Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, March 14, 2019

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) revealed Wednesday new allegations of former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker's conduct while leading the Justice Department -- allegations that Nadler described as the main "takeaways" from the committee's closed door meeting with Whitaker.



Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler spoke to the television cameras after Matt Whitaker's testimony, and he confirmed three things. First, Whitaker is no longer denying that he had conversations with Donald Trump about Mueller-related investigations. Second, Whitaker is revealing that he had conversations with Trump about firing U.S. Attorneys for the purpose of obstructing justice. Second, Whitaker is acknowledging that he and Trump discussed the scope of the Trump-Cohen SDNY case.
Maybe.... So far, the verbiage I've read only confirms that Whitaker had "conversations" regarding these subjects, not necessarily with Trump himself about all the topics mentioned. But would it surprise anyone if indeed Trump was trying to use Whitaker to obstruct justice in service of his own political survival?

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-03-13 08:53 PM | Reply

CBS News has a bit more info...

Top Democrat says Whitaker didn't deny talking to Trump about Cohen in closed hearing

...However, Nadler did not say Whitaker explicitly acknowledged having conversations with Mr. Trump about Cohen. And Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the committee, said Nadler's description was an "inaccurate interpretation" of what Whitaker said.

"I think that is an inaccurate interpretation of what he said. Mr. Whitaker said he did not have conversations with the president about Cohen," Collins, who has publicly butted heads with Nadler, told reporters. He also disputed Nadler's interpretation of Whitaker's potential discussions about the Southern District.

"That was taken in the context of his job as the acting attorney general where there is discussions in the normal personnel issues. To imply it would imply anything else besides that is really an overreach," Collins said....

Lots of vagueness surrounds this still...

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-03-13 09:55 PM | Reply

Lots of vagueness surrounds this still...

That's why I qualified with "Maybe". If you take what Nadler said precisely, he did not say that Whitaker admitted having substantive nor directive conversations with Trump, just that conversations were had - with exactly whom Nadler didn't directly say. So until further information becomes available, I'd agree with Rep. Collins at this point.

Rachel Maddow verbally included Trump in specific Whitaker conversations beyond what Nadler confirmed, and I myself changed the title of this thread when I realized there wasn't a direct mention of Trump even though Nadler was reading his statement from written notes, not just loosely recounting his memory of today's events.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-03-13 10:13 PM | Reply

@#3 ... That's why I qualified with "Maybe" ...

Yup, saw that.

I stumbled upon the other info, which didn't do a lot of clearing up of things, maybe even muddied things more. But I thought it useful to include Rep Collins' comments.

I wonder if there will be a transcript released so we can get past these ~interpretations~ of what was said.

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-03-13 10:30 PM | Reply

I wonder if there will be a transcript released so we can get past these ~interpretations~ of what was said.

Not yet, it was a closed hearing. I think Nadler is merely trying to rattle Trump's cage at this point and I find myself agreeing that the Judiciary Committee more than likely already had corroborating information probably from others in the DOJ of what Whitaker reportedly confirmed today in his return testimony:

Ask yourself how the House Judiciary Committee knew that Matt Whitaker was lying to begin with. The committee must have had reliable witnesses, or hard evidence, or both, just to make that accusation against Whitaker. He didn't cave today because he grew a conscience; he caved because he's seen that they have enough to convict him. And whatever that evidence is against Whitaker, it's also evidence against Trump. So no one has to take Whitaker's word for it; the committee already has proof that Trump instructed Whitaker to obstruct justice. Whitaker's testimony is just icing on the cake.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-03-13 10:40 PM | Reply


It wouldn't surprise me if the Committee (or a member thereof) knew the answers before the questions were asked.

Even Rep Collin' comments were quite vague, not quite a non-denial denial, but not too far for that either.

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-03-13 10:58 PM | Reply

Committee didn't get a transcript, so the lying liars can say whatever they want. Nadler should have known better than to not have it recorded...unless it's all just moot at this point.

It's hard to keep up with the varying layers of lies coming out of the GOP and Drumpf organization. Putin is really good at this, and apparently, so is Xi.

#7 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-03-14 12:50 PM | Reply

The Sweaty Hatchet Man conspired with the Orange Humpy?

Get out of here! No way!

No Collusion!


Be Best!

Build the Wall!

Cage the Kids!

It's a National Emergy People! Why are you still sitting around gabbing like a bunch of old hens??


#8 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-03-14 01:04 PM | Reply

Hmmm. One wonders whether Whitaker is honked off enough over his firing to turn around and testify openly about his former boss. One also wonders whether a story about the President's attempt to conspire to fire a US Attorney who may be investigating said President in a criminal matter would catch the attention and interest of Republicans in the US House and Senate.

The cynic in me says the GOPers on Capitol Hill would show more interest in seeing Ivanka nude than in hearing about her father's criminal activity...

#9 | Posted by catdog at 2019-03-14 01:14 PM | Reply

I had posted a link to this article a while ago. I think this paragraph may be worth a rerun...

Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside Trump's Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him

...Mr. Whitaker, who had privately told associates that part of his role at the Justice Department was to "jump on a grenade" for the president, knew he could not put Mr. Berman in charge because Mr. Berman had already recused himself from the investigation. The president soon soured on Mr. Whitaker, as he often does with his aides, and complained about his inability to pull levers at the Justice Department that could make the president's many legal problems go away....

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-03-14 01:30 PM | Reply

The cynic in me says the GOPers on Capitol Hill would show more interest in seeing Ivanka nude than in hearing about her father's criminal activity...
#9 | Posted by catdog a

Change Ivanka to Jared and you may have something there.

#11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-03-14 02:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

How many did slick willie fire when he took office? 94?

#12 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-03-15 05:25 PM | Reply

#12 How many did he try to fire because they were investigating crimes he very likely committed?

#13 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-15 05:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort