,
32 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Matt Whitaker saying this the day BEFORE he's set to testify before House Judiciary is highly suspicious. It tells me that he's got plenty to hide, beg with his own scam hx, & that he & Trump thought he'd be able to claim exec. priv. till Nadler said NO. washingtonpost.com/powerpost/hous…
2-"House Democrats refused to rescind their subpoena threat against President Trump’s acting attorney general, leaving it unclear whether the nation’s top law enforcement official will appear at a much-anticipated hearing scheduled for Friday.Acting attorney general Matthew G.
3-"Whitaker had said earlier Thursday that he would not appear before the House Judiciary Committee as scheduled unless committee Democrats gave him assurances he won’t be subpoenaed.On Thursday evening, the committee chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), sent a letter to
4-"Whitaker that provided no such assurance, saying only that “there will be no need for a subpoena” if Whitaker answers the committee’s questions. “To the extent that you believe you are unable to fully respond to any specific question, we are prepared to handle your concerns on
5-"a case-by-case basis, both during and after tomorrow’s hearing,” Nadler wrote. A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately address questions about Whitaker’s next move. Based on the terms he outlined, it appears he is unlikely to attend.White House press secretary
6-"Sarah Sanders ripped Nadler.“The fact Chairman Nadler would try to force the public disclosure of private conversations that he knows are protected by law proves he only wants to play politics,” Sanders said. “The chairman should focus on helping the American people, rather
7-"than wasting time playing pointless political games.”Whitaker’s demand for Democrats to set aside their subpoena threat came shortly after the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to give its chairman the authority to subpoena Whitaker’s testimony, should he
8-"not appear or answer lawmakers’ questions. The confrontation highlights efforts by Democrats to assert their newfound control of the House of Representatives as a check on the Trump administration’s power, and the administration’s determination to push back against
9-"congressional investigations decried by the president. However the Whitaker subpoena standoff ends, it may set the tone for months or years more of wrangling between the White House and congressional Democrats. Leading up to Friday’s scheduled hearing, Democrats vowed to press
10-"Whitaker about his conversations with President Trump, and Whitaker’s decision not to recuse himself from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.“I remain willing to appear to testify tomorrow, provided
11-"that the chairman assures me that the committee will not issue a subpoena today or tomorrow, and that the committee will engage in good faith negotiations before taking such a step down the road,” Whitaker said in a statement. He said the committee has “deviated from historic
12-"practice and protocol and taken the unnecessary and premature step of authorizing a subpoena to me, the acting attorney general, even though I had agreed to voluntarily appear.” He said that move is a breach of his agreement with the panel. “Political theater is not the
13-"purpose of an oversight hearing, and I will not allow that to be the case,” he said. Whitaker’s position was relayed in a letter sent Thursday to the committee.“Respectfully, this proposed approach reflects a striking departure from the constitutionally based understanding
14-"between our co-equal branches of government,” wrote Stephen Boyd, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs. Whitaker, the letter said, is willing to discuss with lawmakers his decision not to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation.
15-"“We do not believe, however, that the committee may legitimately expect the acting attorney general to discuss his communications with the president,” Boyd wrote. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee showed no inclination to accommodate Whitaker’s demands.
16-"Some urged Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to respond with an immediate subpoena. “Get him under subpoena, bring him to our hearing, and ask him questions and demand answers — and then take him to court if he does not answer those questions,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.).
17-"“What he’s trying to do is play out the clock . . . and then maybe he thinks he’s off the hook of having to appear,” Johnson continued. “But I think he’ll be badly mistaken about that.” Others were willing to give Whitaker until the end of the day to reconsider but were no
18-"more conciliatory. “He’s the attorney general … and he’s had the benefit of reviewing the list of questions for weeks,” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) said, noting that he had heard Whitaker was “nervous” about his testimony. “That’s not a reason not to show … if he simply does
19-"what he’s committed to do, committed to publicly, which is to appear and answer questions, there won’t be a subpoena.” A spokesman for Nadler did not answer when asked what the chairman’s next move would be.The panel vote on the subpoena along partisan lines underscores the
20-"new political tensions around Mueller’s work now that Democrats control the House. Democrats worry that Whitaker, whose public comments before taking over the Justice Department suggested he was sympathetic to Trump and critical of the Mueller inquiry, may seek to evade
21-"questions he is asked during the proceedings. They pointed to a pattern of administration witnesses, such as former attorney general Jeff Sessions, who refused to answer certain queries by suggesting that the president “might” want to invoke executive privilege over certain
22-"parts of their testimony, to justify the concern. “The committee can and should expect a direct answer to any question,” said Nadler, who opted to send Whitaker his questions in advance and require that he tell the panel about any plans to invoke executive privilege at least
23-"48 hours before the hearing. “That deadline has come and gone . . . therefore I expect the acting attorney general to answer all of these questions without equivocation.” Republicans objected to the move, arguing that Whitaker had not given the panel a legitimate reason to be
24-"concerned — and that approving a preemptive subpoena would set a bad precedent for the panel. “This subpoena is nothing short of political theater,” said Rep. Douglas A. Collins (Ga.), the panel’s ranking Republican. “I’m concerned about the chilling effect on other witnesses
25-"who would be willing to testify voluntarily, and when they see this happen, they’ll just hold out.” After Whitaker made his intentions clear, Collins said that Nadler and the Democrats had “overplayed their hand” with the goal of scoring “political points” against the
26-"president. “They authorized a preemptive subpoena, treating a voluntary witness as hostile,” he said. Republicans had attempted to get the committee to expand the subpoena-in-reserve to give Nadler the authority to subpoena Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, whom GOP
27-"members of the panel have long wanted to question about reports he suggested recording the president and invoking constitutional procedures to remove him from office. If the panel had questions about oversight of Mueller’s inquiry, Republicans also argued, it would be better
28-"to question Rosenstein, who had been monitoring it for far longer than Whitaker. “We want to add Mr. Rosenstein to get at the heart of the matter of the questions,” said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), who presented the amendment to add Rosenstein’s name to the subpoena
29-"authorization. “He could probably answer those questions more thoroughly than anybody else.”The panel voted against the proposal, also along party lines.Whitaker’s hearing, should it proceed according to schedule, probably will be one of his final appearances as acting
30-"attorney general. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Thursday to advance the nomination of William P. Barr to serve as attorney general, and the full Senate is expected to vote on confirmation next week.Although several Democrats have opposed Barr’s
31-"nomination out of concern that he might limit Mueller’s investigation or keep the final report out of the hands of the public, he is expected to be confirmed, as he needs to secure only a simple majority of the GOP-led Senate for his nomination to be approved" ~WaPo
32-Keep in mind that Whitaker was given a list of the questions he's to be asked tomorrow, so when he said No subpoena or NO testimony, he knew that there were questions he wouldn't be willing or able to answer. FASCINATING! A crook is running DOJ--again.
