New Lackey Attorney General Planning To Help Trump Obstruct Justice

By:  lets-get-lost  •  one week ago  •  25 comments

New Lackey Attorney General Planning To Help Trump Obstruct Justice
Whitaker is just a guy who Trump found on television who was hustling for an administration position by punditing the opinion that Robert Mueller and his probe were over the line. 

Matt Whitaker, the new acting attorney general of the United States, appears to have a curious lack of solid qualifications for the job. Normally when the Attorney General, such as Jeff Sessions , leaves,  the role would fall to the Deputy Attorney General or the Solicitor General, which are positions where the occupant has been confirmed by the US Senate. Whitaker is just a guy who Trump found on television who was hustling for an administration position by punditing the opinion that Robert Mueller and his probe were over the line. 

In other words, Whitaker is an unqualified lackey Trump has chosen to help him cover up his and/or his children's involvement in the Russian collusion and obstruction of justice cases. 

There are reports today that Whitaker has told associates that he would not approve of a subpoena of President Trump by Mueller,  and also that Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from being Mueller's supervisor. 

Why did Trump fire Jeff Sessions, and then replace him with an unremarkable flunky like Whitaker, if not in order to squash aspects of the Russia probe? 

Obstruction in plain sight? 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    one week ago

AAxYtfi.img?h=17&w=0&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=The Washington Post logoBBPubjr.img?h=203&w=300&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=fPresident Donald Trump announced Wednesday that Matt Whitaker, seen here in 2014, would become the acting attorney general.

Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from overseeing the special-counsel probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people close to him who added they do not believe he would approve any subpoena of President Trump as part of that investigation.

Since stepping into his new role Wednesday, Whitaker has faced questions — principally from Democrats — about whether he should recuse himself from the Russia investigation, given that he has written opinion pieces about the investigation and is a friend and political ally of a witness.

On Thursday, two people close to Whitaker said he has no intention of taking himself off the Russia case.

Ethics officials at the Justice Department are likely to review his past work to see whether he has any financial or personal conflicts. In many instances, the ethics office does not require a Justice Department official’s recusal but suggests a course of action. In the past, senior Justice Department officials have tended to follow such advice, but they are rarely required to do so, according to officials familiar with the process.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. Officials there have said Whitaker will follow the regular procedure in handling any ethics issues that arise.

In 2014, Whitaker chaired the campaign of Sam Clovis, a Republican candidate for Iowa state treasurer. Clovis went on to work as a Trump campaign adviser and has become a witness in the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

The Justice Department advises employees that “generally, an employee should seek advice from an ethics official before participating in any matter in which her impartiality could be questioned.” Regulations prohibit employees, “without written authorization, from participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution.”

Ethics officials might advise Whitaker that his commentary created the appearance of a conflict of interest and leave the decision to him. If they recommended forcefully that he recuse himself and he declined, Whitaker could then be referred to the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, and his license to practice law could be put at issue.

The two people close to Whitaker said they strongly believe he would not approve any request from Mueller to subpoena the president. Mueller and Trump’s attorneys have negotiated for months about a possible interview, with no agreement in sight.

Whitaker’s elevation to become the nation’s top law enforcement official followed the ouster Wednesday of Jeff Sessions as attorney general. Sessions had endured months of public abuse from Trump, who soured on Sessions because he recused himself from oversight of the Russia investigation shortly after he arrived at the Justice Department.

Sessions felt that Mueller’s investigation had gone on too long but also believed it was important that he stay on as attorney general as a means of protecting the special counsel’s work, so that when it was concluded, the public would have confidence it had not been manipulated, according to a person familiar with his thinking.

Even after he arrived at the Justice Department, Whitaker harbored frustration about the length of the special-counsel probe and doubts about the scope of Mueller’s authority, a person familiar with the matter said. He questioned Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein’s ability to give Mueller such wide latitude and wanted to explore the bounds of what Mueller was examining, though Rosenstein kept Sessions’s office “walled off” from the matter, this person said. Whitaker did, however, believe that Sessions had no choice but to recuse himself from the matter, the person said.

 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one week ago

Wasn't there an article in the news a couple of weeks ago, that said Mueller pretty much has concluded his investigation?  I suspect that it will be released in the next week or two, probably on a Friday. Looks like another "boy who cried wolf" article yet again.

 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
3  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    one week ago

I thought you would be happy John, you've always claimed Jeff Sessions is a racist. Now you are upset he is fired? Which is it?

https://thenewstalkers.com/search/results/all/1/10?search_string=jeff+sessions#cm451228

 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @3    one week ago

Did Trump fire him for being a racist? Now that would be news. 

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
3.1.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one week ago

Why would you be so upset over him being fired if he was a racist? 

Strange things happen on Newstalkers.......

 
 
charger 383
3.2  charger 383  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @3    one week ago

Ain't no pleasing some people

 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  charger 383 @3.2    one week ago

Why did he fire Jeff Sessions? 

 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    one week ago
Why did he fire Jeff Sessions? 

It's a question answered long ago, is it not?   Sessions recused himself (rightly so) and the President didn't want it. Rosenstein should have done the same. Now it appears that the President has taken the reigns over an overly long, fraudulently created investigation. We will soon only be left with one question - what took Mueller so long to exonerate the President?

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
3.2.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.2    one week ago

We will soon only be left with one question - what took Mueller so long to exonerate the President?

What a strange question.  This will never happen, and secondly, have you ever been tasked with writing a history of the universe?  Investigating the Trump crime syndicate is a similar never ending task.  It could go on for decades if it were allowed to.  No worries though, there’s plenty of crimes accumulated in his report by now.

A better question is why some schmuck who has never been confirmed by the senate would think he has any legal sway in matters of the AG.

 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.2    one week ago
It's a question answered long ago, is it not?   Sessions recused himself (rightly so) and the President didn't want it.

You are advocating and condoning obstruction of justice. You need to rethink this entire topic Vic. 

 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.2.3    one week ago
A better question is why some schmuck

He is the acting AG until anyone can remove him from the job

 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.4    one week ago
You are advocating and condoning obstruction of justice. You need to rethink this entire topic Vic. 

Where am I doing that?

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
3.2.7  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.5    one week ago

Because King Donald says so?

 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.2.7    one week ago

He is only a king if the rest of government dosen't do it's job.  You have the House now. 

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
3.2.9  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.8    one week ago

Deja vu.  That’s what we told you guys in 2016.  We said now it’s time for you to actually govern.  You failed, hugely, and you lost the house as a result.  Now you’re depending on a stacked SC to augment your weaknesses.

 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.2.9    one week ago

It's on you now. The democrats united in solidarity to act civil (just before elections) and campaign on "health care".  Are democrats going to deliver on that promise?  That means compromise bills with the Senate and the President.  Do you think they are capable of that?

It also means that House democrats will take control of committees. Are you going to investigate everything Trump?  You will have at least one thing the Republicans never had - the media!  However, you will have the same legal problems the Republicans had. Elija Cummings was asked this morning on ABC's "This Week" what he would do if a subpoena was not answered. He was forced to answer that he would cross that bridge when he came to it.

The big winner in the House changeover was Rod Rosenstein. The dems won't be following up on the year old demand for documents. He counted on the dems taking the House and he won.

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
3.2.11  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.10    one week ago

That means compromise bills with the Senate and the President.  Do you think they are capable of that?

It’s humorous that you would suggest Democrats are the roadblock in compromise.  How do you compromise with a group that favors allowing health insurance companies to make it financially impossible for certain people to get health insurance?  You all got ahead of your skies when you got full control, decided that the word compromise means we do as you say, and you subsequently lost your power because of it.   

 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.2.11    one week ago

Can you answer the question?  Or are you conceding that House democrats won't produce any legislation?

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @3    one week ago

John missed or ignored one important point above. Whitaker is only the "Acting" Attorney General. He is basically a caretaker until a new AG can be appointed and approved. As such, there is not a whole lot he can do at this time. Fear mongering anyone?

 
 
JohnRussell
3.3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3    one week ago

The only reason Trump would appoint an unknown like Whitaker is because Whitaker has already publicly stated that the Muller investigation is futile. Whitaker has said, on audio, that there is no collusion and if there was any collusion it was by the Democrats. He is a right wing hack. 

This is all not going to turn out well for Trump, he is obstructing justice. There was a report a day or two ago that Mueller has proof that Don Jr lied to investigators about whether or not he told his father in advance about the Trump Tower meeting. Trump Jr is expected to be indicted for those lies to investigators. 

Bringing Whitaker into AG is a blatant attempt to protect the Trump family from the laws. 

 
 
Sparty On
3.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.1    one week ago
The only reason Trump would appoint an unknown like Whitaker is because Whitaker has already publicly stated that the Muller investigation is futile.

Lol ... unknown?   He was Sessions Chief of Staff.  

A more seamless "interm" AG there is not ....

The left needs to quite spazing out over this until (If and when) there is actually something to their accusations.

Too much to ask though i know.   Especially these days ....

 
 
JohnRussell
3.3.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @3.3.2    one week ago

Anyone who thinks this Whitaker thing is going to turn out well for Trump is fooling themselves, at best. 

A little off topic, Trump is talking to reporters from his helicopter pad right now. This dude is losing his mind. 

We are going to see some dramatic things in this country in the next few months. 

 
 
Sparty On
3.3.4  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.3    one week ago
Anyone who thinks this Whitaker thing is going to turn out well for Trump is fooling themselves, at best. 

And anyone who makes judgements regarding things that haven't happened yet is on a fools errand.

Totally!

 
 
luther28
4  luther28    one week ago

Me thinks we may all be longing for Mr. Sessions in the not too distant future. Mr. Whitaker is essentially considered a bit of a crackpot, the devil we knew is preferable to the one we do not.

It may turn out that this appointment is deemed unconstitutional, but we shall see.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

nightwalker
ArkansasHermit-too
arkpdx
TTGA
CB


55 visitors