Whitaker chose not to recuse from overseeing Mueller probe, but ethics official considered it a 'close call'
Washington (CNN)Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has opted not to recuse himself from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation despite the opinion of a Justice Department ethics official who believed, while a "close call," he should step aside, according to a senior department official close to the process.
Whitaker, who has previously criticized the investigation, never sought a formal recommendation about whether he needed to recuse, the source said. Instead, he received guidance on his options and the applicable rules over the course of three meetings with ethics officials and multiple discussions with his own advisers.
Ultimately, it was Whitaker's decision, but the view of ethics officials will likely raise fresh questions for Democrats on Capitol Hill who have sounded the alarm about whether he will try to undercut Mueller's work.
The ethics officials concluded there was no actual legal conflict presented that would require Whitaker to recuse himself. For example, he doesn't have a familial member involved in the probe, and unlike the situation with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Whitaker was not a surrogate for President Donald Trump's campaign.
However, ethics officials noted there could be an appearance of a conflict based on Whitaker's past public comments about the investigation, as the standard is whether a reasonable person would conclude that he couldn't be impartial. The ethics official tasked with dealing with the review described it as a "close call" whether Whitaker needed to step aside but believed, in his view, that Whitaker should recuse himself out of an abundance of caution.
A tight group of Whitaker's advisers who were heavily engaged in the ethics review process with him and ethics officials, then did their own review and ultimately recommended he not recuse himself.
Whitaker was of the mind that if it was deemed a close call, he did not want to bind his successors in a situation where there was only an appearance, not an actual legal conflict, according to the senior DOJ official close to the process.
As part of this process, ethics officials could not cite a single example or find precedent when an attorney general (or acting) was advised to recuse based on appearance only. The closest example that ethics officials could find was someone who had rendered opinions on a legal matter while in private practice and then later came to the Justice Department. It was found in that case that the employee did not need to recuse....
Are you saying his personal bias can cloud his judgement in his professional life? I was under the impression that wasnt cause for concern with the men and women who work at the dojDoes the corruption of this administration have any end? They've done no "SWAMP DRAINING" just added worse swamp critters!:roll:
Are you saying his personal bias can cloud his judgement in his professional life? I was under the impression that wasnt cause for concern with the men and women who work at the doj
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Was Holder a sycophant too? Did you complain about it under Obama too? Why should we take your complaints seriously when you all seem to shift to whatevers most convenient to support the partisan position?Investigators at the FBI, even if, "acting on bias" do not in any way wield the kind of power and weight of an AG, and it's also quite clear his appointment was based on his stated positions. THe original reccomendation was to recuse, just for the absolute appearance of propriety, yet he gathers a bunch of his sycophants in the office (how Trumpian eh?), gets the opinion he wants and goes with it. Couple that with his previous public statements and how he was installled, if you can't see how that smells fishy, you should be more than fine with any of Ms. Clinton's actions, so how 'bout that?:roll:
Are you saying his personal bias can cloud his judgement in his professional life? I was under the impression that wasnt cause for concern with the men and women who work at the doj
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Ypu should send your complaint to the OG office so it can be investigatedNo we are saying his clear and documented political bias, accusations of unethical and perhaps even illegal behavior and lack of qualifying credentials should have excluded him from the job altogether.
Does the corruption of this administration have any end? They've done no "SWAMP DRAINING" just added worse swamp critters!:roll:
Wait the video you posted said that Whitaker should recuse based appearance of a conflict. Yet you are apparently just fine with Rod Rosenstein continuing over the Mueller investigation. The same investigation that is investigating the reason Trump fired Comey. Have you ever read Rosenstein's memo to Trump concerning Comey? Rosenstein is both a witness and a prosecutor in this investigation. Incredible :roll:Does the corruption of this administration have any end? They've done no "SWAMP DRAINING" just added worse swamp critters!:roll:
Ypu should send your complaint to the OG office so it can be investigated
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Wait the video you posted said that Whitaker should recuse based appearance of a conflict. Yet you are apparently just fine with Rod Rosenstein continuing over the Mueller investigation. The same investigation that is investigating the reason Trump fired Comey. Have you ever read Rosenstein's memo to Trump concerning Comey? Rosenstein is both a witness and a prosecutor in this investigation. Incredible :roll:
Yes it looks like they have a bad case of conditional ethics. Rosenstein is CLEARLY conflicted and should have recused himself because of his own involvement in the case. Prosecutors aren't allowed to be witness in cases that the are prosecutors on. A Federal judge would laugh in the face of a prosecutor that was also a witness in the same case. Rosenstein has more reason to recuse than Whitaker does. The "ethics" committee is probably just is just a bunch of Washington DC liberal lawyers. That is probably why Whitaker is ignoring any advise they may have given him. What a joke.Have you ever read the multiple reports that Rosenstein had sought out and conferred with DOJ Office Ethics to see if he needs to recuse himself and was told he didn't need to?
No we are saying his clear and documented political bias, accusations of unethical and perhaps even illegal behavior and lack of qualifying credentials should have excluded him from the job altogether.
Have you ever read the multiple reports that Rosenstein had sought out and conferred with DOJ Office Ethics to see if he needs to recuse himself and was told he didn't need to?
Does the corruption of this administration have any end? They've done no "SWAMP DRAINING" just added worse swamp critters!:roll:
Wait!! You question the ethics committee's judgment on Whitaker and think they are right about Rosenstein. How convenient :lol: You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either the ethics committee is a bunch of idiots or not. One or the other. I vote the are a bunch of idiots. Rosenstein should have recuse Whitaker should not.
Yes it looks like they have a bad case of conditional ethics. Rosenstein is CLEARLY conflicted and should have recused himself because of his own involvement in the case. Prosecutors aren't allowed to be witness in cases that the are prosecutors on. A Federal judge would laugh in the face of a prosecutor that was also a witness in the same case. Rosenstein has more reason to recuse than Whitaker does. The "ethics" committee is probably just is just a bunch of Washington DC liberal lawyers. That is probably why Whitaker is ignoring any advise they may have given him. What a joke.
No we are saying his clear and documented political bias, accusations of unethical and perhaps even illegal behavior and lack of qualifying credentials should have excluded him from the job altogether.
Yeah that's right I forgot Rosenstein and Whitaker got different treatment. Rosenstein got "special " treatment. I wonder who his "special" ethics advisers voted for. Maybe they went to Hillary's OH S*** I LOST party too like a lawyer on Mueller's team did. :lol:It wasn't The Ethics committee, but his specially chosen "Ethics Committee." Big difference.
Wait the Ethics Committee said Whitaker couldn't oversee the Mueller investigation? I thought they said he didn't have to but he should because of appearance.As usual you don't know what you're talking about. Rosenstein did it the proper way by going through the established proper regulatory channels and made it clear that he would abide by their decision. Whitaker bypassed the Office Ethics and refused to heed their recommendation to recuse by going through an ad hoc collection of administration cronies that circumvented the office of ethics ruling. One did abide the Ethics office's ruling and one did not. Get it now? The joke is on you and the American people
Whitaker is over Mueller looks like the joke is on you. :lol:As usual you don't know what you're talking about. Rosenstein did it the proper way by going through the established proper regulatory channels and made it clear that he would abide by their decision. Whitaker bypassed the Office Ethics and refused to heed their recommendation to recuse by going through an ad hoc collection of administration cronies that circumvented the office of ethics ruling. One did abide the Ethics office's ruling and one did not. Get it now? The joke is on you and the American people
No we are saying his clear and documented political bias, accusations of unethical and perhaps even illegal behavior and lack of qualifying credentials should have excluded him from the job altogether.
Yeah that's right I forgot Rosenstein and Whitaker got different treatment. Rosenstein got "special " treatment. I wonder who his "special" ethics advisers voted for. Maybe they went to Hillary's OH S*** I LOST party too like a lawyer on Mueller's team did. :lol:
This coming from the same kooks who laid down a trillion square miles of the purest feces when it came to Kavanaugh.
You folks have no credibility.
Kavanaugh's entire appointment was a pile feces as well. But party on, dude!
Whitaker is over Mueller looks like the joke is on you. :lol:
Of course it was to Leftists.
You folks don;t like The Constitution. I understand that.
Kavanaugh likes beer. Likes it a lot. Do you like beer as much Kavanaugh does? How about young vulnerable women? See, there's where he and Trump clicked. Besides the fact of his expansive views on executive power too of course.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?