Kerri Kupec, acting principal deputy director at the DoJ, defended Whitaker from his critics, saying that he is a "respected former U.S. Attorney and well-regarded at the Department of Justice. As Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said today, he is a superb choice.”

    But the vast powers that Whitaker has not been given have left officials and trial attorneys at DoJ fearful that, in an effort to impress President Trump, he will try to make up for his inexperience by making rash decisions about the direction of the department, including implementing policy changes in the Division of Civil Rights.

    “This guy has spent his whole life trying to climb the rungs of power to get to a federal appointment,” one DOJ official said. “Now that he is here, and who knows for how long, he’s going to try and make a name for himself. And that could make things harder for us.”



am_Unition:

This NY Times piece is really good, but unfortunately confirms our worst suspicions. I was kinda surprised to hear that Don McGahn was in favor of appointing Whitaker as AG, I've always considered him one of the most sane lawyers in Trump's orbit, and not just for leaving.

I bet Whitaker hangs on for about three Scaramuccis. For anyone still using the metric system, that's 30 days.

Which is funnier: Trump saying “I can tell you Matt Whitaker’s a great guy. I mean, I know Matt Whitaker.” a month before saying "I don't know the guy.", or him claiming that he doesn't know the man he just appointed to arguably the most powerful legislative office in the world?

Meanwhile, Turley's new piece of hot garbage argues that Whitaker's appointment also gives Roger Stone's lawyer, Miller, a better basis for questioning Mueller's legitimacy:

    In other words, by appointing Whitaker, Trump has undermined the position of his own Justice Department in court in the Andrew Miller case without directly firing Mueller. If Whitaker is left in place, and Trump has said there is “no rush” to fill the post permanently, the court could conclude that Mueller is now exercising powers reserved to confirmed “principal officers.” He could be barred from exercising those powers until an attorney general is nominated and confirmed.

I mean, I'm sure Mueller has several contingency plans, but did we learn absolutely nothing from Watergate? Already, per the WSJ, we have a president that knowingly committed a felony violation of campaign finance law, and there is NO political backlash from the GOP? I totally get that it's DoJ policy to never indict a sitting president, but the statute of limitations expires five years from the infraction. So IF Trump isn't impeached, and then loses in 2020, the prosecution would need evidence from after January 20th, 2016 to convict him. I hope they have it.

I feel like more has happened in the last week than just about 99% of America has been able to piece together, and I'm losing my goddamn mind. Edit: btw, I am not implicitly claiming to have pieced together much of anything.


posted 1991 days ago