Matt Whitaker Can’t Prevent Mueller from Unsealing Any Sealed Indictments

After spending a 1.5 hour press conference denying he “colluded” with Russia, Trump just proved he did by forcing Jeff Sessions to resign. He announced Sessions’ Chief of Staff, Matt Whitaker, will be the Acting Attorney General. DOJ has already announced Whitaker will take over oversight of the Mueller investigation. Before he was even hired as CoS, Whitaker pointed to the Red Line Trump’s stenographers at the NYT teed up for him, suggested Mueller had crossed it, and that that represented going too far.

He has also laid out how to kill the Mueller investigation — by defunding it.

I could see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced, it would recess appointment and that attorney general doesn’t fire Bob Mueller but he just reduces his budget to so low that his investigations grinds to almost a halt.

It’s all going as I predicted it might in this TNR piece last week.

All that said, Mueller was surely expecting just such an eventuality. And the fact that they got Roger Stone attorney Tyler Nixon to testify Friday suggests they were prepping for it, getting the last bit of evidence against Stone in place.

The only question is whether they got the grand jury to approve whatever indictments they were working on. I’d be surprised if Mueller didn’t (unless Rod Rosenstein prevented him from doing so).

If that’s the case, then Whitaker is not going to help Trump get out of his legal troubles. That’s because Chief Judge Beryl Howell, not Whitaker, will make the decision about unsealing anything sealed in this grand jury investigation.

So if Mueller prepared for this very predictable eventuality, then Trump may have just fired a key player in his racist agenda for naught.

image_print
60 replies
  1. Fran of the North says:

    The game is now officially underway. I hope that when the dust settles, the truth comes out, and that the citizenry cares enough to demand action. It is clear that the result of yesterday’s election has only made the ‘Pubs less likely to perform their sworn duty of checks and balances.

    • TNflash says:

      Trump should be charged with obstruction of justice. He certainly has done everything in his power to derail the investigation.

  2. Thomas says:

    Having just read the news, I wondered: is anyone addressing the fact that Trump is acting in a way contrary to DOJ norms in elevating someone to the AG position who was not confirmed by the Senate, passing over Rosenstein, who was?
    Is anyone questioning why Trump is throwing normal procedure out the window to change oversight of an investigation of his campaign?
    Acting kinda guilty. And hysterical.
    He made these moves after a press conference in which he threatened to investigate unspecified “Democrats” for unspecified “leaks of classified material” in answer to oversight investigations and tie up the workings of the government for two years.
    I hope one of those sealed indictments is Pence.
    Maybe a new Vice President will not act like a cult member, and understand the 25th amendment.
    Trump demonstrated, repeatedly, during that press conference, that he is batshit out of his mind.

    • gretab says:

      Thomas, if Pence is out before Trump, I doubt a new VP will be approved. They would have to be approved by the majority of BOTH the House and Senate. If this happened before January 2, 2019, *maybe* they could approve someone. After Jan 3, 2019, I doubt Trump would willingly appoint anyone that would make it past a Democratically controlled House, although the Senate would probably still approve them. I cant see Trump appointing a moderate that would be acceptable to both parties. Each new hire has been more and more partisan.

      • Rayne says:

        Welcome back to emptywheel. You have a second username used during your previous visits; please stick to one name so community members can get to know you. Thanks.

  3. Ollie says:

    anyone?:  If I remember correctly, Sessions has been thought to know about Russian stuff.  Wasn’t he thought to be at that important meeting w/Papa and was it Flynn [June 2016}?

    Anyhow, now that Sessions is no longer serving the president: can he now be made to talk to Mueller?  I’ve always thought he knew more than what he said he did “Russians?  What Russians?” went before the Congressional committee. thoughts?

    Huh.  I’m going to hold on to my seat, I am hoping for a very, very bumpy road for trump and his thugs coming up.  Giddy w/anticipation.

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      I’m sure we’d see another example of Schroedinger’s Executive Privilege where it’s cited without being formally invoked. If Beauregard felt chatty after two years of humiliation, the White House would try to shut him up.

      It got lost in the pre-election noise, but Gabe Sherman’s sources seem to think that Uday is in deep shit, and that might be one reason to start the shutdown process this early.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Perhaps, but to make that plan work it must be completed by January, and the Senate’s not in session to confirm Whitaker (who’s a piece of work).  Once the new Congress is sworn in the blizzard of subpoenas would make it very hard to avoid political blowback from the indictments that are likely, and many of those are not under Mueller’s control.

        So, a lame duck session is a must and since there is no change in the control of the Senate it won’t be about getting judge nominees through before the D’s block them.  It will be all about what can get rammed through the House and to stifle Mueller.  Can the D’s prevent a quorum?

        https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/new-acting-attorney-general-matt-whitaker-trump-loyalist-whined-robert-mueller-going-far/

      • BobCon says:

        I know what answer the Trump camp would give, but would there be any grounds for invoking executive privilege for the campaign and transition dealings Sessions had?

        • Rayne says:

          Trump wasn’t the executive until sworn in on Inauguration Day. The entire problem with Flynn negotiating with Russia about sanctions before the inauguration is that we only have one president at a time and only that president’s authorized personnel may negotiate with foreign governments about conflicts (Logan Act, 18 USC 953). Nothing Flynn did was privileged and nor Sessions while acting on behalf of the campaign or the president-elect before inauguration.

  4. Chetnolian says:

    Sessions’ s resignation letter is fascinating. In saying the DoJ has consistently worked to uphold the rule of law, does not that include Special Prosecutor Mueller? I do not think he can have been unaware of that interpretation.

    • Peterr says:

      I like how he opens with a veiled shot at Trump: “At your request, I am submitting my resignation.” There’s no “I want to spend more time with my family” or “After two long, hard years, it’s time to pass this job on to someone new.” Nope. Just a “You asked for this letter, so here it is” statement.

      Then Sessions looks back and tells Trump “I’ve done everything you could have dreamed of, and more, like . . . ” He rings the changes on the conservative wish list with regard to DOJ, ending with a thanks to Trump. But not “Thanks for all your support” or “Thanks for having my back” or “Thanks for giving DOJ all the resources it needs.” Nope. Just “Thank you for the opportunity.” IOW, Mr. President, Sessions is saying you didn’t do anything substantive, except put him in the job.

      The only thing Sessions left out is “Bless your heart, Mr. President.”

      • orionATL says:

        about that opening sentence of session’s, it kinda, sorta spells out “obstruction” one more time.

      • MarkH says:

        I think Trump probably had a bunch of his people hand in letters like that when he first put them in office. That way he could hold it over their heads all the time. It also meant he never had to have some job performance just cause to get rid of them. Just whip out the letter and they’re gone.

  5. gedouttahear says:

    Wouldn’t t know , through Rosenstein, if there were sealed indictments? Would that not explain his unhinged behavior, even for him, at today’s press conference? While t and his gang may  — it remains to be seen — have the political power to survive what the Mueller investigation may reveal, it is inconceivable that that gang has or can out smart Mueller.

  6. harpie says:

    In a short thread on this, Ryan Goodman says:

    12:47 PM – 7 Nov 2018 Another reason Whitaker needs to be recused from overseeing Mueller for the sake of rule of law. // Whitaker has apparently made up his mind. // Whitaker: “There is no criminal obstruction of justice charge to be had here.” // From a radio interview [June 9] 2017: // 2/

    I wonder if he has voiced opinions on ConFraudUs?

    • harpie says:

      There is this from Aaron Blake:

      12:07 PM – 7 Nov 2018 Matt Whitaker last year on Trump Tower meeting: // “You would always take the meeting.” [WaPo/Mother Jones] 

    • harpie says:

      There is this, via Aaron Blake:

      12:07 PM – 7 Nov 2018 Matt Whitaker last year on Trump Tower meeting: // “You would always take the meeting.” [WaPo/Mother Jones]

      Isn’t that Uday’s line?

      • harpie says:

        Yes. Video via Kyle Griffin:

        Here’s the new acting Attorney General in July 2017 defending Don Jr.’s decision to take the Trump Tower meeting with Russians offering “dirt” on Hillary Clinton: “You would always take that meeting.”(via CNN) [VIDEO]

  7. harpie says:

    Our new AAG considers the courts to be “the inferior branch” of our Government, via Eric Gardner: [see the linked screenshot]

    1:03 PM – 7 Nov 2018 Our new acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker thinks Marbury v. Madison — which established the principle of judicial review — is one of the worst decisions in the Supreme Court’s history. SERIOUSLY.

    • Thomas says:

      Of course. If someone isn’t corrupt, a crackpot, or a corrupt crackpot, then they don’t belong in the Trump Administration.

      “We’ll hire all the best people.”

  8. BobCon says:

    What would be Whitaker’s control over the SDNY-Cohen piece? Can he defund it? Reassign all of the prosecutors to chasing jaywalkers in front of the federal courthouse?

    What kind of recourse would they have, within and without of usual channels?

    If the state of NY has traction on a case, I wonder if this is time to get the word out.

      • Thomas says:

        I get why indicting the president has to be run by the AG, but why his kids?

        I don’t recall that the police or the prosecutor need permission from a crook’s dad to arrest or prosecute them.

        I’m aware his “kids” work as advisors, but that is really some aristocratic pretense that needs to be slapped down, no?

        They are not the Julio-Claudian dynasty?

  9. Rick Ryan says:

    I have a few factual questions I’ve been having trouble finding answers to:

    1) As I understand it, the acting AG can serve for a max of 210 days – I assume for Whitaker that starts basically today or tomorrow. So if the plan is to starve the Special Counsel beast, so to speak, could Mueller simply wait him out? I.e., lay off any raids and reviews of massive document dumps (or perhaps farm them out to states or other offices) that are what I assume cost the most money until the Senate confirms a presumably less overtly biased replacement?

    (I maybe/probably am hopelessly naive but I assume if there’s any there there, and there seems to be, that most of the attorneys themselves would be able and willing to work pro bono, given the stakes. And as Marcy noted on Twitter, the results of last night don’t really indicate that Cozy To Trump is the guaranteed win our newly emboldened urophile-in-chief thinks it is, so even with 53 or 54 seats the Senate GOP is unlikely to confirm anybody as overtly biased as Whitaker)

    2) If said newly emboldened urophile-in-chief decides to make an interterm recess appointment before the start of the new Congress, how long does the appointee serve? I understand it is until “the start of the next session” of Senate, but I am unclear if that is until the Senate reconvenes, recesses, then reconvenes again, or if that occurs when the calendar turns again (i.e., recess appointee could serve until early 2020 in this case)?

    I think the Senate has mechanisms to preclude even interterm appointments by not technically going into recess, which would seem to put McConnell’s megalomania for his status as the power behind the throne in conflict with his general evilness. It will be interesting* to see how that shakes out.

    3) Can the House of Representatives appoint an independent investigator by itself (i.e., not just a Congressional investigation but actually empower a third-party)? Or does that require the Senate to join in the appointment?

    *horriffically nerve-wracking

    • Joshua88 says:

      To Q 2, from CRS: If the President makes a recess appointment between sessions (of the same or successive Congresses), that appointment will expire at the end of the following session. If he makes the appointment during a recess in the middle of a session, that appointment also will expire at the end of the following session. In this case, the duration of the appointment will include the rest of the session in progress plus the full length of the session that follows. At any point in a year, as a result, by making a recess appointment during an intrasession recess, the President may fill a position not just for the rest of the year, but until near the end of the following year.”

      • Rick Ryan says:

        Thanks! So if I’m understanding correctly, an AG appointed during interterm this year (say, Christmas 2018) could serve until the NEXT next Congressional term, i.e., on or about Jan 1, 2020?

    • emptywheel says:

      1) As I understand it, the acting AG can serve for a max of 210 days – I assume for Whitaker that starts basically today or tomorrow. So if the plan is to starve the Special Counsel beast, so to speak, could Mueller simply wait him out? I.e., lay off any raids and reviews of massive document dumps (or perhaps farm them out to states or other offices) that are what I assume cost the most money until the Senate confirms a presumably less overtly biased replacement?

      I suspect he’ll move before starving Mueller out, largely because I think Mueller has a lot of this done.

      (I maybe/probably am hopelessly naive but I assume if there’s any there there, and there seems to be, that most of the attorneys themselves would be able and willing to work pro bono, given the stakes. And as Marcy noted on Twitter, the results of last night don’t really indicate that Cozy To Trump is the guaranteed win our newly emboldened urophile-in-chief thinks it is, so even with 53 or 54 seats the Senate GOP is unlikely to confirm anybody as overtly biased as Whitaker)

      Sure, but you need to pay for witnesses travel and office space and investigative steps.

      2) If said newly emboldened urophile-in-chief decides to make an interterm recess appointment before the start of the new Congress, how long does the appointee serve? I understand it is until “the start of the next session” of Senate, but I am unclear if that is until the Senate reconvenes, recesses, then reconvenes again, or if that occurs when the calendar turns again (i.e., recess appointee could serve until early 2020 in this case)?

      I think Trump only intends to keep Whitaker until he has fired Mueller–he’ll replace him with Azar or someone. He’ll probably award Whitaker with some other sinecure.

      3) Can the House of Representatives appoint an independent investigator by itself (i.e., not just a Congressional investigation but actually empower a third-party)? Or does that require the Senate to join in the appointment?

      Yes, they could staff up for this, but they don’t have the authority to prosecute, just impeach.

      • Rick Ryan says:

        Thank you for the response!

        I have a couple of follow-up questions, for you or anyone else in the know:

        think Trump only intends to keep Whitaker until he has fired Mueller

        If the plan is to just have Whitaker take the Bork role, why didn’t Whitaker just fire Mueller the second he assumed Acting AG duties? Or does Whitaker technically not begin until tomorrow?

        Yes, they could staff up for this, but they don’t have the authority to prosecute, just impeach.

        Just to make sure I’m understanding correctly, this means the House alone could appoint Mueller as an “independent investigator” or somesuch and grant him subpoena power, but he would lose the grand jury?

        Oh, follow-up to that: if the grand jury is dissolved, could the House (or Senate, in principle) call the jurors as witnesses and waive the secrecy oath? Or does that require a ruling by a judge?

    • oldoilfieldhand says:

      I, and many people in my profession, have been investing in the United States of America, paying the equivalent of a US Senator or US Representative’s salary in federal taxes, for a number of years. No issue whatsover with continuing to support the ideals that birthed the experiment in Democracy that Trump’s shithole countries emulate and aspire to be. I’m ready to contribute to a GoFundMe account to ensure that the Special Counsel’s Office can continue its work to remove the shit stain on the reputation of America that the Trump Administration has become.

  10. cat herder says:

    Don’t worry, everybody. I’m sure Nancy & Chuck have a foolproof plan to deal with this that guarantees their own political survival. You have to look at the big picture.

  11. klynn says:

    As I recall, any citizen is able to make donations to the US government and designate where the donation should go.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The trick, as with United Way, is that you can make a contribution and designate where it goes, but it does not normally increase the funding of that designee.  It frees that part of the budget your contribution replaces for use elsewhere.

  12. John Forde says:

    Did Whitaker meet with Mueller during the diversionary press conference?
    Did Mueller tell Whitaker of all the sealed indictments?
    Is Trump finally realizing how screwed he is this evening?

  13. JD12 says:

    Speaking of indictments, just got around to watching the press conference and although Trump and Jim Acosta were already going at it over immigration, it looked like what really set Trump off was when Acosta asked him if he was worried about indictments now that the midterms are over. Acosta got his answer, just not verbally—Trump got so steamed he started pacing. Then later he revoked Acosta’s press pass. He’s very worried about indictments. I wouldn’t want to be Don Jr. right now.

  14. Thomas Paine says:

    Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1945) – Would this precedent not provide Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic House, both the authority and the means to hire Mueller and continue the investigation independently of the DoJ, but in full concert with the Judiciary Branch – including empanelment of Grand Juries and conduction of criminal trials ?  After all, prosecutors only PROPOSE. Grand Juries actually INDICT.  I’m an engineer, not an attorney so I am just asking, but we are getting into “bare knuckles” time.  Could this be Pelosi’s “brass knuckles”, in the event Mueller is relieved and the Trump Administration refuses to give the new House the “Time of Day”, much less respond to subpoenas.

Comments are closed.