There is much criminality to hide. That is the only reason to fear subpoena or oversight questioning, and Republicans, using privacy as a ludicrous shield against constitutional oversight of the public's business, only shows them to be enabling and complicit in all that is pear-shaped about this Trump administration's conduct and policies.
1
"Mr. Nadler originally told Mr. Whitaker that there would be “no need” for the subpoena if he came prepared to answer questions, and that the committee was willing to work with him on a case-by-case basis on any question he felt he could not answer."
If he is so eager to cooperate, why is a subpoena of such concern to him?
Issue a subpoena. It is the only way he is likely to give truthful, complete answers to Judiciary Committee questions.
1
He impresses me as being a professional wrestler but only half as smart. Only the best and the brightest. Hmmm! What a discourteous and belligerent public servant. He wouldn't last a minute in any other administration that may have existed in the USA since the beginning of time, but he would be highly sought after in a fascist state.
6
'A Remarkable Breach of Decorum' could be the tag-line for the new koch-ownef gop.
2
Just another grifter.and yet POTUS followers think he drained the swamp?Am I using the term "think" loosely?
2
Watching the hearing now. Whitaker is acting just like his boss: behaving rudely and disrespectfully and refusing to answer questions = obstruction of justice.
What a farce!
2
If the Democrats in the house will not issue the subpoenas needed to provoke honest answers to questions, they are failing the American people who voted for them.
This is a straight forward standard operating legal procedure. Mr. Nadler does not and should not do this differently than how it is meant to be.
Forget politics; the appearance of reasonableness is unnecessary when pursuing justice legally.
The 2018 election results demand unequivocal legal action.
2
This guy Whitaker is completely out of his depth.
6
Just subpoena him.
3
I'm sure we now have enough precedent to deviate from "historic practice and protocol," considering the joker in the white house. I think a little deviation in the other direction is quite necessary to get back on the right path, don't you think?
“The committee now has deviated from historic practice and protocol and taken the unnecessary and premature step of authorizing a subpoena to me,” Mr. Whitaker said, adding, “Political theater is not the purpose of an oversight hearing, and I will not allow that to be the case.”
4
Officer: I pulled you over because you forgot to turn on your blinker when you made a left.
Driver: There is nobody in the trunk. And I certainly did not kill him. I’m telling you, I did not kill him.
3
Do you really think Whitaker is going to answer the questions that pose threats to the Liar in Chief? If the performance of Trump's other appointees are any indication, the subpoena will be necessary. I love Whitaker's objection about making it a spectacle. After all isn't that a prime criterion for any event his Master in Chief attends?
4
Why is this an issue? Just issue him a subpoena and be done with it. No kid gloves. You come before the House, get sworn in, and testify - or go to jail for contempt. Simple.
5
The promisary note only exempted a subpoena on or before Feb 8, congress is free to do so on Feb 9 and send law enforcement to arrest him in his PJs.
I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth... no fingers crossed will get you out of that oath.
So the man who wants to run the Justice Department does not want to answer questions under oath expects to lie with impunity.
Another sickening choice by Mr. Trump who only wants to save himself. Looks like he picked a clone.
2
I'll remember this tact next time I get subpoenaed. This is absurd.
1
Nonsense, these people put on their show of nonsense while the public continues to suffer. At this point, its really just a sad joke, we are the laughing stocks of the world.
1
I don't understand why the GOP is so excited that he hasn't been subpoenad yet. How is that a win for them? All that means, is Nadler said "We won't subpoena you if you come in voluntarily." There would be no REASON to subpoena him, unless he was resistant to testifying.
All this means is that Whittaker caved, and agreed to testify. If they want to subpoena him later, they easily can.
1
How many more of these Trump-mimes lurk in the shadows, waiting to pour out of the clown car? Where does he find them? Each successive generation of malevolent mime seems worse than the last, and two of them sit on the SCOTUS. If Trump is ever convicted of crimes that needs unwound as poisoned fruit.
1
Good Faith Negotiations.
That means no Pop Quiz.
I wish I could have negotiated my book reports this way.
Does this means he gets the questions in advance and that he can refuse any of the tough ones? What if someone asks him a really hard question he doesn't like? Game over?
1
Remember Mr. Whitaker "The Truth Shall Set You Free". Lying on behalf of Mr. Trump will ultimately result in you're joining the ever- increasing ranks of his other criminally convicted supporters and surrogates. There are only so many presidential-pardon tickets to go around. Loyalty is not one of his strong suites.
3
Now it comes down to the skill of the interrogators. And the questions that are not answered can also be highlighted with experience and finesse.
Let the viewers fill int the blanks, and if the democrats can work as a team, with the unifying objective of exposing the lies of the administration and the obstruction of the republicans, the absence of a subpoena can be turned to an advantage.
The people have the right to know what is happening in their government.
I believe that no hired gun, either Whitaker, or Barr, will succeed for long in denying that right.
Whitaker and Barr should be asking themselves repeatedly, as every new revelation is announced regarding the attack on our country, if they, along with their reputations, really needed to be lashed to the mast of the S.S. Donald Trump.
And to the republican party of Trump.
They should consider their legacy and choose with care how they wish to be viewed, written about, portrayed.
And they will not be consigned to an ash heap, to be ignored.
They will be actively reviled.
1
I fear this is going to play out with Whitaker being confirmed, and Trump claiming yet another victory. The Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee need to be really tough and make Whitaker squirm. And I'm not optimistic the Democrats on the Committee have what it takes to do that.
2
No Subpoena, means Whittaker can choose what questions to answer, he can be evasive, and I believe he is not under oath.
So he can't be charged with Perjury, for lying under oath, or held in contempt, if there is no subpoena?
Correct me if I am wrong.
Here is the next shoe to drop to top off the Democrats recent string of foolishness.
The Trump Russia collusion nonsense fairy tale investigation has run out of gas.
By now it is apparent to all but the corrupt that the endless investigation of President Trump over being a Russian collaborator is a witchunt.
Clinton and the DNC attempted to take down Trump during the election using a fake Russian sourced dossier by seeding the lies across various corrupt agencies and officials and, of course, the media.
When the lies failed to swing the election Hillary’s way, and Trump won, the effort switched from rigging an election to staging a coup.
To continue pretending we should do more investigation of Trump is making you look foolish and exposes your corruption.
2
The true corruption is in the executive branch. Evidence continues to mount.
5
I love how Whitaker gets all huffy accusing the Dems of deviating from "historic practice and protocol" while at the same time supporting and praising the deviator-in-chief. Classic.
So, if he turns out to be uncooperative in his testimony, using the "I do not recall" response for every question, can the committee subpoena him at 12:01am on the 9th?
11
Don’t worry Mr. Whitaker. If you’re one of Trump’s “best people” all you have to do is Be Best!
9
The fake " Acting Attorney General" better show up and answer questions under oath. Matthew Whitaker's ignorance and incompetence is matched by his unprofessional and unethical conduct.
6
It’s pathetic that we have a wholly unqualified acting Attorney General that isn’t horrified by the idea that he can put demands on Congress and pretend he’ll get away with it. Dude, you’re a temp that’s working for a loudmouth boss that’s widely despised by almost everyone around him. Get a grip. Your boss doesn’t even know what an Attorney General is.
12
This is a win for the trumpists. They get to hear all the questions that they don't want to answer and then fight a subpoena for months, at least, while they prep whitaker or get a ruling in their favor from the Supremes to quash the subpoena. My advice to Nadler, ask all question S that you believe he will answer without invoking presidential privilege. Then ask the tough questions. After the first refusal to answer based on presidential privilege then you ask whether he intends to invoke privilege for any questions asking what whitaker and trump discussed. If the answer is yes then terminate the hearing. If the answer is evasive terminate the hearing. Then issue a subpoena THIS AFTERNOON for testimony on Monday. And get the lawyers ready to work all weekend.
4
Since I am not an attorney, I can’t be sure, but Whitaker sems to be saying, “I’ll testify as long as I’m not compelled to answer your questions.” What then, is the point of conducting what is essentially a charade?
Even presidents have been subpoenaed and compelled to answer to Congress. Why should the acting Attorney General get a pass? I sincerely hope that, when Whitaker refuses to answer key questions, the committee will stop making nice with a man who clearly feels he has something to hide!
6
This is so insane. He won't agree to come unless he can refuse to answer! What's wrong with this picture!
7
I'm retired. 31 years as a LEO with NYPD. What I don't understand is why these legislators are giving in to men who are not above the law. There is no exemption from the power of the subpoena for ANYONE in government, including the US President. Just ask Nixon and Clinton. This is total nonsense. If he had the nerve to refuse to testify unless...then slap him with the paper. If he refuses to answer, then declare him in contempt. And then slap him with the paper. It's really so simple.
8
Wait until he is done, and THEN subpoena him if there is any reason whatsoever to get answers.
5
Nadler. Take a page out of Chair Pelosi’s book and stay tough or step aside and let someone who can. Don’t back down.
4
The MOB controls our government. trump and family bilk the American tax payer out of millions supporting their corrupt, luxurious lifestyle. Their helpers, thugs all, are lawyers trained in getting away with criminal behavior. This is how the trump family lives and now they have ingrained their corruption into our house. Farmers are going bankrupt from trump's lack of knowledge of world trade, 1000's of immigrant children have been locked up and abused, the Supreme Court has been loaded, people are dying because they can't afford life saving medications, the banks are selling bad mortgages again, all while trump enjoys executive time. SUBPOENA THEM ALL.
7
This is all part of Democrats' presidential harassment. It must be resisted employing whatever tactics necessary. Fight the Democrats to the end, give them nothing!!!
2
The translation of ‘Presidential harassment’ is - finding the truth. Unfortunately for Trump and his team of the ‘best’ people, they’ve never had to worry about the truth.
1
The only thing this sorry little episode proves is how cowardly, weak and ineffective the Democratically led congress really is.
Trump and his people have zero respect for congress and are well aware that they can lie thought their teeth to congress with zero repercussions or penalty.
4
But if he has nothing to hide, why is he...not willing to...
Hey trump supporting evangelical christians could you help me out here.
5
This guy was sweating bullets at a presser last week -- literally dripping just making an announcement -- they'll need a mop and bucket to clean up around his chair today when he has to answer real questions.
Too bad they can't grill him about the scam organization for which he worked in which one of the "inventions" was a deeper toilet for the overly endowed man. LOL No surprise that this conman is working for Trump via the JD.
Hoping that he is slapped with a subpoena when he tries to divert from answering questions. He's just another sleazeball brought to us by Trump Inc.
5
Another member of the Not Ready for Prime Time team, about to parade his ignorance and venality for the entire universe to behold.
5
Best and brightest!
Again, it’s most disappointing that (m)any Americans continue to not only accept a criminal in the White House, but support him.
3
Matt Whitaker belongs in jail for the failure to fix the heating system at the Metropolitan Detention Facility. The US Attorney for the Eastern District AND the Kings County DA have a duty to incarcerate him.
6
I wish trump and his administration would behave like adults.
2
The precedence was set by Eric Holder in 2012 and again in 2014.
1
No subpeonas on the 8th Februaries.
So leaving open the ability to subpeona Whittaker on other days if he is not forthcoming?
1
He's clearly not very bright. Refuse to testify and he's guaranteed a subpoena AND a hostile committee.
2
Dems capitulated. Just like they will with Trump's wall funding.
1
Dear Democrats: you lost a close election because Obama refused to go after bankers after 2009. Do not make the same mistake again. Tail high and heavy.
1
Subpoena Whitaker, Congress! And ask if his contempt for Justice is connected to the President' shutdown, with a direct effect on the DOJ.
1
If milquetoast Democrats are prevail, they will lose.
1
Are we detecting vertebrae in the collective Democratic caucus? Are seeing glimpses of that leftist Holy Grail - A Democratic Party with an actual, visible, functioning backbone? Last month stopping the wall, this month demanding testimony? Where will it end?
Be still, my beating heart!
2
As I interpret his refusal to testify if he is subpoenaed, it tells me that he is admitting that he will be committing perjury if he testifies under oath.
Pretty disgusting that the top official of the Justice Department can't be trusted to follow the law. Typical for a Trump grifter, however.
3
Do you think they'll reopen Alcatraz to hold all the Trumpsters who will need a place to stay? An extended visit?
1
Trump has done something that no one, not the Founders, nor the party stalwarts could ever envision. He has succeeded in injecting his poison of lack of respect for institutions and values into so many officials. They have gone rogue and show no shame in doing so. At this point their morals are no better than that Saudi “prince” who murdered a journalist who was just doing his job.
4
Whitaker may claim "executive privilege" to avoid answering questions. It will be fun to watch him sweat as Nadler's committee demands answers.
2
undermine, the Bojack muhler should be fired for incompetentence, over 2 years and really nothing except for spending 30 mil of our tax dollars.
SO, the House Judiciary Committee caved!! Lovely!! This is NOT a good beginning for any investigation. WHAT is going on? Has Trump gotten to everyone?
Kindly please just subpoena the living daylights out of Whitaker and all of the others now. Make them testify to Congress under oath. Make every lie to Congress count. Make every evasion in front of Congress count.
4
“Democrats want to ask Mr. Whitaker about matters related to the Russia investigation led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and whether Mr. Trump replaced Attorney General Jeff Sessions with Mr. Whitaker to interfere with that inquiry.”
Of course that is why Trump replaced Sessions. But what do they expect Whitaker to say? Surely they don’t expect him say yes.
1
Stop the pussyfoot act. Nadler has no guts: to subpoena or not to subpoena. For to investigate and pursue the facts in the squirmy pot of American politiks, you gotta be firm and committed to obtaining justice. Many old Democrats like Nadler, exhibit this benign, nurtured behavior and then pretend as if some “hand of God” will come to guide them to a good and noble results. Sorry. A new, mean day is about us. Yes, Nadler studied the in and outs of Watergate but so did the opposition. Nadler is cramming historical notes, working-out and training by way of shadow boxing but shadow boxing is no substitute for real fighting. He should be slicing and dicing this hand-picked Trumpian, meathead upstart, the acting attorney general, but instead Nadler is being out-run and out-foxed by a political minor and his cohorts in crime.
As an active democrat I’m NOT impressed with this turn from another tired actor from our side. We can’t wait for Nadler to “give” for a brand new replacement from the younger generation and then to quickly retire.
3
Mr. Whittaker's appointment is solely to impede the Mueller investigation. The same is true of the nomination of Mr. Barr. Republican members of this Congress continue to be "water carriers" for the non-stop criminal malfeasance of Mr. Trump, Trump associates and Trump family.
3
So a Congressional Subpoena is now subject to the terms and conditions of the recipient? That Mr. Nadler allowed this sets the precedent moving forward so any Congressional Subpoena is meaningless.
The march toward tyranny scores another win because Democrats have no spine. I guess the mid-term elections had no impact on the radical minority and Trump owns the Department of Justice and the Congress now in control of the Democratic Party.
Time to look for a nice condominium in Toronto.
6
Gee won't it be embarrassing if he says one thing then is subpoenaed and asked again and under oath says something else?
7
Am I confused? Doesn’t the AG work for the people of the United States? He isn’t the presidential or White House attorney, is he?
10
Appears all of Trump's circle continue to include shady characters but most of all they all believe they are above the law.
For Trump's circle who cry "witch hunt" they sure like to fight against sharing the truth. What are they frightened of?
Lies, lies, coverups and whining. Theatrical? They create the acts.
According to the polls, Americans want the truth and with what ever it takes. This White House must be held accountable.
Let's get to the truth and move forward.
If you have nothing to hide or do not have any reason to fear the truth, Why is this so darn difficult?
2
Let's not yet condemn this action as Nadler "caving" to Whitaker.
Note the language: "... the committee agreed verbally and in writing not to issue a subpoena on or before Feb. 8..."
The option remains. Whitaker would be a fool to believe he's out of the woods now.
3
Where is the dog and where is the tail? What will Nadler do when Whitaker refuses to answer a questions or lies about it? Is this just another theater presentation? How will this session differ from all of the previous Republican run investigations during 2017 and 18? I do not see the needed cooperation from the Justice Department or the resolve from our House committee. Foot dragging as usual.
1
Whitaker did not want to be under oath? If he were an honest man or intending to answer the questions for the people, not Trump, or even not be afraid to outing his personal opinion, he would not mind taking an oath.
3
The people in the Trump administration astonish me. They actually think it's acceptable to protect a corrupt that may have laundered money, violated the Emoulements Clause, and colluded with the Russians.
4
Nadler folded.
Trump wins again.
Next up: Tax Returns
Will not be released.
I am getting tired of winning.
5
Acting AG will refuse to answer any questions regarding our ethnicly-challenged president, which will speak volumes.
Here we go again. I believe much to do about nothing or it can be viewed as another boring Super Bowl. Can anyone think the acting AG is going to say anything that upsets his boss? After watching Whittaker's recent press outing where he was the only one sweating bullets one can only imagine his fear of Trump. The AG has to know Trump's executive time Friday is going to be spent watching him squirm as he tries to protect The Boss..
5
Since there is no authority for an "acting" Attorney General, Whittaker does not have the requisite standing to invoke any privilege of any type.
6
Trump will declare vast executive privilege. Congressional investigators will be upset. And so it goes. . . .
4
Does Trump know anyone who isn’t dirty or mobbed up?
Here is a man, who before being nominated, worked for a mysterious Charitable organization, and went from a five figure salary, to a six figure one.
In any other time in history, this would be scandal number one. In the Trump era, it’s just another day at the office.
This is all the more reason, that Whittaker and Trump, need to be run out of town!
6
I’m exhausted from the lying, the pretense, the dishonesty of this administration. We are not a good country anymore. And, without many indictments and the President stepping down, we never will be.
10
Whitaker and others in Trumps orbit sure seem to be acting like they are hiding something and not comfortable giving testimony when they are required to tell the truth and many people in the country and Congress are starting to wonder more and more why they are avoiding the truth.
It will be telling if Whitaker refuses to answer certain questions, how many questions, and what they are.
6
Perhaps Whitaker is afraid the committee will demand to know why a man who worked for a company since shuttered for fraud should be trusted as the nation's top law enforcement official?
Just subpoena him. He doesn't the respect of the American people or the office of the attorney general.
11
I'm glad Whitaker has decided to testify. Refusing to testify until Congress withdraws the threat of a subpoena is somewhat like refusing to turn oneself in until the FBI withdraws its arrest warrant.
5
Viewed from across the Atlantic — In the rank political swamp created by Trump, this might be the logic behind Nadler's apparently peculiar agreement not to subpoena:
In the absence of complete foreknowledge of precisely where determined probing by Dems on the House Judiciary Committee might lead — Whitaker, effectively a servant of Trump, has been doing Trump's bidding in seeking a formal guarantee that, as a condition of agreeing to testify, he will avoid a subpoena covering his testimony *in general*
Nadler plainly knows that there is a good chance of Whitaker declining to answer one or more key questions satisfactorily by citing the possibility of Trump invoking Executive Privilege.
So by holding off on the subpoena (for now), Nadler and the Dems are keeping their powder dry until they have Whitaker before them and have publicly flushed out the specific questions and avenues of inquiry that Whitaker reckons Trump is at risk on and most likely to want to hide from scrutiny... Then, if necessary, comes the subpoena, with explicit, legally compelling justification — leaving Trump to invoke Executive Privilege if he dares (and face the political furore) and with the crucial issues he would aim to hide made doubly clear to lawmakers and the public.
9
A subpoena, in this case, is a command to appear and testify.
Whether a subpoena is issued or not, when Whitaker appears before the congressional committee, he likely will be sworn and will provide testimony under oath.
He can invoke his right against self-incrimination. Or he can answer questions, and if he does, his answers will be part of the record and may figure in any number of unfolding investigations.
But the issue isn't the subpoena. The issue is what he says. The notion that he can say whatever he wants if he's not subpoenaed is misleading at best.
Once he testifies, he's talking to Congress. And lying to Congress is -- still -- a big deal.
6
I am a criminal attorney and I see the dispute over the subpoena as a very minor matter. If Whitaker does his best to answer all questions, the Committee will have what it wants. If Whitaker does not comply fully, then the committee simply issues a subpoena for him to appear again at a later date. End of problem.
8
The obvious question, of course, is "What does Whitaker have to hide, and/or want to lie about?"
Given his refusal, with no credible justification (and against the advice of the ethics experts in the DOJ) to recuse himself from Mueller's investigations, the answer is equally obvious.
Trump's legal team has had plenty of time to script deflections, evasions and non-answers, and that's what the Committee will get.
4
Subpoena him. Then hold him in contempt of congress and arrest him if he doesn't comply. The justice dept. is too important to be handed over to this (or any) President as a tool.
236
@jmw
President Trump will invoke executive privilege and that will be the end of it except we will have to listen to Dims whining about it—but everyone is used to that. Executive privilege trumps a subpoena of congress and if it goes to contempt of congress the house will lose at SCOTUS.
From Wikipedia:
Executive privilege is the power of the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch of the United States Government to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of information or personnel relating to the executive.
1
@Jonathan
So the point of a subpoena is to find out what the person is hiding. If the person has a legal reason to not testify that is fine, but if it a frivolous reason we would find that out.Sometimes just going through the motions you are able to discern the motive and draw conclusions from it.
Just as trump wants to declare an emergency for the wall, you have to prove there is actually an emergency to use that privilege.
5
why does every one around trump turn into criminal right in front of your eyes? trump is one contagious criminal . I would be scared to sake his hands out of the fear of catching a crime.
71
@billybonney
Whitaker actually established his criminal credentials before the President-Pretender appointed him, saving Trump the effort, which might have compromised his TV time.
5
@billybonney
Hmmm, I wonder. Do you think maybe "trump" selects them based on their willingness to become a criminal - or more deeply criminal? I'm guessing that might be why.
4
No one is above the law, even the AAG. Don’t threaten, just smack him with it. Ignoring a Congressional Subpoena, a felony? He’ll be out of a job.
55
@Cliff R No love for Matt Whitaker or the Trump administration. But Contempt of Congress is not a felony. Here what the Legal Information Institute (Cornell) defines it: "Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.
"Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.
"Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.
"Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress."
1
Wonder how many other westsiders, like me, are pretty tickled we voted Nadler into office time and time again for so many years so that now he is in charge of this committee!
41
Or he will flee the country? What a fool ... he has no cards to play, except for a few privileges to be claimed question by question. Or, as mentioned, he can flee ...
12
Issue the subpoena...and play hardball with this obvious
backslider....do not waiver in the resolve to get the truth out
of any defender of Trump which is obviously what Whitaker is.
25
Oh boy, republicans surely hate the truth......
43
@Jack
Unfair accusation. How can they hate it, when they wouldn't recognize it if it jumped up and bit them on the behind?
@Jack
They've known for a long time that they cannot win if they tell the truth.
Hold up. If they subpeona him, doesn't he have to testify anyway? Real brilliant negotiation right there.
17
@Allen. I am certainly no lawyer but I think there’s a different standard about answering questions, taking the fifth, and the consequences of lying if you are subpoenaed
@Allen
The Justice Dept (i.e. Whitaker > Trump) simply had a shot at trying to get Whitaker's testimony as a whole excused from the risk of subpoena/prosecution. (a)That might have saved Trump from the hazard of having to invoke Executive Privilege
(b)Rather than doing that Trump would much prefer a political and (his Justice Dept) legal fight over Whitaker being issued with a "theatrical", "unnecessary", "politically motivated" subpoena.
In this case the plan (a) and (b) Trump's crooked advisers have come up with has failed... and may well ultimately backfire courtesy of Nadler's nifty response.
3
If he doesn’t show up then cuff him and show the perp walk on repeat. Trump would resign within 30 days to avoid that.
By no means overly-informed or expert in this area, honesty and common sense suggest a subpoena is the best way to get at all the facts. I have read and understand many have concerns about Executive Privilege and the historic precedent of issuing a subpoena in circumstances where Executive Privilege may be asserted in the future. To me, that is legal gamesmanship. I believe under these extreme circumstances, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should come out because it is of greater importance to the nation than are future protections of Executive Privilege. I say, subpoena Whitaker especially as we already know he has a conflict of interest, at best.
15
It doesn’t work that way. If Congress wants you to testify, you testify, willingly or under subpoena. If you refuse, it’s contempt, which is a crime.
33
I'm guessing he's caught between a rock and a hard place -- Trump wants him to lie, but he knows he'll be found out and prosecuted for lying if he has to testify under oath.
29
Mr. Whitaker’s stand is, or should be deemed as, offensive to anyone who believes in democracy. To have the titular head of the Department of Justice be an unwilling witness before any Congressional Committee is abhorrent in itself.
His stance bespeaks hidden acts and fear of undisclosed wrongdoings being exposed. This conduct is unworthy of any public official, much less that of the head of the Department of Justice. “Only the best people” was the promise... ha, ha, ha.
47
@Phil Zaleon, Back in the last century after Nixon's government unravelled, I remember seeing on TV John Mitchell on his way into a federal prison and an inmate shouting down from a cell, " Hey John, we're waiting for you." Well, I felt so good.
1
If Whitaker refuses to testify until the threat of subpoena is removed, simply subpoena him, at which point it is no longer an idle threat, but an actual subpoena, which compels his testimony.
25
Why is Matthew Whitaker panic-stricken about testifying before Congress? Because he has to lie, to keep is job and if he does, he goes to jail. This the case for all Trump's administration and his GOP enablers.
40
" . . . good-faith negotiations . . ." ??? What a joke. No one in this entire administration acts on the basis of good faith. Guarantees that no subpoena will be issued are needed because heaven forbid that Matthew G. Whitaker be required to tell the truth or risk going to prison for lying to Congress.
29
Welcome Matt is fully under the feet of Trump. He simply does not have enough smarts to realize that he is throwing away his reputation and possibly his License to the Bar.
The big question is whether or not he is willing to purger himself like the rest of the Goodfellows in the Trump orbit.
15
What would Senator McConnell do in these circumstances? Yeah, Democrats, do that!
23
It looks to me like Matthew "Flop Sweat" Whitaker has got a lot to hide. I guess he knows that he will have to dissemble like crazy, aka lie through his teeth, aka commit perjury. Even though his legal credentials rival Michael Cohen's, I think even he knows that he is in deep legal jeopardy.
Another Trump grifter gets called out. What a poor excuse for the senior most executive in the Justice Department.
16
President Trump will invoke executive privilege and that will be the end of it except we will have to listen to Dims whining about it—but everyone is used to that. Executive privilege trumps a subpoena of congress and if it goes to contempt of congress the house will lose at SCOTUS.
From Wikipedia:
Executive privilege is the power of the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch of the United States Government to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of information or personnel relating to the executive.
Article states he had 48 hrs to review the list of potential questions and notify Committee of any planned evocation of exec privilege. None was given so all questions are assumed answerable in this ‘opt-in’ format of questioning. My guess is that AAG is pleading no contest by not informing Congressional Committee ahead of time that those questions are indeed answerable.
1
@Jonathan
What you fail to mention is the last sentence in that definition -- "This presidential power is controversial because it is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution." Funny how that happens sometimes; it's called a lie of omission.
1
@Jonathan
I would like that challenged in the Supreme Court. They have a unique opportunity to put reasonable checks on Executive Privilege. The Framer's had no intention the EC would be used to protect a corrupt, criminal presidency and AAG.
Gee, Matt, that's the whole point of a subpoena. It is NOT voluntary. You do not get to choose. If you ignore the subpoena, you will be held in contempt which is illegal. And you are not above the law in the United States. Nice try, though.
16
Don't be a typical Democrat, stand firm. Give no such assurance. In fact, assure him that if he doesn't show up, he indeed will be subpoenaed.
14
America is at a crossroad. Truth and justice, or lawlessness and anarchy.
14
Unless he's subpoenaed, he cannot be compelled to answer anything. By telling us that, unless subpoena is taken off the table he won't testify, he's telling us that there may be questions he doesn't want to answer.
Relevant questions. Material questions. Questions on which he has direct evidence. And questions that are not covered by executive privilege (unless they're just afraid that the Attorney General is not capable of properly asserting the privilege).
Subpoena him now. There's no point listening to him spin only the tales he wants to tell.
201
Whitaker's statements make it clear that it is a waste of time to have him testify EXCEPT under oath and by subpoena. The subpoena should be issued today without further delay.
91
@Eccl3
I believe you are correct.
If there's nothing to hide then what's the problem? People both in and outside the administration, within the orbit of DJT, seem to have an incredibly difficult time telling the truth. If a subpoena is required then so be it. It says a lot that the acting AG even thinks he can refuse. Not surprising, but still disturbing.
24
Why is it so difficult to get members of government (elected, nominated, appointed, etc.) to testify in front of government bodies that have the authority to request these testimonies? Where are the laws that make this mandatory? Why are people, like Whitaker, able to avoid what should be deemed normal and required? They should not be able to negotiate or decline the request. There are too many loopholes and "special situations" in our system of democracy. Everyone in government, and I mean everyone, needs to be held accountable - that's what checks and balances are all about. What we have instead is people shirking their responsibilities and able to get away with all kinds of questionable behaviors. This needs to be fixed right now.
34
@daylight I agree completely, daylight. Over the years the legislative branch (as paralyzed as it is) has yielded far too much to the executive. Its time to stop, and even reverse that trend.
8
@daylight, There are far too many 'protocols' and unwritten agreements in US politics. Everything seems to be based on the assumption that elected officials will do the right thing and are not too corrupt or self serving to simply refuse. Well, that way of operating is completely out the window now the GOP has demonstrated its utter corruption.
Government members need to be forced to behave properly with the introduction of mandatory regulations with genuine consequences for non-compliance.
1
Mr. Trump consistently criticized Jeff Sessions but hasn't uttered a negative word about Whittaker. I wonder why?
16
“Matthew Whitaker Says He Won’t Testify Until House Panel Removes Subpoena Threat”
Whitaker proves the power of subpoena is necessary for the proper and transparent function of government.
17
Nadler can just ignore the entreaty. He has the power to compel cooperation and should do so.
13
It would be best if he was provided a personal Subpoena. I don't know why Congress would deny him one, especially since he asked for it.
7
The Democrats need to step up and engage in this rule of law exercise. Subpoena Whitaker now.
Then what will happen? He'll fight the subpoena in court. At some point the Supreme Court will weigh in. And this is exactly the point in time when we will know whether or not we are still a nation of laws.
Trump has five votes in his back pocket. Consider how easily the justices toadied to his Muslim ban with their expansive interpretation of executive powers. Does anyone honestly believe that this group, including a would-be rapist who now sits on the court, will rule against Trump?
But understand this. Once their ruling does come down, and it will, we will have a reckoning. A ruling in Trump's favor will tell us that we can no longer say we're a democracy. We will have a kow towing Supreme Court ready to do a dictator's bidding.
And at this point, those of us who do not want to live under this tyrant will need to ask ourselves some hard questions. Whitaker's cavalier response to the House's request for his testimony tells me that this administration knows the rules will not be applied to any of them.
And while many of you say that 2020 cannot come soon enough, understand that we now have no guarantees that this president will not declare martial law before then. After all, he is willing to do so for his "wall", an "emergency" that exists only in his mind. Does anyone think there are any limits to what he will do if his power is challenged? For those who do, think again.
19
@Charles Dodgson He has no grounds to fight a subpoena. Congress has the right to do so and compel testimony.
1
No one, including Trump, his children, and Mr. Whitaker, are above the law. He needs to answer their questions under oath. What could anyone possibly have to hide regarding an investigation about Russian interference in our election. He should be eager to help.
On another note if anyone has lied under oath about the Russia investigation they should be indicted and convicted. If anyone in Trump's orbit or his family resembles that remark they deserve to be indicted, just like you or I most certainly would be.
24
Since Whitaker already has seen the questions and knows answering them truthfully could show unlawful actions, he's decided against testifying. All he needs is for the President to exert executive privilege. It looks like a subpoena will be issued without one. It's astounding the amount of corruption that has taken place, without any thought that one day, Democrats could take control of congress.
12
The response to this letter should be a subpoena.
12
Whitaker is arguing he won't testify before Congress under threat of subpoena to questions he received months ago.
To quote the letter:
"Again, I am providing these questions to you in advance because your responses may implicate communications with the President of the United States. Please take any steps that may be necessary for the White House to consider these communications and for the President to determine whether he will invoke executive privilege."
Jerrold Nadler, January 22, 2019.
That means he never intended to answer the questions without a subpoena. Under threat of subpoena, Whitaker is threatening not to answer the questions at all. By definition, Nadler must subpoena Whitaker. If he doesn't answer or he doesn't show, that's contempt of Congress. End of story.
11
Isn't this obstruction?
5
@O contempt of Congress.
4
Why wait, just submit the subpoena.
7
subpoena all post, current and future trump appointees and nominees, and trump now.
1
Well its a big sing that Mr. Whitaker has done something unethical. I cant see the reason why he is refusing to testified. Guilty if you ask me.
2
The Committee should just issue a subpoena now, if that is the AG’s position
1
Serve him with the subpoena and lets get on with the hearing.
5
So Whitaker is dissembling using the faux concept of a "subpoena threat"?
A subpoena is not a threat! It's a legal summons to appear and testify under oath!
Or is it really the "under oath" and under penalty of perjury part that Whitaker is afraid of? Like most of the Trumpsters!
4
Ever look up what the word, “subpoena,” literally means?
Seems our henchman is not well-versed in the rule of law. Pity that. Good thing he is only the “acting” attorney general.
3
Trump's entire presidency has been "political theater." He and his minions must be required -- by subpoena if necessary -- to respond to Congressional investigations and answer questions about his tawdry secrets and lies.
4
Whitaker has only been the temporary pawn for a short time, what could he possibly be hiding already? Seems like he was selected by Trump for his ability to defy congress. Let's see how well that goes and good luck on your next job hunt.
4
Once the justice department is compromised it’s all over, we’ll be officially a banana republic.
7
The comments here are amazing. They demonstrate a lack of understanding about anything. The NYTimes article is okay, however, and it outlines why he does not want comply with the lack of proper governance and unethical behavior of the democrats on this committee.
1
You mean the unethical behavior of the GOP and the Trump Administration for the rule of law.
2
@sh Perhaps you were one of the people saying: "Elections have consequences" two years ago ? Well, they do. The American People are taking back their government from the Russian agents.
3
In summary: Whitaker gets huffy when Dems call him out on his plan to lie without consequences to Congress. Is this about right?
6
He who denied it, supplied it. Those are the rules I’ve known since I was in first grade..... send a process server to wait in the bushes and give him a subpoena on his way to the parking lot.
1
Again we have to remind ourselves how crazy this is.
Our top legal official says he won’t testify unless he gets a promise he won’t have to testify truthfully? What’s next we send him to bed with no dinner and take away his phone?
256
@Ted Manger Great reply it a daycare white house with Trump.
@Ted Manger:They want to corner him into answers he can't give and if he doesn't they want to hold him in contempt. How many millions(now about +100 million at least) are you willing to spend on this agenda and outside of some very old financial acts and some flubs to Congress by associates they haven't a shred of evidence against the President. How silly was it to indict some Russian military guys knowing sure they'll never end up in our scary judicial system and if they were guilty then following their government orders. Meanwhile Bush Jr is honored daily by the Democrats despite his unleashing of the Iraq war under phony WMD claims which have killed and continue killing hundreds of thousands of innocents?.
The top law enforcement officer in the US is going to ignore a subpoena? What kind of message does that send?
93
@David: What a brave American should Mr. Whitaker?
Doing a Roger Stone?
Just have to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge!
If Whitaker has nothing to hide this whole exercise is moot. Clearly he does.
61
It appears that Whitaker is engaging in criminal activity on an ongoing basis. He will never answer questions under oath without Trump invoking executive privilege, or Whitaker taking the fifth amendment. It's likely that Mueller has declared Trump a target in his investigation, and that Whitaker has tipped Trump off about that declaration.
33
Mr. Whitaker, the acting attorney general who lacks Senate-approval to actually be acting attorney general, is refusing to to testify before the House unless they waive a lawful requirement to answer questions that hasn't actually been served. This entire administration is a living, defective Rube Goldberg device.
57
@DeepThud
Another scofflaw.
Adhering to an adamant position of being above the law is the standard operating procedure Trump has employed his whole life.
It is the only way he has been able to remain to be seen as a successful business man despite his multiple bankruptcies, business failures and his current inability to be considered a good credit risk in America.
1
Take a quick lesson from the republican's ongoing example and start playing hardball. Nothing less will produce answers that the public has been demanding for months. If not now....
WHEN?
31
I hope Mr. Mueller is taking note of this, and is preparing to go after this latest addition to the Donald Trump criminal consortium.
Whitaker belongs in jail - Period.
38
Whitaker is doing what Trump installed him to do, obstructing justice.
58
The acting attorney general is de facto already defying the committee's preogative to call him to testify. He should therefore be issued a subpoena as a lawful response to his declaration of non-compliance.
40
What happened to the concept of "contempt of Congress, who are the legitimate representatives of the people" ?
16
The acting AG of the United States is threatening to take the Fifth if he is questioned under oath by Congress?
This is what pure unadulterated corruption at the highest levels of government looks like. And it's a sure indicator, that like his boss, Whitaker belongs in jail, not in the AG's office.
Perhaps Trump and Whitaker will go the recent Russian route and simply try to legalize corruption via their lapdogs in Congress.
This country is in the hands of a new age political mafia. When are we going to stand up to this? When are we going to have a march on Washington to ride these criminals out of town on a rail?
55
Yet again...
Look, an innocent person has nothing to fear from a subpoena.
A guilty person, working for the Trump administration, just controls when to turn the microphone "on", speaks into the microphone first, and decides when to turn it "off".
(That said, I have no idea where Giuliani is coming from, or why he's still there...)
8
All Dictators direct their secret police to remain secret. Trump will likely tell Whitaker to remain disengaged and general in his remarks. Issue a Subpoena. This is of the utmost importance as Trump is a clear danger to our nation by virtue of what is known publicly already.
13
By trying to block a subpoena Whiticker is showing that he is guilty of obstruction. Otherwise, what would he have to fear?
10
Mr. Whitaker said, adding, “Political theater is not the purpose of an oversight case."
Three words: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi
34
Whitaker is simply running interference and stalling for time until Barr is confirmed as AG.
The not real bright Whitaker is being sacrificed, pure and simple.
Trump and his band of not merry thieves need to all be locked up for a very long time.
18
So father, so (adopted) son.
Whitaker is one of the many Trump admirers, who all have copied the master sinner in how to obstruct enemies and government.
You lie and then you lie some more, than you threaten, then you call them names and finally you declare yourself above the law and threaten a war with your opponents.
In all cases the opposition is always democracy and especially the Democratic leadership, favoring hatred for women and people of color.
And tell me again why are 1/3 of Americans supporting them in a cult way, oh yes they are all members of the Great American Corporate dictatorship who promise to make America great again by making sure that the average workers will keep working on slavery type salaries, make sure they pay for their own healthcare and lower their social security payments, no matter that they themselves have paid from it.
Cult members will always become cult victims, how difficult is that to research or understand.
15
He Is essentially saying he will not answer questions unless they give up the power to force him to answer questions, a power they now have if they choose to issue a subpoena. He sounds like a little child arguing with his parents.
17
It seems to me with that statement of condition, it makes me wonder exactly what is Matthew Whitaker hiding?
6
Don't issue the subpoena. Hold the hearing.
Swear him in. Make him sweat. Put his refusal to answer questions that are clearly not subject to executive privilege on display and on the record. Let the nation watch as the "chief law enforcement officer" erodes the rule of law.
Then hand him the subpoena for the next meeting.
29
The highest level law-enforcement officer of the United States of America has just refused to answer questions under oath. This is a dark day for the United States.
37
@Helen
So why did I spend six years in the marines, *foreign and domestic are now very much the same enemy!
3
Mr. Whitaker, claiming he will not testify under oath in the face of a subpoena, sounds very similar to Mr. Trump's claim he would not speak to Mr. Mueller. Guilty people tend to avoid questions under oath when they can. This behavior from Trump and his allies are telling. They are also obscene attacks on the rule of law.
11
I applaud Rep. Nadler, finally, Democrats are recapturing the spirit of reform and are truly representative of the American people. Lock the traitors in prison for life.
12
Mr. Whitaker’s expressed views of the Constitution and the role of the courts are extreme and the overall picture he presents would have virtually no scholarly support and would be destabilizing to society if he used the power of the attorney general to advance them. In short, your association with a shady corporation that defrauded consumers and your expressed pro-Trump opinions reveal that you are an “inside man” operating at the whim and pleasure of the President.
The design and language of the Constitution is explicit and precise: your illegal appointment “…has deviated from historic practice and protocol” and you should recuse yourself from any Trump investigations or Constitutional issues that may come up during your brief and ill-advised appointment. Goodbye, Mr. Whitaker!
5
I'll join with the others here in commenting if he doesn't comply, then it would be a classic case of contempt. So be it, for this opportunistic Trump-clone. No wonder he got the job. Would any sane person disagree that the only reason for resisting such things is because of something to hide? Haven't there been enough cases of eventual guilty pleas and convictions to lend support for such sane conclusions? Enough of this utterly sickening obstruction!
9
the shoe is on the other foot and the gop is quaking in their stocking feet
2
Mr. Nadler's response to Whitaker's demand should be one word "Nuts"
3
Just subpoena the guy. Do it.
2
Nobody in the Trump administration has any business accusing Congress of "deviat[ing] from historic practice." Glass houses, Mr. Whitaker.
5
Matthew, you knew Trump was a snake when you picked him up.
3
Time to throw the whole contemptuous lot of Trump enablers in jail!
3
It is highly improbable the Mr. Whittaker will comply with a subpoena. It is not clear when Congress lost the opportunity to be an equal branch. It may have been when they were briefed in the summer of 2016 that the Justice Department was investigating Russian interference in the election and complicity with the Trump Campaign and they let the election proceed without the voters being aware. Certainly, Congress lost status when Trump obstructed that investigation in plain sight by firing FBI Director James Comey.
The subsequent meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister of Foreign Affairs from which the US media was excluded and Trump confided with Lavrov that firing of James Comey relieved Trump of the burden of the investigation not only confirmed obstruction but indicated that Trump was more comfortable with the Russians that he was with his own government. Then there is the fact that the Supreme Court, the third branch has become subservient to the Executive branch. Precedents have a way of being more powerful than written constitutions and it is not clear that Congress will regain its constitutionally delegated powers.
27
Baloney. It is a matter of votes and will power.
The Dems have set this up beautifully. The list of questions to be asked and areas of inquiry have been shared in advance with Whitaker and the White House. The response has been deafening silence. If Whitaker shows up and refuses to answer based upon executive privilege, if his presence has not been compelled through a subpoena, he cannot be held in contempt. On the other hand, if he is under subpoena and he asserts executive privilege he can. And of course the problem is that Trump has had the questions for weeks and has elected not to invoke the privilege. (Trump holds and may only assert the privilege, not Whitaker.) Thus, Whitaker's assertion while Trump remains silent puts Whitaker in the box, i.e. subject to contempt.
26
@Robert Then, should they subpoena him in order to force his testimony?
Does Whitaker have a choice if there is a subpoena?
Daily, I am astounded at the stunning disrespect this administration has for our Constitution, the majority of Americans, the Bill of Rights, simple courtesy, honesty, and human decency.
I applaud Speaker Pelosi for maintaining her professionalism and realizing the vital role she is filling, both for the present and for posterity.
48
As a lawyer and someone who accepted becoming the nation's acting AG, Whitaker should be confident in his own knowledge of the finer points of the law governing executive privilege, and when there is sufficient basis to invoke it or not. He should also be confident that he has adhered to the law as a general proposition. Whether or not he is under the "threat" of subpoena, or actually subpoenaed, does not change that.
15
Matt Whitaker "I will not allow that to be the case." Be prepared Matt. Your place in history isn't going to be anything to be proud of.
So begins the stonewalling from the trump administration. Where will it end? If the president refuses to comply with the law and republican senators don't care what do we do?
21
I am very confused here - why doesn’t Nadler subpoena Whitaker before the hearing - requiring him to appear and answer questions.
I am additionally confused over the doctrine of “executive privilege” which applies to the President, and not his staff.
The President has Rudi Giuliani as his personal lawyer in matters relating to the investigation.
Whitaker stated, when appointed, that he intended to immediately begin cutting Robert Mueller’s resources - which, along with other statements made, indicate a man loyal to the President was determined to commit obstruction of justice on the President’s behalf.
If he has carried through with any aspect of his promise, he may have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
He is not the White House counsel, nor the President’s.
So, it would seam the obvious move to make, if he says hr won’t appear if subpoenaed in the middle of a hearing, is serve him now, and drag him before the committee.
And, if he fails to appear, immediately convene the House, if need be, have him declared in contempt, and lock him up if he refuses to talk on spurious grounds of an imperial presidency extending to the acting head of the Department of Justice, a semi-autonomous Executive agency.
The concept of “executive privilege” should have been crushed by Congress when the Supreme Court would be willing to do so.
Then again, Trump ‘s appointees to the court should recuse themselves on the grounds they won their posts after promising loyalty.
18
A sure sign from Mr Whitaker that a subpoena is needed, because he plans not to answer any question that matters when before the committee.
30
It appears Whittaker intends to stonewall since he will likely not have this job in less than a week. They can then subpoena him as a citizen unless he stays at Justice.
7
@Joe But he can still be subpoena-ed after he leaves yes?
Very confused.
And, they call it political theater, well the entire two years since Trump stepped into the white house has been political theater. It is the congresses turn.
2
This is great, the acting Attorney General of this country does not believe in the power of a subpoena, which says that when we subpoena you, you will answer the questions we ask you.
I believe they call that a forced testimony and I would have thought that someone in the position of AG even an acting one would understand that.
When will these people understand that the law applies to everyone, including Trump.
29
I think I'll try this in court.
Your honor, I will only answer questions if you don't put me under oath.
Yeah, didn't work. Why are they waiting - issue the subpoena. You don't get to decide not to answer questions from a congressional committee, as a government employee.
32
The arrogance of Whitaker and the DOJ may, and probably should, come back to bite them. Nadler provided a clear and reasonable list of questions in his Jan. 22 memo two weeks ago. The memo also asked Whitaker to confer with the White House about any claim of executive privilege in relation to any of the questions, and to give the Judiciary Committee notice at least 48 hours before Whitaker's hearing if executive privilege was being claimed. Seems reasonable to me, but DOJ and Trump are stonewalling. Trump probably doesn't want to be pinned down by having to make an explicit claim of executive privilege, but that needs to be done so he can incur the political costs. If this tussle ends up before the Supreme Court, Nadler has set it up pretty well for the Judiciary Committee to get the information it needs.
10
Now is not the time to tiptoe through the halls to avoid upsetting those with delicate predispositions regarding any possible inconvenience their little baby in his little oval playroom might suffer as a consequence of Whitaker's Q and A with the big bad bullies on the House Judiciary Committee. The Republicans are only attempting to force the proceedings to go forward on their terms, not the Democrats'.
Hand the subpoena to Whitaker and gavel the meeting to order.
19
A witness does not get to dictate the terms of his appearance before a Congressional committee and, to the extent that Mr. Whitaker is aware of illegal conduct by the President, he must disclose it if asked. The executive privilege is not a license to cover up crimes.
The subpoena should be issued forthwith.
23
Isn't that kind of like the pot calling the kettle black? The only one politicizing the issue is the GOP, who has obstructed the investigation at every turn in the House and Senate and should be considered criminally complicit.
14
Let’s see.
The acting Attorney General does not know the meaning of the word “subpoena”?
Only the best people indeed.
18
I laughed to myself when I read that a president would have to be willing to face political heat to invoke executive privilege. I am certain the Times knows who the president is.
5
If he gets a subpoena that will remove any question.
2
What are the actual consequences of being held in contempt?
@KirkTaylor
I believe he could be jailed if he doesn't comply.
Nadler asked Whitaker to consult with the WH as to whether he could claim Executive Privilege and not answer. As I understand it, without EP or other acceptable “privileges “ he would have to answer the Committee’s questions. If not, he could be found in Contempt. If I read the article correctly D o J wants contempt taken off the table. If so this is a nonsense claim by Whitaker and D o J and should result in a subpoena if he ain’t there Friday. Enough nonsense!
7
In other words, Whitaker will agree to testify only if he receives a guarantee that he won't be compelled to testify.
This is outrageous. Imagine if a criminal suspect could get away with this sort of behavior, telling the police: "You can enter my house as long as you agree not to search the loose floorboard in the bedroom."
While it's outrageous, it's not at all surprising. This is the least transparent - and up until this moment the least accountable - administration in history.
15
Who knew that the AG, acting or otherwise, was above the law?
9
There is no constitutional accommodation requirement.
2
Is Mr. Whitaker aware of what finally happened to John Mitchell? They can do that again.
6
@Hector
Oh yeah. Lock him up.
Just who does this arrogant lightweight Whittaker think he is issuing deadlines to the House Judiciary Committee.
The Committee should treat his attitude with the contempt it deserves and slap the fool into line.
10
My 3 thoughts: Subpoena, subpoena subpoena.
9
Isn't it shocking how lawless a country we've become?
The Trump loyalist anti-Mueller attorney general acts like a criminal and tries to defy investigations, congressional oversight and the rule of law.
How can he be allowed in government at all.
He looks like a mob enforcer, talks like one, and has a history of chicanery and pro-strongman politics that show you why the criminal in the White House likes him.
Jeff Sessions at least had some integrity.
Whitaker should be subpoenaed, and if he fails to appear or fails to answer questions, or lies to Congress...jail him.
1
Go directly to Subpoena
Do not pass Go
Do not collect $200
Whitaker "I am above the law and will do whatever I please". Ray Sipe
1
Finally someone stands up against the idiocy.Hopefully he will turn this escapade around and place the real perpetrators under indictment.Mueller Comey Clinton Obama and team .
Whitaker doesn't want to cooperate- he must be hiding something. Subpoena him now and get this jokers game back on track.
It’s just Whittake dancing his little dance, but I must say that I adore his theory that the Justice Department head gets to pick his subpoenas.
Acting Attorney General Whitaker, or as Trump calls him, "my fixer," is just the latest rotten Republican scraped from the slime at the bottom of the barrel of infamy.
4
Time to stop playing patty-cake with this criminal administration!
Subpoena the bum and let the SCOTUS inform him that even the President of the United States cannot refuse to comply with a subpoena, much less an un-confirmed acting cabinet secretary.
When are those Republicans that still believe in the Constitution going to finally stand up against this anti-Constitution Trump regime?
The House wants to move slowly on impeachment. If we do not get the dictator out of the White House soon, there will be little left we can call Democracy.
1
It’s obvious Whitaker tipped off Trump as to what Mueller is up to. Skip the subpoena and just send the FBI swat team to his house and drag him to prison.
This is a test of power that the Dems cannot afford to lose. How many votes they get in 2020 is entirely dependent on much they actually walk the walk. And if they don’t know that then they deserve to lose.
115
@Truie
Yea, well, it seems the lost by backing down.
Of course we all know what this means. It means that Mr. Whitaker is not fit to serve in the capacity he now holds as Acting U.S. Attorney General, since he obviously holds his personal allegiance to Donald Trump over fulfilling any of the duties required for his job.
That said, if it's going to take a subpoena to get Mr. Whitaker to testify, then it should be issued forthwith without any strings or preconditions attached to it.
There is nothing less than the constitutionality of the United States court of law at stake.
And the world is watching.
36
“Matthew G. Whitaker, told lawmakers on Thursday that he would not testify… without a written assurance that they would not issue a subpoena for his testimony during the hearing”
There is only one rational response: issue the subpoena NOW.
62
@Grain of Sand
"I will not talk to you unless you promise not to make me talk to you"
WHAT???
subpoena now; jail tomorrow.
Apparently he is afraid of something. Fire him right now.
Conducting this threat is Trump, Whitaker needs to be certain Trump is worth falling on his sword for. He has the rest of his life to live and rebuking Congress is not to be taken lightly in a life as a professional or even private citizen. There are many already indicted and charged who did Trump's bidding.
20
@jaxcat
He is a weaker version of Donald Trump. A fraud, a phony, a con man, a leech of society.
2
Weaker than Trump? that is very weak indeed
Acting AG just needs to admit that he told the president and others that he would do whatever he could distort or thwart the Mueller probe.
15
Simply based on his Whitaker's comments alone, subpoena him. He can answer the questions or take the fifth, but he does not get the right to say he won't show up if a subpoena is issued.
20
If issuing a subpoena is political theater, and the executive branch wants to avoid political theater, then the pseudo-AG should just answer the questions. Case solved.
16
Re:"...Matthew Whitaker Says He Won’t Testify Until House Panel Removes Subpoena Threat..."
One would assume that Mr. Whitaker would demand a subpoena, merely as a record keeping / 'touching, all the bases' formality;
What, precisely does Mr. Whitaker wish to hide, and/or, hide, from, and/or...hide, others, from?
If Mr. Whitaker pleads the 5th. to something, should we grant him some level of immunity, thus forcing him to spill the beans?
Would he rather be jailed, even, then, and if, so...why??
11
The obstruction of justice Trump show plays on. Squirrelly corrupt lawyers on his team being “smart guys” to please their boss. We need investigation results. Tax returns too
21
Well, to quote his boss, "That's not the way it works!" As the head of the Department of Justice, it would be nice if he knew a little something about the law.
17
Whitaker has a history of subpoena avoidance. He did it just before going on AG Sessions staff in an FTC investigation of a sketchy Miami based patent agency he was affiliated with. Issue a subpoena Chairman Nadler.Congress is being trifled with.
22
Withdraw the empty threat of a subpoena. Let him sit there and refuse to answer question after question and let the American people decide how that looks
6
Maybe I’m missing something. If Mr Whitaker is issuing threats, just don’t mess about issue a subpoena!
16
Can he be subpoenaed if he refuses to testify?
1
From now, onward, every witness, in these proceedings, regardless of party or stature, should be given a subpoena to testify. There is absolutely no reason why the giving of testimony, under oath, should be the subject of informal bargaining.
Similarly, in the event a witnesses declines to testify or to answer certain questions, there should be a fast track for determination and appeal as to whether the witness is in contempt.
We are dealing here with the security, integrity, and public image of the United States of America. It is outrageous that those in charge of the Department of Justice are attempting to pervert the process.
10
So, if Mr. Whitaker can’t wantonly lie, or refuse to answer questions where he would be caught in a lie, he will not testify.
Sounds spot-on for a member of the Trump Administration; a core character credential for employment there.
MB
13
If the AG represents the people and not the President, it stands to reason only the people should be able to claim executive privilege.
2
Sure, because why should Trump's attorney general follow the law? Why break tradition for the administration?
7
For how much longer will the Democrats allow themselves to be bamboozled? It's time they actually push back against all the administration's obstructionist delaying tactics and "do" something proactive and constructive … NOW, not later (without being foolishly precipitous,) as in "issue the subpoenas" where warranted.
4
I guess these Republicans' outrage over Congressional oversight means they do not remember almost a dozen investigations of Benghazi that found nothing.
7
Classic, seems like they are playing right of AG Eric Holder's playbook.
Now will the rules be applied equally, or will they be applied selectively, that is the question.
1
The lord, Matthew G. Whitaker, speaks. The liege lord of Trump tells the proles to back off. How dare they demand anything from so high an aristocrat in the Court of King Trump?
Whitaker, is just a silly man who has forgotten we live in a liberal democracy where public officials serve by the grace of the people not God.
7
Subpoena him now. Jail and fine if necessary, Simple as that. Don’t provide any funds to any department that does not answer questions.
Democrats need to play hardball with oversight. That is their job. We are not a dictatorship no matter how much Republicans in government fight for it.
6
It's obvious there are questions he doesn't want to answer under oath because he would have to tell the truth, something unheard of in this administration.
6
"Some Democrats consider Mr. Whitaker’s appointment to be illegitimate."
---
It seems to me that this isn't a matter of consideration or opinion. His position must pass senate confirmation, and he hasn't.
What's to consider?
2
Whitaker is probably too busy job hunting to show up and testify.
4
Reminds me of an old Monty Python episode when the villain “hits upon a scheme which they called ‘the other operation’ where they agreed to beat up the victim, if he paid them the protection money”. Whittaker agrees to testify only if they don’t subpoena him and compel him to testify. Subpoena him today.
3
Do as trump would do, make the promise, then back off.
3
What's he got to hide ??? What a travesty - "the" Attorney General of the United States of America, afraid to tell the TRUTH, and to have that testimony on record? That shouldn't be such a big deal.
I hope that the House Judiciary Committee uses all means possible to get True testimony out of this poser-attorney-general.
It is a disgrace to our Constitution that appointed Pigs like Whitaker think they can get off scot-free from a huge, illegal cover-up.
1
Write a subpoena but don't serve it. When he refuses to answer a question end the immediate hearing and reopen it before he leaves the room. Serve him. If he refuses, arrest him on the spot.
His boss is for roughing people up. Let him have a few falls.
2
What unbridled arrogance on Whitaker's part. I say Nadler should issue the subpoena NOW. It is clear that Whitaker's testimony is going to be worthless without it.
4
Time for Mr. Nadler to put this pawn in his place. Issue a subpoena, and a towel to mop up the sweat that is sure to emanate from his naked pate.
2
Subpoena Mister Smartypants today, and if he doesn't comply, make him sorry. Today's politics calls for a bare-knuckle style that more dignified public servants aren't used to. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If the "good guys" always "go high", they'll be left high and dry.
2
He's gonna lie anyway (look at his past). Drop the Subpoena.
1
This guy seems not so bright. Not bright at all.
2
This is hella suspicious.
1
Just show up, Matt, and stop with all these pre-conditions.
You know, like Hillary Clinton showed up at the Benghazi hearings and submitted to hours and hours of questions.
You're the acting AG and you're asking to be treated as an exception to the rules? I don't think so.
3
This article lacks context and basic information. Appalled that the writer and editor failed to take the basic step of explaining what is happening. Has it happened before? Why is this step being taken now? When Nadler says "events of the last few months" to what is he referring? Let's get with it NYT's - Information without context and background is nothing but click-bait.
First question, what did you tell Trump about the Mueller probe?
1
The guy sure is sweating this. Actually.
2
Now that’s the behavior of a man with nothing to hide! Find the handcuffs...
So subpoena the jerk. Hit this criminal administration hard and fast, and never back off for an instant. Time is of the essence. We can't permit the Republicans to delay progress in the many ongoing investigations into Trump and his felonious cohort.
2
If Congress cannot issue a subpoena that has consequences in this matter, we have lost complete control over the rule of law. Congress then becomes impotent to any investigation it launches and by that we have no investigative powers. At this point, I am not sure what a contempt charge would do, since it appears that Trump has taken over the Justice Department.
248
@Paul Raffeld Yes indeed! Scary times in the USA.
11
@Paul Raffeld I suppose you were saying the same thing when Eric Holder refused to turn over documents related to Fsst and Furious.
Amazing that the Republicans are acting as if the 2018 Midterms did not happen, and they are still in charge of Congress. They are in for a rude awakening, and hopefully, a humbling. However, I doubt the latter. As long as they are held to account for all their transgressions.
135
Republicans controlled the House and Senate for the first two years of this abysmal administration. It's as if everyone in Trumpworld is confused by the notion that Congressional hearings are no longer make-believe and optional.
The people of this country sat still for two long years watching the Republicans make a farce of Congressional oversight. The mid-terms happened. The Democrats control the House.
Enough already. Serve the subpoena and get on with it.
377
This really does narrow things down to a subpoena or no testimony. I presume Mr. Whitaker predicts that he can stall or otherwise maneuver his way past a subpoena, or he wouldn't have issued his declaration.
3
Since Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton had to respond to subpoenas, it is safe to say Matt Whitaker is under compulsion to comply with them, too.
283
Congressman Nadler should subpoena the testimony-avoiding Whitaker NOW! Even if his testimony is somehow avoided by him for tomorrow, the subpoena will probably be in effect for at least another 30 days. By that time, Barr will have been confirmed, Whitaker will probably not have any further position in the Justice Department or in the Administration, and as a private citizen he will be readily available for a thorough interrogation by the House Judiciary Committee.
375
@John Grillo-Good point. "Whitaker served as a paid board member of World Patent Marketing, which was shut down in May by a federal court in Florida and ordered to pay a $25 million settlement following a complaint by the Federal Trade Commission that it was a business scam...."The Miami office of the F.B.I. was conducting a criminal investigation of World Patent Marketing around the time Whitaker got his new job. More swarmy behavior as head of F.A.C.T. -- seeking to dish dirt up on public servants.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/us/politics/matthew-whitaker-ftc-world-patent-marketing.html
5
@Ann - Thanks for that link. Unbelievable.
1
Then they should just skip to the subpoena.
76
Well I am not a lawyer but do pay attention. I am wondering why Mr Whitaker has to place such a condition on his agreeing to appear before the committee. Subpoena power is within the power of Congress as I understand it. Is he anticipating that he will refuse to answer questions by members trying to perform their duty according to the Constitution?
The acting AG can stop auditioning, he isn’t going to get the job.
18
So he's saying he won't testify unless he has immunity from a subpoena, but isn't a subpoena better than his testimony? To get his word, or to get every document he holds directly or indirectly relating to Trump, Whitaker and the campaign. It's a no-brainer. Subpoena him.
13
Issue the subpoena.
Political theatre is when he appears before the committee, they ask him every question they want answered, and he takes the Fifth or refuses to answer. You still ask the questions, all seven hundred of them, and make him invoke his Fifth Amendment rights seven hundred times so the country sees what crooks Trump has installed.
29
Whitaker is obviously a walking conflict of interest and a tool of Trumpolini's obstruction of justice pogrom. If that aint clear as day to these republican co-conspirators, have I got a real, genuine Russian puppet president to sell them, for a very special price! Apart from that, what's he got to hide from Congress?
25
All of these "accountable to the American people" assumptions miss the fact that this president and his crookied Hill-cronies are all part of the weirdest, quasi-crazy commie rat conspiracy seen since they decided to make the MAGA hats red (instead of green for money). They're trying to make a new cold war with pot shots, but anyone alive since the original can smell a big fat Trumpie rat.
I was taught in first year college that the extreme left and right are basically the same, using different tactics to achieve absolute power, just by different means (ie gov't consolidation vs individual non-central powers)...or something. Hillary was right...Trump is a Putin trinket.
5
Whitaker by taking this stance is all but admitting he will not answer questions or will lie by omission during the hearing. If he knew going in that he would answer all questions completely and truthfully, the threat of a subpoena becomes moot.
16
Just subpoena him and get it over with. Geez.
24
Ah, I see what the problem is!
Unlike someone with even a small amount of experience in legal matters, Mister Whitaker has no idea what a subpoena is, or what can happen even to a "acting" administration official if he or she refuses to comply with one.
This lack of understanding can be easily corrected with a few hours in the DC jail.
13
It's almost comical that the acting Attorney General of the United States doesn't have a grasp of the Constitution, and the three equal and independent branches of government. When Whittaker is "asked" to meet with a congressional committee it's not a request, it's required of him to attend and answer all questions, unless their self incriminating, the plead the 5th.
17
Since when did the AG or anyone else get to ignore the law?
What pathetic creatures.
Issue the subpoena, Rep. Nadler.
22
I agree with everyone else on this thread. Issue the subpoena and have it served today. Get him under oath and hold him in contempt when he refuses to answer or tries to claim executive privilege when it doesn't apply.
52
Only people who have something to hide..i.e.Trump, his family, and his cabinet, are afraid of supoena´s and the truth. Whitaker´s oath is to the constitution and people of the USA who he serves not to the despotic, sociopathic lier in Chief.
24
Will that work for me? "Hey, I don't want to testify, so I just won't." I think he should have to follow the same rules I do.
10
I am legitimately confused. Is he saying, "I'll come to your House if you ask me nicely, but if you tell me I have to, I won't"?
The other thing I don't understand - CAN SOMEONE refuse to comply with a subpoena? I actually thought the whole point of a subpoena was to compel somebody to show up.
24
Re: "The other thing I don't understand - CAN SOMEONE refuse to comply with a subpoena?" {@Alonzo Mosley}
Nixon burned, through two special prosecutors tryin', to avoid (WH taping-related...), subpoenas' and, the rest is/was history, as 'they', are, wont to say; aka: that 'refusal, to comply' resulted in his, [Nixon's], too, little...too, late, (!) resignation!
You can fight a subpoena in court. You’d probably lose but if the objective is delay then it can work.
An associate of Stone’s tried this and it’s gone to SCOTUS., I believe
@Alonzo Mosley In 2008, Karl Rove defied a subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee dubiously claiming executive privilege with exactly zero consequences.
You don't get to choose. That's what a subpoena is. Duh.
28
"Still, those precedents did not address a situation in which the White House has advance notice about what will be asked."
If Whitaker knows the questions, there is obviously a question he doesn't want to answer voluntarily. Subpoena him. If the President chooses to invoke executive privilege, that's his prerogative. However, Whitaker is not entitled to presidential privilege. He doesn't get to decide.
I think this is a clear cut case where Nadler can exercise congressional authority without political consequence. There's no need to be polite in handling Whitaker.
39
If Trump claims Executive Privilege, then the other party to the conversation gets to claim it too. Like if your attorney claims attorney client privilege it applies to you too. (Nadler could then take the claim of privilege to Court)
It is not the President’s prerogative to prevent testimony by the acting head of a semi-autonomous department of the Executive branch charged with investigating him.
Please, if someone disagrees, quote the portion of the Constitution providing the privilege and the case law giving a man the right to control an investigation into his own behavior.
Imagine getting arrested on charges of any random crime, and claiming the right to control how your case will be prosecuted!
In effect, even giving Whitaker a list of questions he may be asked is a reprehensible act by Rep. Nadler.
Congress and its committees have the right to call a cabinet member before them.
The President has no right, except in the evolved theory of an Imperial Presidency to do such a thing.
Whitaker says he would not testify before a House Panel unless lawmakers agreed they would not issue a subpoena for his his testimony during the hearings. The first question I would ask:
Is this your position or did the decision come from Donald Trump and his legal team?
20
Whitaker deserves getting the book thrown at him for such boundless arrogance. Does he think he is above the law, like all of those WH cronies? Back to law and order and decency - subpoena da bum.
47
Mr. Whitaker: It’s really very simple.
Either you show up before House Judiciary Committee on Friday or, absent your attendance, Chairman Nadler slips the subpoena under your office door.
Et voilà, you’re in contempt of Congress.
As the Chief Lawyer of the United States, that would be sort of embarrassing…yes?
27
@The Arizonan
Embarrassing but not surprising.
@The Arizonan
He works for Trump. He has no concept of embarrassment.
Hah! Whitaker, whose legitimacy as Acting AG is shaky, is lecturing the Judiciary Committee about departing from historic practice.
The irony. And another person willing to sacrifice his career, such as it is, for Donald. Maybe he’ll return to his practice of threatening and defrauding erstwhile inventors at World Patent Marketing.
13
Trump and his criminal gang are at their core, weak people. They hide behind their unjust system, that they created. They use their attorneys to navigate their system. Ten air traffic controllers ended the shutdown, because when men stand up to these weak, wealthy boys, they cave. If just half of the American people refused to pay their taxes and ignored subpoenas, there would not be enough jails or police to penalize these people. The rule of law would be restored even faster than the shutdown.
8
Whitaker is Trump's goon at the Department of Justice who was going to do Trump's bidding, and now, he is concerned that his criminal past will catch up to him and he'll end up losing his law license or worse serving time behind bars.
Let's not forget that Whitaker was linked to a World Patent Marketing that scammed people out of $26 million. He served on the advisory board.
Trump appointed this con man with a law degree because Whitaker criticized the Mueller investigation. He was supposed to go to the DOJ and sabotage, delay or make sure the Mueller investigation never saw the light of day.
Whitaker knows that he could end up with a perjury charge if he lies to the House panel.
The nation is getting tired of Trump's crooks, dupes and liars being appointed to the administration for the sole purpose of lying, manipulating and stealing from the taxpayers to benefit themselves or the Trump Organized Crime Family.
499
@Raul Hernandez
After Trump is gone his 'children' will need all the dirty, venal corrupt gutless people they can find to continue screwing over tenants of their buildings.
Rudy has lost any spec of credibility he had. But Whitaker, along with Sarah Sanders, Kelyanne Conway, and a few more professional liars would be a real 'dream team' for those poor entitled little darlings.
19
No one is above the law. Guessing that since Mr. Whittaker is blowing smoke, there is fire somewhere.
50
He's obviously afraid that under subpoena he'll be forced to plead the 5th Amendment many times over.
41
Subpoena Whittaker—put the ball back in his court.
31
My my. Whatever Whitaker and company and his boss Mr. Trump are hiding must really be bad. For both of them. Let's keep pushing to find out what it is.
151
The Attorney General (acting) works for and is paid by the people who elected the Congress to supervise him. This also is true for the President and everyone else in the administration so what possible reason can there be to refuse to answer the lawmakers questions? Executive privilege, cabinet secrecy, lawyer client privilege, etc. are all abused as a means of hoodwinking the public. Some means must be found that will balance the public's right to see and know what they paid for and genuine damage to the good order of government.
33
Just goes to show that there is no benefit to trying to be courteous with todays GOP/conservatives. All they understand is force, so force it will be.
28
Ask Mr. Barr what he thinks about this. Would he himself be wiling to testify under oath?
12
After Whitaker's statement this past week that the Mueller investigation was almost finished, why are we surprised? That statement, along with this refusal, show that Whitaker's loyalty is to the president, not the people of the country or the constitution. He's the type of cabinet member Trump expected, the kind that Comey refused to be. Maybe he's angling for a plum job in the future, in the private sector. Trump will need every stooge he can find.
20
This challenge simply cannot go unanswered, or else every member of the Trump administration will refuse to testify under oath.
As far as criticizing "political theater", I wonder what an unbiased observer would call the Ken Starr years long haunting of the Clintons?
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
20
@Hugh Massengill
Ken Starr? You don't need to go back that far. Trey Gowdy is the new "Starr" of political theater.
So he'll only show up to testify if he isn't subpoenaed and required to testify? This makes no sense.
Is he worried that the subpoena would actually force him to answer questions instead of asserting some bogus "executive privilege" like other Trump lackeys?
20
Why is Whittaker so special? Issue the subpoena immediately.
34
“Political theater is not the purpose of an oversight hearing, and I will not allow that to be the case.”
He thinks he has the power to "not allow".
Kid's say the darndest things.
24
The Democrats should subpoena him immediately! He will not testify without one. No need to wait until after 6 PM for him to formally bail. He shouldn't be afraid of a subpoena if he plans on actually answering questions.
15
It sounds like he has forced them to subpoena him. Is there any downside to them just issuing the subpoena?
13
When will this madness stop? They work for the American people. Subpoena him.
31
Serve Whitaker the subpoena. That is the only choice congress now has
13
I think it is time to subpoena every Trump appointee to start with and forget the past as Republicans have destroyed all pretense of decorum in the Administration as well as the Congress. Stop being nice collegial colleagues as it gets nothing accomplished
10
How is this possibly legal?
5
Gee, professer, how does that work?
I won't cooperate if there is a subpoena is out there for me in case I don't cooperate?
I didn't know anyone had a choice when it comes to subpoenas. I'll bet that is news to a lot of judges out there.
I wonder where he's getting his legal advice from?
Maybe Friday we'll see if there is any law of the land left yet.
I wonder what he'd look like in an orange jump suit for the weekend?
14
Remove the threat by issuing the subpoena.
The administration did not assert EP when given nearly a month prior notice. At this point, his options are answer the questions, plead the 5th, or rot in jail. I prefer they answer the questions and then rot in jail if they broke the law.
18
I keep forgetting. Is this still the USA?
49
Subpoena him now, in that case, since that seems to be what he wants to happen
7
How clear can it be that this fellow does not intend to uphold the laws...issue the subpoena and let him plead the fifth!
7
Whitaker's absurd demand is the height of political theater. It's proof of his intention to attend the hearing but not answer the questions. Issue the subpoena now. America needs to expose this corrupt administration.
22
If the subpoena cannot be implemented before Barr's confirmation, or if Whitaker can dodge the subpoena to testify before Congress (as he is doing now sans a subpoena), until Barr is confirmed, Nadler should wave the right to subpoena the Acting AG and ask him to testify. This way the Democrats can raise hades and declare "foul" if (when) Whitaker refuses to answer any substantive questions the Committee has for him.
In short, call Whitaker's bluff and then skewer him in the press once he shows his real colors.
4
Won't testify with a subpoena?
Lock him up!
27
If you don’t testify truthfully you will be prosecuted. Just remember that!
10
He's a public servant. How high minded of him to believe that he can defy congress. How very swamp - creature like.
18
Whittaker clearly wants to be above the law and not be compelled to answer certain questions under oath. What a swamp rat! I think what he is hiding needs to be brought into the light. He's not qualified to be Attorney General.
6
This sounds a lot like taking the "fifth." Do you suppose he has something to hide?
6
Use the freaken subpoena power. Don't give it a second thought. Whitaker has already shown that he is a liar when he said that Mueller would wind up the investigation in a month or two. Sifting through Roger Stone's junk will take at least that long and remember that Manifort's indictments came in pieces over more than a month.
12
Ala Jeopardy: what a guilty person says for $500.
Clearly, he’s planning on lying, hence the need to circumvent being charged with perjury.
At least he’s being honest about his intent to deceive. Time to get rid of this lying fool.
8
Subpoena this charlatan to testify. Speaking of hacks, Whitaker is a malfunctioning robot. True to his lies, Donald Trump of course appoints the best people. The gutter Trump administration is beyond the scope of any decency. What a horrible national nightmare.
18
Another GOP crook and he isn't even confirmed yet!
10
Whitaker, just like Trump, thinks he's somehow special. He is not special, none of these thugs and liars are. Congress will hopefully make that fact finally clear to them all.
8
I'll testify, as long as you promise I won't have to tell the truth.
OK. Got it. You're a Trump appointment.
13
"Political theater"? You mean like the Benghazi/email inquisition?
12
You have nothing to fear but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9
All of the 'snakes' that came out from under rocks to become 'acting' in Trumps' appointments are using tricks to avoid answering simple questions about their relationship.
Whitaker's real problem is his loyalty to Trump and his own future.
He should read the newspapers and see where
loyal -to- Trump folks landed. Gates, Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Cohen.......
He can run but not hide....god bless america!
7
This was a frequent tactic of President Obama's henchmen.
@Rob please list these frequent occurrences. I can think of none.
3
@Rob cite them.
1
"Collins of Georgia called this political theatre..." Perhaps he doesn't remember the multiple Benghazi hearings. These Republicans are such hypocrites. Mind boggling!!!!
10
What a fun conception of the law these Trumpies have! Refuse to testify. Insist that felonies are not real crimes. Dangle pardons to witnesses. Call truth-tellers ‘rats’. Attack the justice system when it finds you guilty. What a great model for children! I bet MS-13 uses these same concepts to recruit members!
24
The Attorney General of the United States of Trump wants criminal immunity before testifying to Congress.
Lock up the entire Trump Administration.
534
@Socrates -- "Good faith" has never been a part of this DOJ, Whitaker of the administration. Whitaker doesn't want to be on the hot seat about his comments about the Mueller investigation.
As a private citizen Whitaker sold a lot of wolf tickets about the "witch hunt" but now seems to have lost his zest for airing his biased opinions, at least under oath.
33
@Socrates I think this level of corruption last happened during the Harding administration.
Maybe Trump and Melania will visit Sarah Palin up in Alaska with a stop-over in San Francisco on the way home...
10
What is Mr. Whittaker afraid of? That his corrupt persona will be unveiled in the hearings? That he will actually have to answeer questions.
Bring the subpeona on. He works for US. He must answer to US.
438
Hmmm. If Mr. Whitaker is afraid of a subpoena, perhaps it is because he intends to evade answering the questions, lie to the committee, or both.
Time to issue a subpoena.
580
@A He's more afraid of Putin
8
@A Is he afraid they'll ask him questions about Big Foot?
2
The president refuses to cooperate with congress if the investigation continues. Now the acting AG attempts to place restrictions. Time for Congress to act and insure the country that democracy still matters to our representatives.
168
Nothing to hide here. No collusion. A wich hunt.
Then why limit cooperation?
107
If Whitaker doesn’t show up as scheduled, the committee will issue a subpoena and if Whitaker doesn’t show up he will be in contempt. Only a man who intends to lie or obstruct would need a promise of no subpoena.
322
@Deirdre
He probably thinks his boss will pardon him from any contempt charges.
I wonder if he realizes that for the rest of his life he'll be seen as a stooge. He could cure cancer, and his name still would be sullied by this idiotic farce of an "acting AG" gig.
36
Back-pocket subpoena? Yes. Get to the facts as quickly as possible. Whole New House.
24
Simple. Then he should be subpoenaed.
119
Another member of the Trump circus who thinks he's above the law.
243
Uh ... Isn't refusing to attend the hearing just begging for a subpoena?
196
Just subpoena him. He works for the people of the United States; we have the right to know what "the President knows and when did he know it."
156
I'm not sure he (like his boss) understands how these things work. They don't need his permission to issue a subpoena.
And is he basically blatantly admitting that he plans to clam up for certain questions?
What a pathetic stain on the office of the Attorney General.
355
@Earthling We've had a few stains on that Office over the years - most all of them in GOP administrations.
13
Of course showing up and speaking truthfully is not an option....
71
"I'll only testify if you promise not to subpoena me and if I should deign to submit to questions voluntarily I'll only answer them if I'm not under oath."
Ain't gonna be no perjury traps for this bag of rocks.
31
Democrats need to start ignoring Republicans on committees, just like the Republicans did to them. Most of all, Democrats need to stop being afraid of exercising their power. Show their supporters they're not going to naively try for compromise again with an uncompromising enemy. Go ahead and use the subpoena, these aren't your friends, you don't owe them any courtesy.
302
I didn't know a public servant had a choice. Subpoena him and lock him up until he learns that Trump's rules do not apply when the Democrats are in power.
214
It's funny how the crooks always protest the loudest when called out on being crooks
126
Given what Whittacker is saying the subpoena should be issued immediately to mandate he testify, fully. He doesn't get to make the rules.
114
This one is easy. Issue the subpoena now.
208
If Whitaker demands that the subpoena be removed or he won't testify, the Judiciary Committee should simply subpoena him to testify.
Whitaker is Trump's stooge and is not to be trusted. The proof? Trump hasn't been sending out nasty tweets about him as with Jeff Sessions.
80
“Sheesh. I didn’t recuse myself like Trump’s earliest supporter did, so of course I’m Tweet proof!”
“Wait! There’s some kind of ethics group? Who knew?”
So serve the subpoena and carry out the questioning under oath. Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Trump work for, and are answerable to the American people. If these public employees don't care to answer they can plead 5th amendment protections, and accept all that goes with that.
366
@Seamus
That is straight where I went. If Whitaker wants to play hardball then the Democrats need to go all in.
65
So he will only testify if they promise NOT to subpoena him if he chooses to not answer the questions that they ask? That’s easy. Forget the request and just subpoena him. He is already being non cooperative.
744
@Dan
Right on!
You do not get to tell Congress what not to do while investigating you in their Article I legislative oversight authority. They should subpoena this clown in order reinforce their authority and yank his leash up tight.
4
@Dan
What is the relevance of the Feb 8th date?
So the acting AG will accept being asked questions only if he doesn’t need to answer via Trump’s executive privilege? How about starting with a subpoena instead?
379