This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/us/politics/whitaker-trump-mueller-attorney-general.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Acting Attorney General Whitaker Won’t Recuse Himself From Russia Inquiry Acting Attorney General Whitaker Won’t Recuse Himself From Russia Inquiry
(about 9 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Matthew G. Whitaker, the acting attorney general, has decided not to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, despite being advised otherwise by a career ethics official, according to a senior Justice Department official. Mr. Whitaker will now have final say over any major developments made in that inquiry. WASHINGTON — Matthew G. Whitaker, the acting attorney general, has decided not to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, despite being advised otherwise by a career ethics official, according to a Justice Department letter sent to Senate leaders. Mr. Whitaker will now have final say over any major developments made in that inquiry.
The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, who has been overseeing the investigation while Mr. Whitaker spoke with ethics lawyers, will continue to manage it day to day, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. [Read the letter.]
The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, who has been overseeing the investigation while Mr. Whitaker spoke with ethics lawyers, will continue to manage it day to day, according to a senior department official, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
Mr. Whitaker has not yet been briefed on any aspect of the investigation, although one of his advisers has been briefed on major developments, according to the senior department official. That adviser has not shared information with Mr. Whitaker, and it is not clear when the acting attorney general will have his first briefing.Mr. Whitaker has not yet been briefed on any aspect of the investigation, although one of his advisers has been briefed on major developments, according to the senior department official. That adviser has not shared information with Mr. Whitaker, and it is not clear when the acting attorney general will have his first briefing.
Mr. Whitaker must now be informed of any “significant” prosecutorial or investigative steps in the Russia inquiry, which is being led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.Mr. Whitaker must now be informed of any “significant” prosecutorial or investigative steps in the Russia inquiry, which is being led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
Under the Justice Department’s regulations for special counsels, Mr. Whitaker requires Mr. Mueller to provide explanations for what he is doing, and if Mr. Whitaker decides that a proposed action is “inappropriate or unwarranted under established department practices,” Mr. Whitaker can block Mr. Mueller from taking it.Under the Justice Department’s regulations for special counsels, Mr. Whitaker requires Mr. Mueller to provide explanations for what he is doing, and if Mr. Whitaker decides that a proposed action is “inappropriate or unwarranted under established department practices,” Mr. Whitaker can block Mr. Mueller from taking it.
If Mr. Whitaker does block Mr. Mueller from taking a step, the Justice Department would have to notify Congress about that, with a description and explanation, after the special counsel completes his investigation, the regulation says.If Mr. Whitaker does block Mr. Mueller from taking a step, the Justice Department would have to notify Congress about that, with a description and explanation, after the special counsel completes his investigation, the regulation says.
The Justice Department plans to send a letter to Congress on Thursday explaining the recusal decision, which caps a six-week vetting process that began after Jeff Sessions was fired as attorney general and Mr. Whitaker, his chief of staff, replaced him. The Justice Department on Thursday sent the letter explaining the recusal decision to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader.
“It’s crystal clear that Department of Justice ethics officials believe Mr. Whitaker should recuse himself from supervision of the special counsel’s investigation,” Mr. Schumer said after receiving the letter. “Mr. Whitaker’s refusal to recuse is an attack on the rule of law and the American justice system, but it is undoubtedly consistent with what President Trump wanted — an unethical yes man who will do his bidding rather than do what’s right.”
Mr. Whitaker’s decision caps a six-week vetting process that began after Jeff Sessions was fired as attorney general and Mr. Whitaker, his chief of staff, replaced him.
Mr. Whitaker’s ascent was immediately denounced by critics. Democratic lawmakers said Mr. Rosenstein, who had been confirmed by the Senate to serve in the upper echelons of the department’s leadership, should rightfully become the acting attorney general.Mr. Whitaker’s ascent was immediately denounced by critics. Democratic lawmakers said Mr. Rosenstein, who had been confirmed by the Senate to serve in the upper echelons of the department’s leadership, should rightfully become the acting attorney general.
Critics also worried that Mr. Whitaker had too many conflicts to oversee an investigation into President Trump’s own campaign and close associates. He had a close relationship with Mr. Trump and had been described as the White House’s eyes and ears inside the Justice Department.Critics also worried that Mr. Whitaker had too many conflicts to oversee an investigation into President Trump’s own campaign and close associates. He had a close relationship with Mr. Trump and had been described as the White House’s eyes and ears inside the Justice Department.
Mr. Whitaker had also sharply criticized the Russia investigation while he was a legal analyst on CNN. He also worked on the campaign of Sam Clovis, who is a witness in the Mueller investigation.Mr. Whitaker had also sharply criticized the Russia investigation while he was a legal analyst on CNN. He also worked on the campaign of Sam Clovis, who is a witness in the Mueller investigation.
Because the ethics question was over the appearance of impartiality, and not an actual financial or business conflict, Mr. Whitaker himself would have to request a formal ethics vetting and opinion, according to Justice Department regulations.Because the ethics question was over the appearance of impartiality, and not an actual financial or business conflict, Mr. Whitaker himself would have to request a formal ethics vetting and opinion, according to Justice Department regulations.
Mr. Whitaker decided not to do that, but he was willing to engage in a conversation with the department’s career ethics lawyers. To handle that process, he brought together a team of four political appointees within the department, including a veteran United States attorney, to advise him.Mr. Whitaker decided not to do that, but he was willing to engage in a conversation with the department’s career ethics lawyers. To handle that process, he brought together a team of four political appointees within the department, including a veteran United States attorney, to advise him.
Just after Veterans Day, the four officials began to engage in an informal review with the ethics lawyers. The review was focused primarily on the statements Mr. Whitaker had made as a political commentator, and did not include his ties to the White House.Just after Veterans Day, the four officials began to engage in an informal review with the ethics lawyers. The review was focused primarily on the statements Mr. Whitaker had made as a political commentator, and did not include his ties to the White House.
Despite Mr. Whitaker’s close ties to Mr. Trump and Mr. Clovis, the Justice Department found that he did not have to step back to satisfy a regulation that requires recusal in matters in which he would have “a personal or political relationship” with a person “involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation” or any person Mr. Whitaker knows who “would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation.”
But the ethics officials said that Mr. Whitaker should recuse himself because “a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts” would question his impartiality due to the statements he had made to the press.
Mr. Whitaker rejected that advice because the ethics lawyers could not find an example of other attorneys general who had recused themselves based on statements in the news media, and he did not want to be the first, according to the letter.
The two parties met on three occasions, according to the senior department official.The two parties met on three occasions, according to the senior department official.
The first was an hourlong discussion of the typical ethics review process. The second was an opportunity for the lawyers to ask Mr. Whitaker factual questions about potentially inflammatory statements he had made about the Mueller investigation as a legal commentator. And the third was an annual ethics review on the department’s various policies and procedures.The first was an hourlong discussion of the typical ethics review process. The second was an opportunity for the lawyers to ask Mr. Whitaker factual questions about potentially inflammatory statements he had made about the Mueller investigation as a legal commentator. And the third was an annual ethics review on the department’s various policies and procedures.
During those conversations, the ethics lawyers said that the main issue with his comments was that they lent the appearance of a conflict of interest. The question was then whether a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts would believe that Mr. Whitaker could be impartial in performing his duties. During those conversations, the ethics lawyers said that the main issue with his comments was that they lent the appearance of a conflict of interest. The question was then whether a person with full knowledge of the facts would believe that Mr. Whitaker could be impartial in performing his duties.
The ethics lawyers could not cite a specific example of a previous attorney general recusing himself on the grounds of the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The closest situation they could find was a senior official who, while in private practice, had provided legal commentary on a legal matter that the department was investigating. In that case the department said there was no need for a recusal.The closest situation they could find was a senior official who, while in private practice, had provided legal commentary on a legal matter that the department was investigating. In that case the department said there was no need for a recusal.
But in Mr. Whitaker’s case, the ethics lawyers said on Tuesday that he should recuse himself “out of an abundance of caution.” They also noted that the decision was a “close call” and up to Mr. Whitaker, since he had not asked for a formal review, according to the senior department official. But in Mr. Whitaker’s case, the ethics lawyers said on Tuesday that he should recuse himself “out of an abundance of caution.” They also noted that the decision was a “close call” and up to Mr. Whitaker, according to the senior department official.
Mr. Whitaker’s four advisers then held their own meeting and unanimously concluded that he should not be the first attorney general to recuse himself from a matter simply because of appearances. They gave their recommendation to Mr. Whitaker on Wednesday morning, and he decided around 5 that afternoon not to recuse himself.Mr. Whitaker’s four advisers then held their own meeting and unanimously concluded that he should not be the first attorney general to recuse himself from a matter simply because of appearances. They gave their recommendation to Mr. Whitaker on Wednesday morning, and he decided around 5 that afternoon not to recuse himself.