Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker will consult with Justice Department ethics officials about “matters that may warrant recusal” amid pressure from Democrats to step aside from overseeing the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Whitaker is “fully committed to following all appropriate processes and procedures,” including consulting with senior ethics officials about his “oversight responsibilities and matter that may warrant recusal,” Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement Monday.
Since his appointment last week, Whitaker has faced mounting pressure to step aside from overseeing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, due to critical comments Whitaker made about the investigation before joining the Justice Department last year.
In an interview with CNN in July 2017, Whitaker suggested the Mueller probe could be starved of its resources by cutting the budget “so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt.”
He also penned an op-ed last year that said Mueller would be straying outside his mandate if he investigated Trump family finances. In an interview with a talk-radio host, Whitaker maintained there was no evidence of collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.
Whitaker, a Republican Party loyalist and chief of staff to just-ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions, was elevated last week after Trump forced Sessions out. Mueller’s investigation had been overseen by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein until Sessions’ ouster.
The Senate’s top Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer, called for Whitaker to step aside from overseeing Mueller’s investigation and said Democrats would seek to tie a measure protecting Mueller to must-pass legislation if Whitaker did not recuse himself.
Schumer, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats sent a letter Sunday to Lee Lofthus, an assistant attorney general and the department’s chief ethics officer, asking whether he had advised Whitaker to recuse himself.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
2 Responses
Why is that more reason to recuse than a person who called for the investigation? I mean really, take a court case for example. If the judge or a jury member would be either for-or-against the defendant then in either case they would be biased and could not legitimately serve. That is how and administrative position is different. Imagine firing every Democrat on the government payroll because they don’t agree with Trump’s policy. Then fire every Republican because they do agree with Trump’s policy.
Further to my previous post – how could (for example) Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court ever legitimately sit on a case involving Trump or Trump policy after what she publicly said during the election?