Matt Whitaker Doesn’t Know What You Mean By ‘Yes Or No?’

Matt Whitaker Doesn’t Know What You Mean By ‘Yes Or No?’

Unfortunately for Matt Whitaker, Matt Whitaker was compelled to voluntarily testify on Capitol Hill Friday before the House Judiciary Committee.

There’s a lot to unpack in that sentence. Let’s start with “Unfortunately for Matt Whitaker, Matt Whitaker…“.

The public already knew Whitaker was hopelessly conflicted when it came to presiding over the Mueller investigation. Whitaker has a long track record of deriding the special counsel probe publicly and his Trump-friendly views on Hillary Clinton and James Comey are well documented. What the public didn’t know until a January 28 press conference (during which US officials announced criminal proceedings against Huawei) is that Matt doesn’t hold up well under questioning – or at least not when the questions are about Robert Mueller.

Whitaker’s sweat-a-thon quickly became a social media sensation last month and that episode certainly seemed to suggest that just about the last place Trump’s Acting AG wanted to find himself was testifying publicly in front angry Democrats on Capitol Hill.

As for the contradiction inherent in our use of “compelled” with “voluntarily” above, Whitaker agreed to testify but briefly retracted his offer on Thursday after the committee voted to give Jerry Nadler the authority to subpoena Matt’s testimony in the event he decided not to show or else wasn’t forthcoming.

Read more

A Terrified Matt Whitaker Doesn’t Understand Why You Would Subpoena Him When He’s Already Agreed To Sweat For You

Ultimately, that stalemate was resolved when Nadler told Whitaker the following on Thursday evening:

If you appear before the Committee tomorrow morning and if you are prepared to respond to questions from out Members, then I assure you that there will be no need for the Committee to issue a subpoena on or before February 8. To the extent that you believe you are unable to fully respond to any specific question, we are prepared to handle your concerns on a case-by-case basis.

And so, the stage was set.

Matt showed up and as you might imagine, his testimony produced a series of cringe-worthy moments.

Below, for instance, find a bespectacled Whitaker having an absolutely horrible time trying to figure out how to dodge one of the only questions that matters (and in case you’re wondering, yes, his absurd glasses have already become a meme):


Now that, ladies and gentleman, is a man who doesn’t want to answer a “yes or no” question.

If you think that’s painful to watch, have a gander at Matt folding up like wet cardboard while being literally screamed at about the rather stark juxtaposition between the sheer number of guilty pleas and indictments Mueller has secured and the President’s increasingly untenable “witch hunt” characterization:


If Whitaker was terrified going into Friday, it’s safe to say he was correct to be scared, because that is some frightening stuff right there.

At one point, Whitaker got so flustered he couldn’t remember what he said about crime and the border (i.e., about something unrelated to Mueller) in his own opening statement.


Why yes, Matt, that does “sounds like something you would have said”, probably because you in fact did say it literally just this morning in the same room.

Asked directly whether he was advised to recuse himself from the Mueller probe, Whitaker refused to answer:


Matt (chugging water like Brett Kavanaugh) had an extremely difficult time responding to Ted Deutch’s very straightforward questions about whether he (Matt) had spoken to anyone at the White House about his views on the Mueller probe. This is another clip that’s painful to watch:


Of course the highlight of the entire day came early on when Whitaker tried to tell Nadler that his “time was up” only for everyone in the room to (loudly) laugh in Matt’s face.


You get the idea. Whitaker has a lot to hide and if he doesn’t, he sure has a funny way of acting innocent. God only knows how many times he perjured himself on Friday.

Finally, if you’re wondering whether Friday’s proceedings and/or Whitaker going back to being a “private citizen” means Congress won’t get the answers they need from him, Jerry Nadler is happy to clear up any confusion for you.


8 thoughts on “Matt Whitaker Doesn’t Know What You Mean By ‘Yes Or No?’

  1. Wow! Interesting your take on his testimony. Heis, yes or no – have your stopped stealing from your employer? Whitaker didn’t commit perjury at anytime but did make the Democrat side of the committee look not only foolish but also churlish. Just one mans take.

      1. H,
        I get it. No-one can be employed by another yet be so prolific a writer. Democrats could have saved everyone much time by simply asking one simple yes/no question. We know that Whitaker has not interfered with Mueller invest so far, therefore, the one question could have simply been – does he plan on improperly intervening in the Mueller crusade during his final 7 days as Acting Attorney General?
        Remainder of day could have been spent on trying to accomplish something for the Country.

    1. Both you and Whitaker seem incapable of understanding one very simple sentence — Whitaker works for America, not trump.

      His performance yesterday was very transparent — he is nothing more than a shill.

      One question for you – you state he did not commit perjury at any time – so you truly believe that he arrived to work in the WH in the middle of the enormous world-wide news event of the Mueller investigation and he has never once, ever, with any person, no one, had a conversation about this event with anyone in the WH?

      Anyone with one brain cell knows this lying coward was only hired because of his public comment on his opinion of the Mueller investigation and there is no doubt that within 10 minutes after arrival at the WH the Mueller investigation was the primary conversation.

      1. Murphy,
        My point is there is nothing to suggest he has improperly shared information with anyone in the Whitehouse nor has he interfered with the Mueller investigation. Your declaration that he is a “lying coward” isn’t supported by anything other than your apparent hatred for all things Trump.

        1. If this lying coward has never discussed the Mueller investigation with assface, then why in the hell would he try and claim Executive Privilege and refuse to answer their questions?

          and you Mr. Anonymous can go suck an egg.

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.