It didn’t take long for Democrats to go after the new acting Attorney General.
Jesus could have assumed this role, and the Democrats would rewrite a book of the Bible. Sadly, Jesus would be a gang rapist.
Whitaker started off on the wrong foot with Democrats, as CNN reports:
New acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has given no indication he believes he needs to step aside from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election meddling, one person familiar with his thinking told CNN Thursday.
That belief is echoed by White House officials. As they don’t believe Whitaker needs to recuse himself, sources tell CNN.
There has been much speculation about whether Whitaker will recuse himself given his past criticism of the investigation.
The Washington Post reported Thursday about Whitaker’s position, also noting that people close to him do not believe he would approve Mueller seeking a subpoena of President Donald Trump.
Who knows what the Left will dig up on Whitaker. And he’s only an “acting” AG.
For all intents and purposes, Trump can let them demonize Whitaker until the cows come home. Clearly, Trump has an out.
Perhaps that’s what Trump will do. Let another “Kavanaugh” happen, then he can pull the rug from under the the Left.
American Spectator may have the answer as to why Democrats feel they must take Whitaker out:
In August 2016, Whitaker, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa and member of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, was interviewed on SiriusXM Radio by Breitbart Daily News host Matt Boyle. They spoke regarding the preferential treatment accorded by Hillary Clinton’s State Department to Clinton Foundation donors. Whitaker told Boyle that “this pay-to-play Clinton Foundation, State Department situation is much more serious” than the Clinton email scandal that had been the subject of a fake investigation by James Comey’s FBI.
Quoth Whitaker: ”James Comey, the Director of the FBI, stood up and talked about the emails and the emailing of classified information. That was serious, but the real ballgame is the situation you’re describing. And that is where Clinton Foundation donors were given preferential treatment, by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.”
“It’s very interesting,” he said, “to watch the Clinton camp try to explain away these meetings. But, like you said, 50 percent of the meetings she took with people that were not essentially employees or representatives of countries or the like, just sort of individuals that wanted to meet with the Secretary of State, 50 percent of those — as the AP has reported more than 50 percent — were Clinton Foundation donors.
“It is not possible for them to explain away that Clinton Foundation donors were given preferential treatment when it came to seeing the Secretary of State. It’s just the way business was done,” Whitaker declared.
So Whitaker clearly shares the same concerns of many Americans regarding preferential treatment of the Clintons and her surrogates.
And as the article explains, he appears to have interest in the FBI handling of her server as well.
“The frustrating thing for me continues to be, she had the private email server to avoid public disclosure of her emails. She didn’t turn over any emails until two years after she was supposed to, in 2012, from the illegal server. And yet, we are now almost four years since she finished serving, and we’re still gonna see another 15,000 — what the State Department is calling ‘documents,’ and that’s a very interesting term to me, so I think there’s more to it than just the emails.”
“And then Judicial Watch continues to have their litigation with the State Department, and we continue to have revelations of more emails, that are really, quite frankly, more concerning than the initial flood that we got. This has dripped out over the past year as part of the Benghazi investigation,” he said. “This is kind of a big deal. And my group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, has been pressing hard on the State Department to try to get to the bottom of this, together with groups like Judicial Watch.”
Whitaker is very different from Sessions. Because at the very least he has a curiosity for the obvious.
CNN has already expressed concern about Whitaker’s comments.
But Whitaker has previously expressed deep skepticism about the probe, including arguing in a 2017 CNN op-ed that Mueller was “dangerously close to crossing” a red line following reports that the special counsel was looking into Trump’s finances and calling Mueller’s appointment “ridiculous” and “a little fishy” in a 2017 appearance on the “Rose Unplugged” radio program.
Whitaker also spoke about the investigation in numerous other radio and television appearances, including CNN. In fact, there he was a legal commentator.
It was not widely known among White House staff that he’d commented repeatedly on the special counsel’s investigation in interviews and on television — which is ironic given that this is what drew President Donald Trump to him and raises continued questions over the depth of the administration’s vetting process.
So believing Clinton got preferential treatment disqualifies one from being acting AG?
As Peter Strzok testified, [pp] “A person’s personal beliefs would never enter into an investigation”.
I consider CNN’s report on this, what else but fake news. Trump can use Whitaker to set the stage for the next phase of this investigation. Then he can conveniently put in a new AG.
That AG can even more conveniently continue the work of Whitaker.
For now, Democrats are just digging up everything Whitaker said about the investigation. Soon, they will find women who can accuse him of heinous anti-#MeToo crimes, just in case Whitaker’s professional past doesn’t disqualify him.
Hopefully, President Trump uses Whitaker to stir the pot. Then goes for the jugular shortly thereafter.