Department of Justice Matthew Whitaker politics Trump

There’s No Way Trump Asked Matt Whitaker To Obstruct Justice Because That Would Be Totally Out Of Character

Oh, boy Matt.

Oh, boy Matt.
This content has been archived. Log in or Subscribe for full access to thousands of archived articles.

4 comments on “There’s No Way Trump Asked Matt Whitaker To Obstruct Justice Because That Would Be Totally Out Of Character

  1. That’s why Matt was appointed. He was just doing his ‘job.’

  2. News about this type of malfeasance and just bad government in general has become so commonplace that in a 24 hour news cycle it’s lifespan is mere hours . The public accepts criminality of this category as the norm…Unfortunately, over the last two years the volume has literally exploded and that is a very negative trend…blah ,blah blah..Wonder why I typed this.. Good thing I didn’t have to mail it and waste a stamp..LOL…

  3. Let me just say now, that I have never and never have and will not, nay haven’t EVER done obstruct of the justice. EVER. And anyone says otherwise is a lyin’ sonofabitch. And I’ll kill them. With a rusty spoon. The lousy fake news bastards.

  4. It’s clear that Whitaker was not telling the truth when he testified before Congress. But did he commit perjury? Not a chance. The quality of a perjury charge is first tested by the quality of the question asked. Add ambiguity to the question or make it a complex or disjointed or leave it to the witness to define words used in the question and the question becomes useless for perjury purposes.

    There were many good questions asked by congresswomen and congressmen and then before Matt could get three words out the questioner excitedly, decided to vary and expand on the first question by interrupting him and asking one or two more questions. In doing so, good old Matt was accorded al the time he needed to reflect on his preparation, read his notes and give a non-answer.

    Here’s a classic amatuer hour moment. CNN had a report with this headline: “Trump lashed out at Whitaker after explosive Cohen revelations.” So, the guy or gal who gets paid to write the headline for the story decided to use the words “lash out.”
    at the hearing,

    Then, at the hearing, Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.), having that article in mind, decides to adopt the anonymous headline writer’s use of “lash out,” uses the phrasal verb as an accepted fact in FOUR of his questions!! Look at this:

    CICILLINE: Mr. Whitaker. Did the President lash out at you after Michael Cohen’s guilty plea for lying to Congress about a Trump organization project to build a tower in Moscow?

    WHITAKER: The President specifically tweeted that he had not lashed out.

    CICILLINE: Did — did — I’m asking you, Mr. Whitaker. Did the President lash out at you? Not asking what he tweeted. I don’t have a lot of confidence in the veracity of his tweets. I’m asking you under oath.

    WHITAKER: Congressman, that is based on an unsubstantiated …

    CICILLINE: Sir, answer the question yes or no, did the President lash out to you about Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea?

    WHITAKER: No, he did not.

    CICILLINE: And did anyone from the White House or anyone on the President’s behalf lash out at you?


    The question was useless for perjury. Matt owned the question. He got to decide whether or not Trump lashed out at him. End of story.

    Here’s an example of obtaining no answer. Minutes 1-3

    I’m not certain there was a single clear, concise and simple material question that called for a factual answer that was asked Matt that he was allowed to fully answer on a material matter which he answered in a way that subjected him to the penalties of perjury.

Speak On It

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

Skip to toolbar