Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
OILERMAN

He’s a F*cking Fool’: Justice Department Officials Trash Matt Whitaker, Their New Boss

Recommended Posts

ctm   

Sources say that Whitaker presented himself as a sympathetic ear to both Sessions and Rosenstein — telling them he supported their efforts to prevent the president from politicizing the Justice Department. A person close to Whitaker suggested to me that the then-chief of staff was only attempting to diffuse the tension between the president and his attorney general and deputy attorney general, and facilitate an agreement between the two sides.

 

But two other people with firsthand information about the matter told me that Whitaker, in his conversations with the president, presented himself as a vigorous supporter of Trump’s position and “committed to extract as much as he could from the Justice Department on the president’s behalf.”

 

One administration official with knowledge of the matter told me: “Whitaker let it be known [in the White House] that he was on a team, and that was the president’s team.”

 

Whitaker’s open sympathizing with Trump’s frequent complaints about the Mueller investigation resulted in an unusually close relationship between a president and a staffer of his level. The president met with Whitaker in the White House, often in the Oval Office, at least 10 times, a former senior administration official told me. On most of those occasions, Sessions was also present, but it’s unclear if that was always the case.

 

During this period, Whitaker frequently spoke by phone with both Trump and Chief of Staff John Kelly, this same official told me. On many of those phone calls, nobody else was on the phone except for the president and Whitaker, or only Kelly and Whitaker. As one senior law enforcement official told me, “Nobody else knew what was said on those calls except what Whitaker decided to tell others, and if he did, whether he was telling the truth. Who ever heard of a president barely speaking to his attorney general but on the phone constantly with a staff-level person?”

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/9/18080656/matthew-whitaker-trump-hillary-clinton-sessions-attorney-general

 

Whitaker got the job because he was snitching on Sessions and Rosenstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OILERMAN   

Whitaker can publically try and refuse to allow the Mueller report and/or stop indictments, we'll see how that goes over with the public. 

 

Then the House can subpoena him to testify and he can either lie or refuse and once again we'll see how that goes. 

 

Best case scenario for Trump is an absolute political nightmare 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ctm   
48 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

Whitaker can publically try and refuse to allow the Mueller report and/or stop indictments, we'll see how that goes over with the public. 

 

Then the House can subpoena him to testify and he can either lie or refuse and once again we'll see how that goes. 

 

Best case scenario for Trump is an absolute political nightmare 

In the Watergate case, the prosecutors indicted numerous Nixon allies.  Nixon was an unindicted co-conspirator.  The federal judge sent all the documents and evidence straight from his court to the House, bypassing the DOJ.  So there is precedent to bypass Whitaker with the hard evidence.  If Whitaker tries to stop indictments without cause, then that is potential obstruction.

 

Whitaker is really in a bind.  He's made clear or strongly implied that he'll protect Trump.  How does he do that when all the top lawyers and FBI agents don't trust him because he's a hack who ratted out Sessions and Rosenstein and they are all watching and documenting his every move?

 

Besides, he played football at Iowa and likely has had a concussion and CTE.

Edited by ctm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52O   
2 hours ago, OILERMAN said:

Whitaker can publically try and refuse to allow the Mueller report and/or stop indictments, we'll see how that goes over with the public. 

 

Then the House can subpoena him to testify and he can either lie or refuse and once again we'll see how that goes. 

 

Best case scenario for Trump is an absolute political nightmare 

Probs earn him a future republican presidential nomination 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
begooode   
2 hours ago, ctm said:

Whitaker’s open sympathizing with Trump’s frequent complaints about the Mueller investigation resulted in an unusually close relationship between a president and a staffer of his level. The president met with Whitaker in the White House, often in the Oval Office, at least 10 times, a former senior administration official told me. On most of those occasions, Sessions was also present, but it’s unclear if that was always the case.

Per the reporting, Trump refused to be briefed by Sessions as their relationship deteriorated so Whitaker handled all those interactions. Apparently well enough to leverage those interactions into a cabinet level job. Yet Trump played the “I don’t know him” card 4 times in 5 minutes?  To my understanding the only way Whitaker could bypass the DOJ deputy is solely based on Trump’s insistence, which similarly would have to be based on Trumps specific knowledge of Whitaker,... yet it seems all Trump was aware of regarding Whitaker’s profile was that he was going to protect the prez.

 

Hmmmmm....  obsequious pandering is all it takes for the president of the United States to anoint a staffer to a cabinet level position of a supposedly impartial justice department (recall the VA guy, Porter reconsidered for WH lawyer)

 

Transactional Trump confirmed. 

Edited by begooode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ctm   
4 minutes ago, begooode said:

Per the reporting, Trump refused to be briefed by Sessions as their relationship deteriorated so Whitaker handled all those interactions. Apparently well enough to leverage those interactions into a cabinet level job. Yet Trump played the “I don’t know him” card 4 times in 5 minutes?  To my understanding the only way Whitaker could bypass the DOJ deputy is solely based on Trump’s insistence, which similarly would have to be based on Trumps specific knowledge of Whitaker,... yet it seems all Trump was aware of regarding Whitaker’s profile was that he was going to protect the prez.

 

Hmmmmm....  obsequious pandering is all it takes for the president of the United States to anoint a staffer to a cabinet level position of a supposedly impartial justice department (recall the VA guy, Porter reconsidered for WH lawyer)

 

Transactional Trump confirmed. 

There is a law about succession for the DOJ.  The question is whether it is constitutional.  Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the constitution gives the senate the responsibility for advice and consent for many high government positions.  The succession law bypasses that. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ctm said:

There is a law about succession for the DOJ.  The question is whether it is constitutional.  Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the constitution gives the senate the responsibility for advice and consent for many high government positions.  The succession law bypasses that. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ctm   

In most cases the constitution over rides any law that is passed.  We'll see.

 

And while Jarrett has a law degree, he's also a commentator on Fox with an agenda. He also doesn't appear to have any experience in constitutional law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justafan   
8 minutes ago, Legaltitan said:

It gets even worse. Last year Whittaker interviewed to be chief DEFENSE counsel for trump in the Russia probe before he hired ty Cobb. Now that same guy has been appointed to oversee the head prosecutor on the very same case. 

 

Jesus christ this is banana republic shit. 

Would that be considered a conflict of interest?

 

(I'll mark sarcasm here for the dummies)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ctm   
11 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Would that be considered a conflict of interest?

 

(I'll mark sarcasm here for the dummies)

Here's an article that examines both sides of the argument of whether Whitaker must recuse himself because of a prior political relationship.....same as Sessions.  The DOJ dept. of ethics will make a ruling.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/should-acting-attorney-general-whitaker-recuse-himself-mueller-s-investigation-n933931

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way in hell you can consult with the defense to represent them, feed information to the defense from the prosecution, and then go be in charge of the prosecution. It's such a hilarious conflicts of interest it would never even show up on a law exam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ctm   
26 minutes ago, Legaltitan said:

There is no way in hell you can consult with the defense to represent them, feed information to the defense from the prosecution, and then go be in charge of the prosecution. It's such a hilarious conflicts of interest it would never even show up on a law exam 

It's obvious but this is Trump we are talking about.  They'll probably fire the DOJ ethics officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×