inside the White House or outside the White House contact you to lash out or to express dissatisfaction?

WHITAKER: Did they contact me to lash out?

CICILLINE: Yes, did they reach out to you in some way to express dissatisfaction?

WHITAKER: No.

Cicilline asks not just whether Trump lashed out but also whether anyone in the White House “contact[ed] you to . . . express dissatisfaction?” And Whitaker says “no."

To believe that’s true, we’d need to believe that Trump talked about getting Berman un-recused from the Cohen inquiry without somehow expressing dissatisfaction. That’s possible, but why else would Trump want that to happen if he wasn’t dissatisfied? The question from there becomes whether Trump actually expressed his ire.

[...]

Cicilline asks both about “lashing out” and expressing dissatisfaction in one question, and Whitaker asks him to clarify that the question is about lashing out. Cicilline says “yes,” but then invokes expressing dissatisfaction again in his question. At that point, Whitaker offers a firm “no.”

[...]

[U]ntil we know more about exactly what transpired between him and Trump, it’s difficult to say with certainty that Whitaker is actually in trouble.

  WaPo

Perjury on those questions and answers would be hard to prove, I'd think. Unless they have someone testifying that Whitaker used the words "lashed out" or "dissatisfaction" relating to them what happened.  I doubt this will go anywere.

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

Fudging the official record

Yesterday's Twitter:

Please note the date of the memorandum (Nov. 8) vs. the date stamp showing when it was received at the DoJ (Nov. 13, 11:59 pm).  Five days to get to the DoJ from the White House?  Surely it didn't go by post.  Surely it was hand delivered or went through intra-departmental mail.

Unless that is a hell of a coincidence, now we know it takes 4 minutes to get something from Trump's desk to someone from DoJ with an official date stamp, even when it's nearly midnight.

And why then did they date the memo November 8?  Because Jeff Sessions was booted on November 7.

White House spokesperson Raj Shah used similar language, telling BuzzFeed News, “After accepting the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the President signed a memorandum addressed to Matthew Whitaker, directing him to perform the functions and duties of the office of Attorney General, until the position is filled by appointment or subsequent designation.”

The next week, Shah declined to provide a copy of the memorandum or any additional information, writing that it was “relevant to ongoing litigation.” BuzzFeed News subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the memorandum.

[...]

White House and Justice Department officials previously had repeatedly declined to make public a copy of Trump’s memorandum designating Whitaker the acting attorney general this past November. A copy of the document, obtained by BuzzFeed News in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, suggests why that was the case: The document raises several questions about the timing of and process involved in Whitaker’s appointment.

Then-attorney general Jeff Sessions, whose departure as the head of DOJ was forced by Trump, resigned by way of an undated letter made public Nov. 7, 2018. Trump tweeted that afternoon that Matthew Whitaker, Sessions’ chief of staff, would be taking over as the acting attorney general until a replacement was confirmed.

The obtained presidential memorandum, dated Nov. 8, does not make clear when Sessions’ resignation took effect or when Whitaker actually began serving as acting attorney general.

  Buzzfeed

Just sloppy because no one in this administration knows what they're doing? It could matter on legal decisions. Or maybe it's not simply incompetence?

Whitaker’s appointment was not automatic: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would have become the acting attorney general under law by default if Sessions left, but Trump took advantage of another law that allows the president to name certain people as acting officers for a period of time.

[...]

Notably, on Nov. 8, Whitaker, along with Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, issued the asylum rule that preceded Trump’s Nov. 9 move seeking to limit asylum applications from along the southern border.

[...]

In addition to the big questions of when Sessions’ tenure formally ended and when Whitaker’s formally began, the obtained memorandum also leaves unclear when DOJ was formally notified of Whitaker’s appointment and why the Executive Secretariat’s notation signifies that DOJ did not receive the appointment memorandum until late at night Nov. 13.

Neither a DOJ spokesperson nor White House spokespeople responded to questions about the memorandum and the timing of Sessions’ resignation and Whitaker’s ascension to acting attorney general.

We've come way too far on the road of making excuses and allowances for the Trump administration. The laxer the rules become, the freer they are to bend and break them. How do you hold anyone coming after to norms and rules? The legality of things done is in question. The authority of things done is in question. Is it intentional? In the alternative, will it become intentional if there are no consequences?

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

More Whitaker testimony fun

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

Also forgot to mention that Whitaker was seen at the Trump Hotel after his testimony.

What documents? What pardons?

I wouldn't call it the most important, but it certainly leaves us wondering.

Escobar: Did you ever create, direct the creation of, see, or become aware of, the existence of any documents relating to pardons of any individual?

Whitaker: Uh, I am aware of documents relating to pardons of individuals, yes.

Admittedly, his response lacked any of his big “tells,” (such as drinking water or sneering or gritting his jaw), so this could be an answer pertaining to the normal role of the Attorney General in pardons (and Trump hasn’t pardoned all that many people, in any case). But it was an interesting exchange in any case.
  Emptywheel

He's not going to have tattled on Trump.  So the question is, when Whitaker says he's aware of documents relating to pardons, who is he talking about?  When Rep Veronica Escobar gets his answer, Nadler says her time is up.  (Actually, just as she started the question he said it was up, but he let her ask it.)  Then he goes back to a question about asylum seekers.  And then the hearing was over.  What's going on?

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

Whitaker's intended audience was Trump, of course

Whitaker presented himself to Nadler, a 13-term congressman, with the same aloofness and disdain for tradition that often seems typical of the Trump White House. And that may have been on purpose. Whitaker, whose tenure ends when Bill Barr is confirmed as attorney general next week, will need a new job. He has reportedly been considered for the role of Trump’s chief of staff. And though he testified under oath that he had “not interfered in any way with the special counsel’s investigation,” he repeatedly declined to contradict Trump’s claims that Mueller is on a “witch hunt.”

[...]

Whitaker had a boilerplate response prepared for the myriad of questions posed by Democrats about the Mueller probe: “It would be inappropriate for me to talk about an ongoing investigation,” he said. Democrats, though, found that disingenuous—Whitaker had discussed the probe publicly earlier this month, going as far as to speculate that it would be wrapping up soon. During Friday’s highly contentious oversight hearing, he entertained a Republican’s inquiry about the way Trump’s longtime confidant Roger Stone had been arrested last month in Florida by the FBI—and why a reporter was staked out there in advance of the raid. “I share your concern with the possibility that a media outlet was tipped off to Mr. Stone’s either indictments or arrest before it was made,” Whitaker told Representative Doug Collins, acknowledging later that he had no inside information to suggest that the media outlet, CNN, had advance word of Stone’s arrest.

[...]

Whitaker told lawmakers that, despite a CNN report to the contrary, Trump had not “lashed out” about the investigation into his longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen. And in contrast to his testimony that he had not discussed the Mueller investigation with Trump, Whitaker dodged questions about whether he had discussed the Cohen probe with the president. “As I've mentioned several times today, I'm not going to discuss my private conversations with the President,” he told Democratic Representative Val Demmings.

  The Atlantic

The Cohen probe mentioned here is the Southern District of New York case, generally viewd to be the more problematic investigation for Trump. And, it's been reported that Trump wanted Whitaker to rein it in - indeed, that he lashed out at Whitaker for not doing so.  Whitaker's choice to not "discuss" his conversations with Trump on that particular case is evidence that the reports are true.

Frank Figliuzzi, the former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, seemed shocked by Whitaker’s demeanor: “I am not kidding when I say I have interviewed terrorists who were more cooperative and respectful than Matt Whitaker was today,” Figliuzzi told MSNBC. “The attorney general’s role is America's lawyer, we are his client.”

Unfortunately, at Friday’s hearing, Figliuzzi said, “he treated us with utter disdain.”

Par for the Trumpland course.

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

UPDATE:

Whitaker was seen at the Trump Hotel after his testimony.

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.

He plans on not answering

How about the Committee subpoenas him to appear?

"The Acting Attorney General will testify that at no time did the White House ask for, or did the Acting Attorney General provide, any promises or commitments concerning the Special Counsel's investigation," Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd writes in the new letter obtained by CNN. "With respect to the Special Counsel investigation, the Department has complied with the Special Counsel regulations, and the Acting Attorney General will make clear that there has been no change in how the Department has worked with the Special Counsel's office."

A senior Justice Department official told CNN that the bottom line is that the Department is not aware of any precedent for the authorization of a subpoena before questioning.

"This is a breach of the agreement," and a "striking departure from long-standing processes."

Democrats approved the subpoena over the objection of Republicans, who accused Nadler of authorizing a pre-emptive subpoena as "political theater" with questions designed to embarrass the acting attorney general.

The resolution passed on a party-line vote, 23-13.

[...]

Nadler said that authorizing a subpoena for Whitaker was necessary because Whitaker failed to tell the committee whether the Trump administration would invoke privilege with respect to a series of questions they intend to ask about Whitaker's conversations with the White House about special counsel Robert Mueller's probe and his decision not to recuse himself from the matter.

  CNN

There are 10 more Democrats than Republicans on the Committee?

At any rate, the shoe is on the other foot now, and the Republicans don't like the fit.

Nadler argued in a letter to Whitaker that he could not claim the White House reserved the right to claim executive privilege to avoid answering those questions. He asked Whitaker to consult with the White House ahead of the hearing and tell the committee whether he would invoke privilege, though Whitaker has not responded to Nadler's letter as of Thursday morning.

There is a bit of theater to it, to be honest. I understand Nadler's concern, but he has no authority to force Whitaker to state ahead of time whether he intends to claim executive privilege on any particular question.

"The subpoena will only be issued if he refuses to answer questions on a speculative basis of privilege," Nadler said. "If he does not show up — though I do expect he will — but if he refuses to answer questions he ought to answer, then we will have the tools we need to ensure that we may adequately meet our own responsibilities."

Republicans slammed Nadler for pre-emptively planning a subpoena for a witness who had voluntarily agreed to testify, saying it was setting a troubling precedent.

"A subpoena should only follow a breakdown of the accommodation process and as a last resort against persons seeking to frustrate legitimate oversight on this committee," said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee's top Republican. "There has been no breakdown here."

Nor has any subpoena been served.

Whitaker has been undertaking significant preparations ahead of the hearing, including conducting briefings with every DOJ component and participating in several mock hearings, according to the officials.

He's going to have to resort to just refusing to answer, be it under a claim of executive privilege or something else, because he is no match for the Committee. He was sweating bullets at a press conference.

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

Does anyone know Morse code?

Mueller isn't wrapping up soon, no matter what Whitaker is stammering on about.



Also, Whitaker says he's not going to talk about an ongoing investigation and immediately talks about it.  He's not qualified for any position.

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

Further on the Buzzfeed-Special Counsel kerfuffle

Rosenstein’s office did call to check whether Mueller was going to release a statement debunking the BuzzFeed story.

[...]

In the advanced stages of those talks, the deputy attorney general’s office called to inquire if the special counsel planned any kind of response, and was informed a statement was being prepared, the people said.

That seems to be a violation of Special Counsel regulations, which say that Mueller’s office shall not be subject to day-to-day supervision of any official, whether DAG or Acting Attorney General. In the advanced stages of those talks, the deputy attorney general’s office called to inquire if the special counsel planned any kind of response, and was informed a statement was being prepared, the people said. That seems to be a violation of Special Counsel regulations, which say that Mueller’s office shall not be subject to day-to-day supervision of any official, whether DAG or Acting Attorney General.

The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

Maybe Mueller and Peter Carr don’t care. But it should set off all sorts of alarm bells that as soon as a media report states what has long been clear — that Trump suborned perjury — Mueller’s office is getting calls about how to respond to the press, which last I checked was not an “investigative or prosecutorial step” at all. All the more so given that Carr appears to have bent over backward not to reveal any investigative details to the press, adhering rigorously to any DOJ guidelines on that front.

Whichever side is correct (again, I believe WaPo has just one part of this story), that Rosenstein (or Whitaker) got involved seems to be far more important.

  Emptywheel

I agree, and it's something I voiced concern about in a previous post.

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

UPDATE:

My bet is on Buzzfeed.

FURTHER UPDATE:



UPDATE 1/21:




UPDATE 3/1:  Buzzfeed's story's looking quite accurate now.

The Buzzfeed story plot unfolds

The [Buzzfeed] reporter informed Mueller’s spokesman, Peter Carr, that he and a colleague had “a story coming stating that Michael Cohen was directed by President Trump himself to lie to Congress about his negotiations related to the Trump Moscow project,” according to copies of their emails provided by a BuzzFeed spokesman. Importantly, the reporter made no reference to the special counsel’s office specifically or evidence that Mueller’s investigators had uncovered.

“We’ll decline to comment,” Carr responded, a familiar refrain for those in the media who cover Mueller’s work.

[...]

When BuzzFeed published the story hours later, it far exceeded Carr’s initial impression, people familiar with the matter said, in that the reporting alleged that Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and self-described fixer, “told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie,” and that Mueller’s office learned of the directive “through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents.”

In the view of the special counsel’s office, that was wrong, two people familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

  WaPo

As if everything gets cleared up by the use of anonymous sources, which was a big part of the problem in the first place.

And with Democrats raising the specter of investigation and impeachment, Mueller’s team started discussing a step they had never before taken: publicly disputing reporting on evidence in their ongoing investigation.

Within 24 hours of the story’s publication, the special counsel’s office issued a statement doing just that. Mueller's investigation is becoming too precious.

Mueller's team needs to let impeachment proceedings go forward. I know they need to keep their investigation clean, but the tradeoff is that the world is in ever growing danger the longer Trump is left alone.

People familiar with the matter said Carr told others in the government that he would have more vigorously discouraged the reporters from proceeding with the story had he known it would allege Cohen had told the special counsel Trump directed him to lie — or that the special counsel was said to have learned this through interviews with Trump Organization witnesses, as well as internal company emails and text messages.

[...]

BuzzFeed has stood by its reporting.

“As we’ve reconfirmed our reporting, we’ve seen no indication that any specific aspect of our story is inaccurate. We remain confident in what we’ve reported, and will share more as we are able,” Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for the news outlet, said Saturday.

[...]

After Carr declined to comment to BuzzFeed, but before the story was published, he sent reporter Jason Leopold a partial transcript of Cohen’s plea hearing, in which Cohen admitted lying to Congress about the timing of discussions related to a possible Trump Tower project in Moscow, according to the emails BuzzFeed’s spokesman provided. Cohen had claimed falsely that the company’s effort to build the tower ended in January 2016, when in fact discussions continued through June of that year, as Trump was clinching the Republican nomination for president.

[...]

Carr, people familiar with the matter said, hoped Leopold would notice that Cohen had not said during the hearing that Trump had explicitly directed him to lie. But Leopold, who co-authored the story with reporter Anthony Cormier, told the spokesman he was not taking any signals, and Carr acknowledged the point.

“I am not reading into what you sent and have interpreted it as an FYI,” Leopold wrote.

“Correct, just an FYI,” Carr responded.

A person inside the Trump Organization said a BuzzFeed reporter also talked with a lawyer for the organization hours before the story posted and was warned that the story was flawed and should be scrutinized further. Mittenthal said, “We trust our sources over the organization still run by Donald Trump’s family."

I should think so.

While neither Cohen nor his representatives had ever said explicitly that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress, Guy Petrillo, Cohen’s attorney, wrote in a memo in advance of his sentencing, “We address the campaign finance and false statements allegations together because both arose from Michael’s fierce loyalty to Client-1. In each case, the conduct was intended to benefit Client-1, in accordance with Client-1’s directives.”

Which sounds very like saying Trump told him to lie.

Petrillo declined to comment Saturday. It is unclear precisely what “directives” Petrillo was referring to, though he did not allege elsewhere in the memo that Trump explicitly instructed Cohen to lie to Congress.

[...]

People familiar with the matter said after BuzzFeed published its story — which was attributed to “two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter” — the special counsel’s office reviewed evidence to determine if there were any documents or witness interviews like those described, reaching out to those they thought might have a stake in the case.

They found none, these people said. That, the people said, is in part why it took Mueller’s office nearly a day to dispute the story publicly.

And here we are in the same impossible position: Who are "these people"?

And did Whitaker, at the behest of the Trump team, lean on the Special Counsel's office to make a public statement?*

Told of the special counsel’s failure to find support for the story, Mittenthal, the BuzzFeed spokesman, said, “Our high-level law enforcement sources, who have helped corroborate months of accurate reporting on the Trump Tower Moscow deal and its aftermath, have told us otherwise. We look forward to further clarification from the Special Counsel in the near future.”

Speculation has been that these "high-level law enforcement sources" are from the Southern District of New York where Cohen was prosecuted in the illegal campaign contributions case.

We are a nation in crisis because of the man sitting in the Oval Office.

Open an impeachment investigation now.

*UPDATE:  Or Rosenstein?

UPDATE 3/1:  Buzzfeed's story's looking quite accurate now.

What. The. Fuck.

On Monday, Dahlia Lithwick and I wrote an article in Slate arguing that the Senate should not confirm William Barr, Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, merely to oust Matthew Whitaker, who is currently serving as acting attorney general. We noted that Whitaker was arguably appointed in violation of the Constitution and previously worked for a patent company that was shuttered and fined by the Federal Trade Commission for alleged fraud.

[...]

In response to this article, Whitaker’s wife, Marci, sent me an email on Wednesday morning. [...] Marci Whitaker, who requested that her email address and phone number not be used in an “ill manner” but did not ask for this correspondence to be considered off the record, made several noteworthy assertions about her husband’s work, the Mueller probe, and the government shutdown.

[...]

Whitaker wrote:

Mr. Stern –

I understand the message that Slate wants to send its readers. You hate Trump - noted. I also understand that I cannot stop people from writing what they want, if they toss in a few words like “allegedly” or “likely”. But I cannot understand the zeal in trying to destroy an individual who has done nothing to deserve this tearing down.

[...]

To imply that Matt had visibility and knowledge of $25 million dollars of wrongdoing is preposterous. Would you characterize a sternly worded letter as threatening? [note: obviously, yes, you did, but really?] It was well-documented that Matt is a capable and affable person.

[...]

It isn’t really or shouldn’t be that controversial to state that the Mueller investigation should stay within the parameters given.  [...] And by all means, assume that a person who speculated on a hypothetical scenario would then put some dark plan into motion, when by all accounts, the investigation is wrapping up and they [sic] eyes of the nation are upon them.

[...]

At the end of her email, Marci Whitaker wrote, “PS this is my work email and phone. Please do not use it in any ill manner. I like my job and I need to continue to earn a living, particularly in light of this shutdown. Thanks!”

  Slate

The full email is reprinted in this article. You should read it.  But...is Whitaker telling his wife what's going on with the Mueller investigation or is she just speculating like other people that it's "wrapping up"?

The wheels are completely off, aren't they?

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

Whitaker called before the House Judiciary

"Thank you for continuing to work with us to find a time for you to testify before the House Committee on the Judiciary," [House chair Jerry] Nadler wrote.

"As we have discussed and I have informed your staff, I expect you to appear on February 8 whether or not the current lapse in appropriations has been resolved, and whether or not the Senate has confirmed a new Attorney General," he added.

The Judiciary chairman advised Whitaker to consult with the White House in advance of the hearing on whether he plans to "invoke executive privilege in an attempt to avoid answering any particular question."

  The Hill

I think that's guaranteed. And I expect a Jeff Sessions style performance: privileged, or I don't recall.

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

Morning Joe's summary of the cabinet meeting

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

Jesus, this guy

Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has incorrectly claimed in government documents that he had been named an Academic All-American while playing football at the University of Iowa, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

It said Whitaker made the claim in his biography on his former law firm’s website and on a resume sent in 2014 to the chief executive of a now-closed patent-marketing firm, for which he sat on the advisory board.

[...]

“Mr. Whitaker’s name doesn’t appear in the list of Academic All-Americans on the website of the organization that bestows the annual honor, the College Sports Information Directors of America,” the Journal said.

It quoted a spokeswoman for the organization, Barb Kowal, as saying it had no record showing Whitaker, who was a tight end on the University of Iowa team from 1990 to 1992 and went on to earn business and law degrees from the university, was ever an Academic All-American.

Kowal said it appeared that Whitaker was given a lower level honor, according to the Journal.

  Reuters

If you can't exaggerate, you'll never last in the Trump administration.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said Whitaker had relied on a 1993 University of Iowa football guide which had listed him as a “GTE District VII academic All-American,” the Journal said. GTE was the contest sponsor at that time.

The Journal quoted an assistant athletic director at the University of Iowa, Steve Roe, as saying any confusion could be partly from “how we listed it in our media guide.”

Are we to believe he didn't himself KNOW what honor he had been given?

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

He's just now hearing about it

Hasn't gotten out of his pajamas.



This was a story three days ago.

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

Battle Royale

Our long national nightmare just goes on and on.

Speaking of the acting AG...

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

If it's possible for a year to be crazier than 2018, it's going to be 2019.

Seatbelts fastened?

Bad behavior - Part 2

More accurately, the President of the United States should not be discussing ANY case - no qualifier necessary - with the AG.

More to support an eventual obstruction of justice charge by Mueller.

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

UPDATE: