Acting AG Matthew Whitaker testifies to House Judiciary Committee (1 Viewer)

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
45,078
Reaction score
58,958
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Sticky Post
So the Committee sent letters requesting him to testify, he ignored them. The Committee threatened to subpoena him and he agreed to voluntarily appear if the Committee dropped the subpoena threat. He appeared today and I'm sure his testimony is going to raise questions - it is clear that Matthew Whitaker isn't the brightest bulb on the tree.

I'm not watching it but I'm sure it will be well-covered.

This happened (keep in mind that's the committee chair he's speaking to):

 
Last edited:
OP
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
45,078
Reaction score
58,958
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
its not a standard rule. its a rule of thumb....if the question is asked PRIOR to the 5 min mark, the question stands.

If you get in a line 5 min before closing, and while in line, the store closes, you still get checked out.
The question stands anyway - the only time a question wouldn't stand would be if the chair had already instructed the member to stop. The time allotments are not strict requirements because in the course of the back-and-forth, there are gaps, there are pauses, there is the discretion of the witness to choose to lengthen a response. They are ministerial targets/guidelines to keep an efficient hearing, and to allow the witness reasonable expectations. They are not substantive. They are not rigid "rules".
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
48,663
Reaction score
73,785
Location
by the cemeteries
Online
its not a standard rule. its a rule of thumb....if the question is asked PRIOR to the 5 min mark, the question stands.

If you get in a line 5 min before closing, and while in line, the store closes, you still get checked out.
nah, when i worked service industry, if we closed at nine i would smack food out of customers mouths as soon as the clock struck
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
25,591
Reaction score
41,916
Location
70005
Offline
This dude must've been the worst lawyer ever. Someone has to graduate last in their class. Whittaker was obviously that guy.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
25,591
Reaction score
41,916
Location
70005
Offline
With his consistent filibustering, there's no way they don't use that subpoena on him to get him back there to actually answer their questions instead of constantly trying to just run the clock out on everyone asking questions.

He's just not smart enough to even make his ploy look accidental or like he's actually winding up to deliver an important answer.
 

coldseat

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
8,523
Reaction score
14,022
Age
43
Offline
Is he really that bad?

I'm not watching, just reading comments.
 

cuddlemonkey

Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
514
Reaction score
977
Offline
Maybe the Chair can Columbo this clown at the end of the session.

"Mr. Whitaker, one more question..." BAM! Subpeona!
 

xpuma20x

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
5,657
Reaction score
2,855
Age
40
Location
Monroe, LA
Offline
Why, after watching a lot of this, do I get the feeling that in several months we will be hearing back from Whitaker in relation to why he didn't tell the truth during this testimony? There will be some line about how he didn't recall it at the time, or that since he wasn't under subpoena, he didn't have to expand on the truth. I just feel like we've seen this before, multiple times now, only to have it come out several months later the person lie or at least didn't answer fully.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
48,663
Reaction score
73,785
Location
by the cemeteries
Online
Why, after watching a lot of this, do I get the feeling that in several months we will be hearing back from Whitaker in relation to why he didn't tell the truth during this testimony? There will be some line about how he didn't recall it at the time, or that since he wasn't under subpoena, he didn't have to expand on the truth. I just feel like we've seen this before, multiple times now, only to have it come out several months later the person lie or at least didn't answer fully.
Yeah, he doesn’t have immunity yet
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,565
Reaction score
16,744
Online
Heard on the radio a Democratic Senator (didn’t catch the name) who was part of the hearing today say they will absolutely subpoena him, they have to because of his lack of cooperation. He said the questions are an important part of their obligation to perform oversight on the executive branch. He also said it was obvious his Republican colleagues were not comfortable performing that part of their duty, and they will need to get comfortable with it.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,565
Reaction score
16,744
Online
So heard on radio yesterday that Whitaker went back to Congress and in a closed door session revised his previous testimony. According to a read out given by the Chairman of the committee (don’t remember who, sorry) Whitaker was approached by the POTUS to discuss the SDNY investigation of Cohen. The discussion included whether one or more federal prosecutors should be fired. Not sure why this isn’t getting more attention.

Would this not be considered attempted obstruction?
 

Zardnok

Zardnokalicious!
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2004
Messages
6,748
Reaction score
4,128
Location
Bossier City
Offline
So heard on radio yesterday that Whitaker went back to Congress and in a closed door session revised his previous testimony. According to a read out given by the Chairman of the committee (don’t remember who, sorry) Whitaker was approached by the POTUS to discuss the SDNY investigation of Cohen. The discussion included whether one or more federal prosecutors should be fired. Not sure why this isn’t getting more attention.

Would this not be considered attempted obstruction?
It depends on who you ask. If you ask most Americans, they would say yes, but the Republicans in the senate do not think so and continue to cover for the Trump crime family.
 

crosswatt

Bulldawg was my friend
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
31,455
Reaction score
43,652
Location
Chesapeake, VA
Offline
So heard on radio yesterday that Whitaker went back to Congress and in a closed door session revised his previous testimony. According to a read out given by the Chairman of the committee (don’t remember who, sorry) Whitaker was approached by the POTUS to discuss the SDNY investigation of Cohen. The discussion included whether one or more federal prosecutors should be fired. Not sure why this isn’t getting more attention.

Would this not be considered attempted obstruction?
Here's a more complete story on the closed door hearings. Not surprisingly, the two members sourced in the article had different takes on what was and was not said.

 

Saintamaniac

Purple & Gold for Life
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
3,434
Reaction score
6,353
Age
49
Location
Laplace, LA
Offline
Nadler kinda put the ball in Whitaker's court by sayin that he didn't deny talking to trump about the Cohen case. It sounds like Whitaker pulled the "I'm not going to discuss my conversations" act again in the closed door session. Nadler's statement is actually correct. Whitaker didn't deny talking to trump. He just refused to answer the question. Now if Whitaker wants to deny it, he can.....but until then, Nadler's characterization of his comments hold.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom