Former US attorney for the Southern District of New York makes the case for indicting a sitting president: 'It's a policy — it's not the law'
Matthew Chapman
Can a sitting president be indicted?
<p>The question has been thrown around a lot with President Donald Trump in the White House, and multiple investigations progressively finding more and more illegal behavior in the president's inner circle. The prevailing narrative, however, has been that a sitting president is immune from prosecution and the only avenue for punishing presidential crimes is impeachment — which is backed up by a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution">Justice Department memo</a> warning that indicting the president would "unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."</p><p>But not so fast, says David Kelley, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York under President George W. Bush, the same district where federal prosecutors are currently <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/27/donald-trump-under-investigation-sdny-cohen-testim/">investigating</a> Trump's business dealings with his former attorney Michael Cohen.</p><p>As Kelley explained to MSNBC's Ari Melber on Thursday, there is no hard and fast rule that forbids a president from being indicted — and that he, personally, would consider throwing out Justice Department etiquette if the accusations against a president were serious enough.</p><p>"It's a policy, it's not the law," said Kelley. "Policies can be bent, policies can be broken. And I think it's going to depend on the facts and the gravity of the offenses, if any, that they find."</p><p>"I gotta push you then," said Melber. "If you were back in that office — I'm not naming a president, say any president. President Johnson. President X. Would you have considered that a potential option on the table?"</p><p>"Sure," said Kelley. "I mean, certainly — look, I think the people who are the prosecutors are going to be the ones who are really going to be pushing to say, look, this is really bad, and the person should be prosecuted and here's why. On the other side of the coin, they may find some fairly minor offenses, and they said, they wouldn't push up against the policy."</p><p>"If he went ahead and committed murder on Fifth Avenue like he says you could get away with, I don't think he would, policy or no policy," added Kelly. "So let's see how this plays out."</p><p>Watch below:</p><blockquote class="twitter-video"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Former U.S. Attorney for SDNY says despite DOJ policy, he would have considered indicting a sitting President, depending on the charge: <a href="https://t.co/bssFc31VA3">pic.twitter.com/bssFc31VA3</a></p><p>— TheBeat w/Ari Melber (@TheBeatWithAri) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBeatWithAri/status/1101267586195574784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 28, 2019</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
Trump's fired acting FBI director Andrew McCabe: Justice Department discussed removing president under the 25th Amendment
On Thursday, CBS anchor Scott Pelley revealed on CBS This Morning that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe revealed in a 60 Minutes interview that the Department of Justice considered trying to build a Cabinet consensus to remove President Donald Trump under the 25th Amendment of the Constitution.
<p>Watch below:</p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2c2696df77290f46b4454e43447476bf" id="43002"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1096020537069977600"><div style="margin:1em 0">.@ScottPelley on what McCabe told @60Minutes: "There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discus… https://t.co/rXk1kXGGSn</div> — Norah O'Donnell 🇺🇸 (@Norah O'Donnell 🇺🇸)<a href="https://twitter.com/NorahODonnell/statuses/1096020537069977600">1550146633.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The final section of the 25th Amendment states that "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."</p><p>This provision has never been tested, and there is <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/08/trump-25th-amendment-constitutional-crisis-219739">legal</a><a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/08/trump-25th-amendment-constitutional-crisis-219739"> debate</a> on what is meant by "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of office. But the provision has often been cited as a potential way of declaring Trump unsuitable and removing him as president.</p><p>McCabe served as acting director of the FBI after Trump fired James Comey. He was often at odds with the rest of the Trump administration, and was <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/sessions-fires-mccabe-he-can-retire-n856751">fired</a> by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March 2018, just two days before his planned retirement.</p>
Here are 7 disastrous moments from acting AG Matthew Whitaker's congressional testimony
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who was dubiously appointed to his position by President Donald Trump outside the normal Justice Department order of succession and without being confirmed by the Senate, testified before Congress Friday in a heated performance that showed the gaping chasm between the House of Representatives and the executive branch.
<p>He was combative, dismissive, contemptuous and condescending throughout the hearing as Democrats tried to question him. He often used blatantly fillibuster tactics to avoid answering questions, such as repeating the questions, delving into meaningless asides, repeating rote answers, and avoiding direct inquiries. On many serious topics, Whitaker outright refused to answer.</p><p>As a neophyte to such a high-profile office, Whitaker showed that he was unable to gracefully cope with the fierce grilling he received.</p><p>Here are seven of the most disastrous moments of his testimony:</p><p><strong>1. Whitaker had a callous response to Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) pleaded for him to take responsibility for the immigrant families under Justice Department policy.</strong></p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b5adf1730b621afae318281c7b1300ba" id="453e0"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1093988437642874880"><div style="margin:1em 0">Rep. Pramila Jayapal presses Acting AG Matt Whitaker on family separations at the border. "Do you know what kind o… https://t.co/e0ooaN8Z8g</div> — ABC News (@ABC News)<a href="https://twitter.com/ABC/statuses/1093988437642874880">1549662143.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p><p><strong>2. He became combative when confronted with his dubious past.</strong></p><p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f91c90ad2410fd63c05971bf29c89809" id="97d11"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1093951951388045313"><div style="margin:1em 0">"Mr. Whitaker, you don't run this committee! You don't run the Congress of the United States, and you don't run the… https://t.co/GWSSxKrhzY</div> — ABC News (@ABC News)<a href="https://twitter.com/ABC/statuses/1093951951388045313">1549653444.0</a></blockquote></div></p><p></p><p><strong>3. Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) confronted Whitaker with his refusal to follow the advice of ethics officials to recuse from overseeing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation — and his only answer was that "it was my decision to make."</strong></p><p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5a6905e80d78f4879adbaa6f7d997878" id="3d1fb"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1093970661171695617"><div style="margin:1em 0">.@RepDean: Career DOJ officials recommended you recuse yourself from the Mueller investigation. Correct? WHITAKER:… https://t.co/Pyicf9aQPH</div> — Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar)<a href="https://twitter.com/atrupar/statuses/1093970661171695617">1549657905.0</a></blockquote></div></p><p></p><p><strong>4. Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) challenged Whitaker to name any Republicans his ethics watchdog group filed complaints against — but he couldn't list one.</strong></p><p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b525950004c930fa54271bbc66129352" id="ddfb3"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1093938836680462336"><div style="margin:1em 0">Karen Bass asks about Matthew Whitaker's time, before working in the DOJ, as the executive director of an ethics wa… https://t.co/84kQaaIwWW</div> — Kyle Griffin (@Kyle Griffin)<a href="https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/statuses/1093938836680462336">1549650317.0</a></blockquote></div></p><p></p><p><strong>5. Rep. Shiela Jackson-Lee (D-NY) scolded Whitaker for "joking" about her question time. </strong></p><p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f5a37ffe89f0d2b0cdca5bfa00c89359" id="fcdbf"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1093918971114467328"><div style="margin:1em 0">Whitaker makes another remark about members' time, this time in regards to Rep. Shiela Jackson-Lee. Jackson-Lee: "… https://t.co/EYCEnpoPQE</div> — Kyle Griffin (@Kyle Griffin)<a href="https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/statuses/1093918971114467328">1549645581.0</a></blockquote></div></p><p></p><p><strong>6. Whitaker and Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) fanned the flames of baseless conspiracy theories about Roger Stone's arrest.</strong></p><p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1e72258b81b04674172f898259559e0d" id="a2529"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1093892002448658438"><div style="margin:1em 0">Whitaker says he was briefed on Roger Stone's arrest before it happened. @RepDougCollins &amp; Whitaker then team up to… https://t.co/ASsL2nIhBv</div> — Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar)<a href="https://twitter.com/atrupar/statuses/1093892002448658438">1549639151.0</a></blockquote></div></p><p></p><p><strong>7. In a completely disrespectful comment, Whitaker told Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) that his time was up — causing gasps from observers — even as he had time to answer the question.</strong></p><p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5be87a08ad607342c4d0f5c01a19a4dd" id="a532a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1093890710594555906"><div style="margin:1em 0">NADLER: "In your capacity as acting attorney general have you ever been asked to approve any request for action to… https://t.co/h68V9bUniX</div> — Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar)<a href="https://twitter.com/atrupar/statuses/1093890710594555906">1549638843.0</a></blockquote></div></p><p></p>
'Kill the filibuster': Senate Democrats urged to act quickly to end era of GOP obstruction - Alternet.org ›
Trump's Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker says the Mueller probe is 'close to being completed'
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker confirmed reports Monday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is "I think, close to being completed."
<p>He said that he has been "fully briefed" on the investigation and that he looks forward to getting the special counsel's report. However, it's not clear whether he will be in charge at the time it is completed, rather than William Barr, who is expected to be confirmed by the Senate soon to be the next attorney general.</p><p>"That would at least seem to indicate he's probably done with [Roger] Stone," said former <a href="https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/1090010852101632000">Justice Department</a> spokesman Matthew Miller. "Does that mean no conspiracy charges against anyone? Or is there one more shoe to drop?"</p><p>Reports had circulated for weeks that Mueller's investigation would be wrapping up early in 2019, but some observers were skeptical of these claims.</p><p>Whitaker has faced criticism for not recusing himself from overseeing Mueller's investigation. He was appointed by Trump to become attorney general after the 2018 midterms elections, replacing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who the president has criticized for recusing from the probe. Many constitutional experts questioned the legitimacy of his appointment, given the fact that he was never confirmed by the Senate and he was elevated outside the Justice Department's order of succession. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ethics-officials-say-whitaker-need-not-recuse-from-supervising-special-counsel-probe-according-to-a-person-familiar-with-the-matter/2018/12/20/76332392-046b-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html">Ethics experts</a> in the department reportedly recommended that he recuse from the investigation because he had made disparaging comments about it as a private citizen, but he rejected that advice.</p><p>"But, you know, sort of the statements I made were as a private citizen, only with publicly available information," Whitaker said to reporters Monday. "And I am comfortable that the decisions that were made are gonna be, um, reviewed either through the various means we have..."</p><p>Some were skeptical of Whitaker's claim.</p><p>"This is going to be WAY overplayed," said <a href="https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1090011670527778816">Chris Geidner</a>, a BuzzFeed News legal editor. "Listen to his words: They're vague, and hedging, and his opinion."</p><p>"The [special counsel] executed search warrants on a significant figure in the investigation on Friday," said <a href="https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1090014637448417281">legal analyst</a> Luppe Luppen. "They also indicted him, and he hasn't ruled out cooperation. They're still litigating to get grand jury testimony from witnesses. Presumably what they find/are told informs their timeline."</p><p>Luppen also noted that, in response to a request for comment on Barr's remarks, special counsel spokesperson Peter Carr declined to elaborate.</p><p>"Hopefully it goes without saying that just because Mueller is said to be close to completion doesn't mean he isn't going to allege serious wrongdoing in his report. It appears to suggest that no massive conspiracy indictment is in the works, however," said NBC reporter <a href="https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1090014021628186627">Ken Dilanian</a>.</p>
Trump's Justice Department admits its report on immigration and terrorism is bogus — but it won't retract it
Alex Henderson
In 2018, the U.S. Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security released an 11-page report suggesting that there was a link between terrorism and immigration. The report, made in compliance with President Donald Trump's March 2017 executive order barring immigration from six predominantly Muslim countries, has been widely criticized for lacking context—and the Justice Department has admitted that the report was misleading. Even so, the agency has so far refused to correct or retract the document.
<p>In May 2018, various civil liberties groups (including Protect Democracy) sued the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security in federal court under the Information Quality Act and asked for a retraction or correction. But the agencies have refused.</p><p>In a December 21 letter, Michael H. Allen (deputy assistant attorney general for policy, management and planning) acknowledged the groups' concerns, saying, "In future reports, the department can strive to minimize the potential for misinterpretation."</p><p>Ben Berwick, counsel for Protect Democracy, has noted that about 100 foreign-born people suspected of terrorism are wrongly characterized as immigrants in the Justice Department/Homeland Security report. According to Berwick, they were extradited to the U.S. to stand trial for terrorist acts committed overseas—and they didn't come in as immigrants.</p><p>The report noted that 73% of those convicted of "international terrorism-related charges" since 9/11 were "foreign-born." But the report, according to CNN, wrongly gave the impression that they were immigrants to the United States—not people who committed acts of terrorism in other countries and were brought to the U.S. for prosecution.</p><p>Nahal Toosi, who covers foreign policy for Politico, has been critical of the Justice Department for not issuing a correction. In a <a href="https://twitter.com/nahaltoosi/status/1081250103686516737">January 4 tweet</a>, Toosi wrote, "This is truly amazing. The Justice Department admits that, under Trump, it effectively made up and misstated information to link immigrants to terrorism, but that it won't retract or correct the culprit report."</p><p>In a separate tweet, Toosi asserted, "Doesn't the Justice Dept realize that everyone from historians to journalists to all sorts of others turn to its reports/statistics for their own work? How could DOJ not retract or correct this report? It could corrupt future information flows."</p>
'The most brazenly corrupt thing I've seen': Expert aghast as the acting attorney general overrules ethics guidance on Mueller probe
This morning, a CNN report revealed that President Donald Trump's acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, was given the all-clear by ethics officials at the Department of Justice to assume oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. This development raised eyebrows, given Whitaker has harshly attacked the legitimacy of the Mueller investigation as a "witch hunt" that is "going too far" and warned that it would be a "red line" if Mueller probes Trump's personal finances.
<p>But it turns out that was only part of the story. In fact, the first ethics official Whitaker asked <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ethics-officials-say-whitaker-need-not-recuse-from-supervising-special-counsel-probe-according-to-a-person-familiar-with-the-matter/2018/12/20/76332392-046b-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html">told</a> him that, while he wasn't required by law to recuse himself, he should do so to avoid the appearance of a conflict. Whitaker responded by gathering another group of Justice Department officials, who then conveniently told him to disregard the first advice and take over the Mueller investigation. These advisers falsely told Whitaker that no attorney general has ever recused from any investigation to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest (it has happened <a href="https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1075877640995856385">at least three times</a> in the last 20 years). A senior DOJ official <a href="https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/1075846191492096001?s=21">refused</a> to name any of the people who were involved in this decision.</p><p>This move by Whitaker absolutely horrified MSNBC legal analyst Matthew Miller:</p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="aa5e960d9fe271d26e9af8227be9c10c" id="fd06b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1075832098005626881"><div style="margin:1em 0">This is turning into an enormous scandal. Ethics officials told Whitaker they would recommend recusal, so he set up… https://t.co/LnSOI55imq</div> — Matthew Miller (@Matthew Miller)<a href="https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/statuses/1075832098005626881">1545333334.0</a></blockquote></div><p>On MSNBC's "Deadline: White House," Miller expounded on his outrage to host Nicolle Wallace..</p><p>"With respect to the Mueller probe, we've gotten pretty used to seeing some crazy things out of the Justice Department over the last two years," he said. "What happened today has left me almost speechless. I mean, you have an acting attorney general who has gone to the ethics officials, who said, 'We are not going to officially ask for your opinion, because we don't want to be bound by it, but if we were to ask your opinion, what would you tell us?' And they said, 'We would recommend you recuse.' That wasn't the answer he wanted, so he appointed a different set of people who worked for him — the Justice Department won't tell us who those officials are, they won't disclose their names — these secret officials have now recommended — who aren't ethics officials, by the way — 'Oh, you can ignore the officials, it is okay to stay in charge of this probe.'"</p><p>"It is the most brazenly corrupt thing I've seen out of the Justice Department since I've been watching the Department," said Miller. "And I think it goes to why he's in the job in the first place. He's in the job because the president wanted someone who would shut the investigation down or who would, at key moments, steer it away from the president. And if Matt Whitaker followed the ethics rules, he wouldn't be able to do that. So you seem him just blatantly disregarding what they said to do."</p><p>Watch below:</p><blockquote class="twitter-video"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">"We've gotten pretty used to seeing some crazy things out of the Justice Dept over the last 2 years - what happened today, left me almost speechless... the most brazenly corrupt thing I've seen... since I've been watching the dept." - <a href="https://twitter.com/matthewamiller?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@matthewamiller</a> w/ <a href="https://twitter.com/NicolleDWallace?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NicolleDWallace</a> <a href="https://t.co/N0NPTHOulm">pic.twitter.com/N0NPTHOulm</a></p>— Deadline White House (@DeadlineWH) <a href="https://twitter.com/DeadlineWH/status/1075917513328873472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
Trump's ethics officials tell Whitaker he can oversee Mueller probe despite statements attacking it
Matt Whitaker, the former federal prosecutor and Iowa politician who is standing in as President Donald Trump's attorney general, has not made a secret of the fact that he opposes special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign. It is almost certainly why Trump put him in charge in the first place.
<p>But according to a <a href="https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics/matthew-whitaker-attorney-general-robert-mueller-investigation/index.html">report</a> from CNN, officials have told Whitaker this is not a conflict of interest and he is free to assume oversight of the Mueller investigation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein:</p><blockquote><p><em>Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has consulted with ethics officials at the Justice Department and they have advised him he does not need to recuse himself from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, a source familiar with the process told CNN Thursday.</em></p><p><em>The source added Whitaker has been in ongoing discussions with ethics officials since taking the job in early November following the ouster of Jeff Sessions, who had stepped aside from overseeing the investigation due to his role as a Trump campaign surrogate during the 2016 election.</em></p></blockquote><p>What is more, CNN reports that the first ethics official Whitaker spoke to advised him to recuse himself out of an abundance of caution — so Whitaker simply shopped around for other ethics officials who told him he had no need to.</p><p>After Republicans spent months trying to claim it was a massive scandal that an FBI agent who served briefly on the investigation sent <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/anti-trump-fbi-agent-peter-strzok-deserves-to-be-fired-it-should-have-happened-months-ago">text messages critical of Trump</a>, apparently it is not at all a problem that Trump hired an attorney general who has called the special counsel investigating whether the president committed obstruction of justice a "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/07/matthew-whitaker-criticized-mueller-probe-973204">witch hunt</a>."</p><p>This would be less of an issue if Congress would pass the bipartisan bill protecting Mueller from arbitrary termination. But Senate Republicans just blocked that bill <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/senate-republicans-block-for-a-third-time-mueller-protection-bill-1070781">for the third time</a>.</p><p>Whitaker will not be attorney general indefinitely. Trump ultimately plans to replace him with William Barr, a Justice Department veteran who also served as attorney general under President George H. W. Bush. Barr, however, hardly thinks more of the Mueller probe — new memos show that he has stated there was nothing wrong with Trump firing FBI Director James Comey to try to shut down the Russia probe, and called the obstruction inquiry "<a href="https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/19/politics/bill-barr-comey-obstruction/index.html">fatally misconceived</a>."</p><p>Trump should not be able to install critics of an investigation looking into his own wrongdoing to oversee those same investigators. And the fact that the administration can move forward with this is disturbing.</p>
'Disturbed': Hundred of former Justice Department officials sign letter explaining why AG Matthew Whitaker's appointment is so troubling
The government watchdog group Protect Democracy is reporting that more than 400 former attorneys or officials for the U.S. Justice Department have signed a statement saying that they are "disturbed" by the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general.
<p>After the 2018 midterms, President Donald Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and announced that Whitaker was taking over the position for the time being. Whitaker has been a vocal critic of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.</p><p>The letter stated, "Because of our respect for our oaths of office and our personal experiences carrying out the Department's mission, we are disturbed by the President's appointment of Matthew Whitaker to serve as Acting Attorney General.... Mr. Whitaker has not been confirmed by the Senate, his qualifications to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer have not been publicly reviewed, and he has not been fully vetted for any potential conflicts of interest."</p><p>The letter goes on to say, "While we know that there are thousands of dedicated public servants now at the Department who will do their utmost to protect its mission and reputation, it falls to all of us to ensure that the Department's role in maintaining the rule of law is not undermined or tainted."</p><p>Before Trump chose Whitaker, he had been serving as Sessions' chief of staff. Trump has yet to announce a permanent nominee for attorney general.</p><p>One of the attorneys who signed the letter was Jill Wine-Banks, a former Watergate prosecutor who has had much to say about Russiagate during her appearances on MSNBC and CNN.</p>
Trump's shady attorney general knew his company was swamped with complaints of fraud - but promoted it anyway: report
The new Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives will have all kinds of investigative and subpoena powers after being seated in January 2019, and one of the many things they might be taking a close look at is Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker's involvement with a Miami-based marketing company called World Patent Marketing—especially in light of the complaints received by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) when Whitaker was on WPM's advisory board. And FTC documents released on November 30 in response to a public information request show how deeply Whitaker was involved with the company even when complaints were coming in.
<p>Whitaker joined WPM's advisory board in 2014, and the company received complaints from customers that year as well as in 2015. The FTC eventually filed a complaint against WPM for allegedly cheating its customers—some of whom reportedly lost their life savings.</p><p>Public records, according to the Washington Post, show that in May, a federal court in Florida ordered WPM to pay a settlement of over <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/acting-attorney-general-whitaker-fielded-early-fraud-complaints-from-customers-at-patent-company-yet-promoted-it-for-years-records-show/2018/11/30/919b76bc-f4a2-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.dc4d9cce0183">$25 million</a> and close down.</p><p>Whitaker, the Washington Post reported Friday, "did little to assist" the FTC's investigation of WPM. Once in a public position, though, he seems to have changed his tune. In an October 2017 message, Whitaker told the FTC, "I didn't know that you had served a subpoena. I am now at the Department of Justice here in Washington DC, as the chief of staff to the attorney general; so, I want to be very helpful."</p><p>But questions have emerged about whether Whitaker was entirely forthright with the commission.</p><p>Bloomberg reported Friday on Whitaker's communications with the FTC, initially claiming that he may have misled the commission after becoming acting attorney general by telling the FTC's James Evans that he "never e-mailed or wrote to consumers" when he was with WPM, citing a message reviewed by the outlet. But Bloomberg has since issued a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/ftc-emails-show-whitaker-fielded-gripes-on-miami-firm">correction</a>.</p><p>Bloomberg had said that in 2015, Whitaker wrote a letter to a "disgruntled customer" who was threatening to report WPM to the Better Business Bureau. But, as the Washington Post reported, the person that Whitaker wrote to wasn't actually a consumer.</p><p>The Washington Post's Carol Leonig tweeted, "The records I have reviewed do not show Whitaker writing to a consumer, but to a <a href="https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1068561651979493377">former business partner</a> of the company CEO." And former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotta, now a CNN legal analyst, responded, on Twitter, "If the @washingtonpost reporters are correct, Whitaker's statement may have been misleading but not technically false."</p><p>But providing information that is "not technically false" — but still misleading — is hardly a strong defense for the person leading the federal government's law enforcement department.</p><p>Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings—who will be taking over as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in January 2019—is asserting that Whitaker should have been more proactive when told about alleged fraud at WPM.</p><p>The Washington Post quoted Cummings as saying, "These new documents suggest that Mr. Whitaker was personally aware of allegations of fraud by World Patent Marketing and its CEO at the same time he was receiving payments as a member of the advisory board. If true, this is extremely troubling and raises serious concerns about his fitness to serve as acting attorney general and whether he was properly vetted for this critical position."</p><p>President Donald Trump appointed Whitaker acting attorney general after the 2018 midterms, firing Jeff Sessions and choosing Whitaker as his replacement.</p>
Julian Assange's lawyer blasts Justice Department as 'irresponsible' for doing exactly what WikiLeaks does
On Thursday evening, George Washington University's Seamus Hughes noticed something interesting in a filing from federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia: an apparent reference to an indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
<p>There are thorny legal questions about the implication of an Assange indictment for press freedom and national security. However, there is a remarkable irony in the fact that Assange's attorney is now <a href="https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1063410185832673281?s=21">complaining</a> it was "irresponsible" for federal prosecutors "to put in a public filing information that clearly was not intended for the public and without any notice."</p><p>In other words, WikiLeaks' entire business model.</p><p>A longtime "transparency" activist <a href="https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties">friendly with Russia</a>, Assange's organization has spent years publishing classified information from Western nations on its website — by coincidence often in ways that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.html">benefit the Kremlin</a> — and played a key role in releasing <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/13/four-juiciest-leaked-podesta-emails/92014368/">stolen documents</a> from Democratic officials during the 2016 election. Some of President Donald Trump's associates, including former strategist <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/exclusive-text-messages-show-stone-friend-discussing-wikileaks-plans-n936371">Roger Stone</a>, face questioning in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation over their potential ties to WikiLeaks.</p><p>Assange has been <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/11681502/Why-is-Julian-Assange-still-inside-the-embassy-of-Ecuador.html">hiding</a> in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012, to evade an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/13/judge-refuses-to-withdraw-julian-assange-arrest-warrant">international arrest warrant</a> in connection with rape charges in Sweden. Those charges were eventually <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/19/swedish-prosecutors-drop-julian-assange-investigation">dropped</a>, but he is still wanted by British authorities for violating bail.</p><p>Assange refuses to leave the embassy, where Ecuador has granted him asylum, because he <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/13/judge-refuses-to-withdraw-julian-assange-arrest-warrant">believes</a> the United States will seek to have him extradited over WikiLeaks activity — something that, for the first time, there is now evidence the Justice Department may seek to do.</p><p>According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/julian-assange-indictment-wikileaks.html"><em>The New York Times</em></a>, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office said Assange "was not the intended name for this filing." Aside from that reference, none of the rest of the document mentions Assange or anything relating to him. It is not clear what the Justice Department is considering charging Assange with, or whether they will actually move forward.</p><p>But whatever happens, it is notable that, quite by accident, the Justice Department made Assange a victim of his own tactics.</p>
Trump's New Attorney General Slammed as a 'F*cking Fool' and a Suck-Up Inside the DOJ: Report
Inside the Department of Justice, President Donald Trump's newly — and dubiously — appointed Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is already being derided, according to a new report by the Daily Beast.
<p>"He's a fucking fool," one attorney told reporter Erin Banco of the new appointee, who served as chief of staff for the previous attorney general, Jeff Sessions "He's spent so much time trying to suck up to the president to get here. But this is a big job. It comes with many responsibilities. He just simply doesn't have the wherewithal."</p><p>Trump finally removed Sessions after criticizing him publicly for over a year. In a clear attempt to avoid voter backlash, Trump asked for Sessions to resign the day after the midterm elections. He bumped up Whitaker into the top spot over Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in a move many experts have called unconstitutional and illegal for no other apparent reason except to gain control of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.</p><p>Banco reports: "Whitaker is seen as a rogue and underqualified new leader whose impact won't just be felt on the Mueller probe but throughout the federal government."</p><p>"We've seen this over and over again with the Trump administration. They never vet these people," a former department official told Banco. "It shows that they don't really have a strategy when it comes to these things and then they end up having to backtrack."</p><p>It's not just department insiders who have this view. In a column on Thursday, Washington Post contributor Ruth Marcus denounced Whitaker as a "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matthew-whitaker-is-a-crackpot/2018/11/08/69e8e190-e395-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?utm_term=.43eefb94d646">crackpot</a>."</p><p>She noted that he has proposed that judges should have a "Biblical" view of the law and that<em> Marbury v. Madison,</em> the fundamental bedrock of American jurisprudence finding that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, was wrongly decided.</p><p><i>"Marbury</i> was wrong. Religious tests for judges," wrote Marcus. "If you thought the big worry about Whitaker was how he would handle special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, that might be just the beginning."</p>
A Republican caving to terrorists is a Republican working for terrorists
Why Republicans won't fight terrorism
House GOP can't quit Trump