'Your Five Minutes Is Up,' Whitaker Tells Leading House Democrat: Highlights From Hearing
After the opening questions, Matt Whitaker said he was a “little surprised” the discussion hadn't yet turned to the Justice Department's efforts on violent crime, the opioid crisis, religious liberty and free speech on college campuses.
February 10, 2019 at 12:01 PM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Matthew Whitaker likely never imagined himself in this position—elevated from relative anonymity to temporarily lead the U.S. Justice Department, staring down newly empowered Democrats from the hot seat in a congressional hearing room and fielding questions about his fraught oversight of the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
But there he was on Friday, filling in as the leader of the Justice Department and making an appearance, under the klieg lights of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, that had been in question just 24 hours earlier.
Whitaker at one point took it upon himself to enforce the committee's time limits. When Nadler asked whether Whitaker had “ever been asked to approve any request or action to be taken by the special counsel,” Whitaker's reply produced gasps and laughs inside the hearing room.
“Mr. Chairman, I see your five minutes is up,” he said. “I'm here voluntarily. I agreed to five-minute rounds.”
Whitaker, testifying at at oversight hearing, said he was looking forward to discussing “some of the accomplishments and priorities of the Department of Justice.” After the opening questions, he said he was a “little surprised” that the discussion hadn't yet turned to the Justice Department's efforts on violent crime, the opioid crisis, religious liberty and free speech on college campuses.
There should have been no surprise, of course. Weeks in advance of the hearing, House Democrats had sent Whitaker a list of questions concerning any conversations he had with President Donald Trump and White House officials about his leadership of the Justice Department. Democrats didn't want to hear Whitaker demur out of a desire to preserve the president's ability to claim that communications were shielded by executive privilege.
The idea was to give Whitaker time to consult with the White House and arrive at the House Judiciary Committee prepared to clearly assert privilege or answer questions. Whitaker had earlier undergone what some media reports described as “significant prep” for Friday's hearing, where he testified that he hadn't interfered with the special counsel's investigation or shared information about it with the White House.
Whitaker was thrust into the national spotlight only months ago when then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced out by President Donald Trump. Trump constantly—and very publicly—berated his attorney general, humiliating him on Twitter and in public remarks. Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney in Iowa, at the time had been serving as chief of staff to Sessions. It was not exactly a position that makes you accustomed to the spotlight.
In the hearing room Friday, Whitaker gave halting responses at times, resisting “yes-or-no” questions before ultimately ceding an answer. U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, and the committee's chairman, would accuse him of “filibustering,” stalling and wasting “members' time.” Another Democrat, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, opened a round of questioning telling Whitaker there was no need to thank him for a question.
Nadler, referencing a press conference in which Whitaker briefly addressed the special counsel's investigation, asked whether he'd been briefed on the probe.
“Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. As you know I cannot talk about ongoing investigations,” Whitaker told Nadler.
“You can say whether you've been briefed or not,” Nadler replied.
“As you commented about my recent press conference, as it relates to the special counsel's investigation, I have been briefed on it,” Whitaker said.
“So the answer's yes, thank you,” Nadler sad.
Had Whitaker been briefed on the investigation while serving as Sessions' chief of staff?
“Chairman, I know you're very interested in the special counsel's investigation, and so I want to be very clear about this. Because General Sessions was recused from the special counsel's investigation, I had no involvement in the special counsel's investigation,” Whitaker responded.
“So the answer's no. So the answer's no,” Nadler said. “Thank you.”
Whitaker was more eager to answer questions, largely from Republicans, about efforts to combat violent crime and opioid use, along with the growing caseloads of immigration judges tasked with reviewing claims for asylum. Whitaker called attention to his and Sessions' efforts to expedite the adjudication of asylum claims.
“Quite frankly, the number of immigration judges we have has been overwhelmed by the number of asylum seekers,” Whitaker said.
“Meanwhile most of these folks,” he added, “are not part of the detained docket. They are part of the released docket. Those cases take longer—the ones that are not detained, the non-detained docket. And they have caused, since 2008, that number to go dramatically up.”
The top Republican on the committee, U.S. Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, asked about the indictment and arrest of Roger Stone, with a focus on how CNN knew to stake out the longtime Republican political operative's Fort Lauderdale, Florida, home in time for his early-morning arrest. Whitaker said, “Tt was deeply concerning to me as to how CNN found out about that.”
Whitaker, appearing in a congressional hearing for the first time, would not offer a yes-or-no answer even on the question of whether he had been confirmed by the Senate. When U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, asked that question, Whitaker answered not with a “no” but with an explanation that he'd been appointed acting attorney general under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, a statute the Trump administration has invoked to temporarily fill several top government posts.
Whitaker kept his eye on the clock during the hearing. Just before 1 p.m., as the committee took a five-minute recess, Whitaker could be heard asking, “We get five minutes for lunch?” in apparent disbelief.
At another point, Jackson Lee asked to reclaim some of the five minutes allotted for her initial round of questioning. As Jackson Lee returned to her question, Whitaker asked whether she had, in fact, received a portion of her time back.
An unamused Jackson Lee shot back, “Mr. Attorney General, we're not joking here. And your humor is not acceptable.”
|[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
It wasn't clear less than 24 hours before the start of the hearing whether Whitaker would even show up. The House Judiciary Committee readied to subpoena Whitaker in the event he refused to answer questions.
The committee voted along party lines to approve the subpoena. The vote triggered a day-long standoff, with Whitaker saying he would appear only if the committee promised not to subpoena him. Not until late Thursday night was it confirmed that Whitaker would appear.
Nadler signaled that the House Judiciary Committee would seek in coming weeks to depose Whitaker. The public appearance before the committee Friday was likely Whitaker's last—at least as the leader of the Justice Department. The U.S. Senate this week advanced the nomination of Kirkland & Ellis counsel William Barr as the permanent attorney general.
Barr, a former U.S. attorney general during the George H. W. Bush administration, has testified many times on Capitol Hill.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Paxton's 2024 Agenda: Immigration, Climate, Transgender Issues, Social Media, Abortion, Elections
- 2Let’s Hear It One Last Time!: One More Bow for 2024’s Litigators of the Week
- 3Bottoming Out or Merging Up? Law Firms That Shuttered in 2024
- 492 Nursing Homes, Left Out of NYS Funding for Ongoing Capital Expenses, File Federal Lawsuit
- 5Friday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250