Congress demands Trump AG explain his dodgy testimony

Perhaps Matthew Whitaker should have just answered the questions when he was asked them the first time.

Whitaker, Trump’s acting attorney general, has been cordially invited to “clarify” his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last week — because he had some trouble telling the truth the first time.

Last week, Whitaker testified in front of the committee as part of their first oversight hearing of the Department of Justice since the Democrats took office. It didn’t go very well for Whitaker.

There was the part where Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) asked him about Trump’s family separation policy, and he tried to deny it even existed, relenting only after she read him a memo about that policy.

And there was also the part where he tried to evade answering a question from the chair of the committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), by telling him, snarkily, that his time was up.

Now, Nadler has sent a letter to Whitaker telling him his answers were “unsatisfactory, incomplete, or contradicted by other evidence.” Nadler pointed out that when questioned about whether Trump had “lashed out” at him over the guilty plea of Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen, Whitaker first said he had not, but when asked if he had talked with Trump about it at all, he refused to answer.

Here’s the problem for Whitaker: His testimony is contradicted by media reports, including one from Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who issued a statement about Trump’s unhappiness.

Nadler is also concerned about Whitaker’s assertion that he never spoke with Trump about the Mueller investigation, even though Whitaker interviewed for an attorney position that would have been dedicated to handling Trump’s official response to the Mueller investigation.

And it isn’t just the Mueller investigation that Nadler thinks Whitaker was deceptive about. He says the committee is going to continue to seek information from Whitaker about “improper communications” with the White House about several ongoing criminal investigations.

Whitaker is a man that takes after his boss. He has shady finances and has engaged in the pettiest of grift, shilling for a company he knew was nothing but a swindle. He’s pugnacious to a fault and behaves as if no one has the right to ask him questions. And, much like Trump, he has a fast and loose relationship with the truth. Now Whitaker’s lies and evasions could cause him big problems.

Perhaps remembering how unhappy Whitaker was to be told the committee could just subpoena him to testify, Nadler closed the letter by reminding Whitaker that if he doesn’t want to answer these questions voluntarily, they can certainly just demand a formal deposition.

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.