A Congressman Asked Matt Whitaker About the Mueller Probe. The AG’s Response Drew Gasps.

The moment brought loud gasps at a congressional hearing.

Tom Williams/Zumapress

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Testifying on Friday before the House Judiciary Committee, acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker replied to a question by the panel’s chair, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), with a response that stunned the room and drew audible gasps.

As the temporary head of the Justice Department, Whitaker now oversees Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Given his critical comments about the Mueller probe before joining the DOJ—he called the investigation a “witch-hunt” in one op-ed—Democrats have been eager to question him about his views on the inquiry and any actions he’s taken in connection with it since taking the helm of the agency.

But when Nadler tried to ask Whitaker whether he had ever been asked to approve any of Mueller’s actions, the interim AG declined to answer, telling the committee chair that his allotted five minutes were up. 

In addition to the uproar at the hearing, journalists who cover Congress, including CNN’s Phil Mattingly, were gobsmacked by Whitaker’s chutzpah:

Whitaker is unlikely to be formally rebuked for his intransigence. While a congressional hearing witness can be held in contempt of Congress, such cases are typically referred to the DOJ—which could mean that Whitaker would have to decide to prosecute himself.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate