House judiciary panel chief says ex-attorney general also was involved in talks over firing U.S. attorneys
Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker was involved in conversations about the scope of New York federal prosecutors’ investigation into Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer, and about whether to fire one or more U.S. attorneys, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Wednesday.
Speaking to reporters after a closed-door meeting with Mr. Whitaker, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) said Mr. Whitaker didn’t deny—as he had in a public committee hearing last month—that Mr. Trump had called him to discuss the Cohen investigation, in which prosecutors in December implicated the president in two federal campaign-finance violations.
Mr. Nadler said that Mr. Whitaker, while serving as acting attorney general, had been “directly involved” in conversations about whether to fire U.S. attorneys, though the congressman didn’t specify which ones.
Mr. Nadler also said Mr. Whitaker had been involved in discussions about the “scope of the Southern District [of New York] attorney and his recusal” from the Cohen investigation, and whether New York prosecutors “went too far” in pursuing their campaign-finance investigation.
Mr. Nadler didn’t specify with whom Mr. Whitaker had those conversations. The House Judiciary Committee believes it has evidence that Mr. Trump asked Mr. Whitaker whether Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman could regain control of his office’s investigation into Mr. Cohen, The Wall Street Journal previously reported.
Mr. Berman is a former law partner of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and in 2016 donated to the Trump campaign. The president personally interviewed him for the U.S. attorney job, and last year he recused himself from involvement in the Cohen investigation.
Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the committee, disputed parts of Mr. Nadler’s account on Wednesday, saying Mr. Whitaker didn’t confirm that he had spoken with the president about the Cohen investigation. He also said Mr. Whitaker’s conversations about firing U.S. attorneys were “normal personnel issues.”
The revelation that Mr. Whitaker was involved in conversations about the possibility of curtailing New York prosecutors’ investigation into the president’s former lawyer could propel ongoing investigations by Congress and by special counsel Robert Mueller into whether Mr. Trump sought to obstruct justice. Mr. Trump has denied doing so.
Whitaker hearing confirms it: On Mueller probe, Democrats have already won
The ranking committee Republican, Rep. Doug Collins (Ga.), did make one reasonable point in his ranting: Since it looks like William Barr will be confirmed as the new attorney general in a matter of days, it may not be worth getting too worked up about anything having to do with Matthew Whitaker at this point. But what Democrats are concerned about is whether in his brief time running the Justice Department, Whitaker has done anything to undermine the investigation, or tip off President Trump to its substance.
.. Democrats are trying to do two things simultaneously with this hearing in particular and their broader efforts with regard to the Mueller investigation.
- The first is to discover whether there has been any improper interference from the White House to limit the probe.
- The second is to apply enough pressure that even if Whitaker — or the White House, or William Barr — wanted to hinder Mueller, they’d decide that doing so would be too much of a risk.
.. The truth is that Democrats have probably succeeded in the latter goal, which must be spectacularly frustrating for Trump. He has made no bones about the fact that he he expects his Justice Department appointees to protect him from accountability when it comes to Russia (and anything else). He repeatedly belittled his first attorney general for recusing himself from the investigation, saying that without Jeff Sessions overseeing it and therefore able to quash it or scale it back, “I don’t have an attorney general. It’s very sad.”
All evidence suggests that after pushing Sessions out, he appointed Whitaker in an acting capacity precisely because Whitaker had been publicly critical of the Mueller investigation. Yet Whitaker was under so much scrutiny on this question from the moment he took that position, he was almost certainly prevented from doing anything significant to impede Mueller. The same is likely to be true of Barr, who despite being critical of the investigation before his appointment now knows that if he really tries to protect Trump, eventually everyone will know and he’ll be disgraced.
If Trump had actually persuaded anyone to obstruct the Mueller probe on his behalf, he wouldn’t be tweeting “Witch hunt!!!” every few days. Those are the desperate cries of a man who wishes his underlings would obstruct justice on his behalf, but isn’t getting what he wants.
.. I’m sure Trump plays out an alternate history in his mind over and over, in which he appointed someone else to be attorney general at the beginning of his presidency, and that person not only never appointed a special counsel in the first place but also made sure that any questions about Russia were quietly shelved. Instead, we got Mueller conducting what seems to be a thorough and aggressive probe. No amount of evaded questions or Republican shouting at hearings or angry tweets has been able to stop it.
Episode 876: Patent Deception
World Patent Marketing’s pitch to inventors was simple: Pay us lots of money, and we’ll take care of the complicated patent office details. Hundreds of tinkerers and would-be visionaries took this deal.
After all, the patent system is complicated. Marketing is tricky. It can be hard to find factories. But, for new inventors, it’s hard to tell a legitimate service from a scam. It was especially hard to tell with World Patent Marketing, which boasted an advisory board that included Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker.
If you want more, check out this piece in the Miami New Times, by Brittany Shammas, who joins us on this week’s show.
What to ask Matthew Whitaker
What is the constitutional basis for your appointment? If your appointment is valid, what is left of the advice and consent process?
Did you consult with the Justice Department’s ethics attorneys on your involvement in the Russia investigation, given your past representation of Sam Clovis and public statements about the investigation? What did they say? Did you recuse in whole or in part? If you didn’t, isn’t there a risk at the very least of the appearance of a conflict of interest?
What directions, if any, were you given about the Mueller investigation from the White House?
Is the investigation lawful and constitutional?
Are you aware of any misconduct by the special counsel? Is there any possible conflict of interest that has not been reviewed and dismissed by Justice Department ethics attorneys?
Do dozens of indictments or pleas and one conviction suggest the investigation is worthwhile?
Is it appropriate for the president of the United States to direct the Justice Department to prosecute a political opponent, or to lay off a political ally?
Is it appropriate for the president of the United States to make an allegation of criminality (bugging Trump Tower) against his predecessor without any factual basis?
As chief of staff to former attorney general Jeff Sessions, did you ever witness attempts by the president to compel Sessions to violate his ethical obligations and take over the Russia investigation? If so, did you report this to anyone?
Can a president obstruct justice by offering to pardon someone in exchange for a “thing of value”? Can a “thing of value” be refusal to provide incriminating information to a prosecutor or to provide inside information about a prosecution?
Can a president obstruct justice by interfering with a Justice Department investigation of himself and/or his family?
Can a president obstruct justice by writing up a false statement to disguise the purpose of a meeting under investigation?
You get the idea. It sort of makes you wonder if Trump is going to leave Whitaker in place until January. On the other hand, any nominee for the “permanent” attorney general slot is going to have to answer most of these questions in a Senate confirmation hearing.