Breaking on M$nbc: AG Whitaker told he doesn't have to recuse himself from Mueller investigation.

[spanone]

He was told this by the Justice Department Ethics Officials....

Exclusive: Whitaker told he does not need to recuse himself from overseeing Mueller investigation

Washington (CNN)Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has consulted with and they have advised him he does not need to recuse himself from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, a source familiar with the process told CNN Thursday.

The source added Whitaker has been in ongoing discussions with ethics officials since taking the job in early November following the ouster of Jeff Sessions, who had stepped aside from overseeing the investigation due to his role as a Trump campaign surrogate during the 2016 election.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein oversaw the investigation following Sessions' recusal and his office is still managing the investigation on a day-to-day basis, as CNN has previously reported.

Whitaker is expected to inform senators, many of whom have raised ethics concerns given his past criticism of Mueller's investigation, about this development later Thursday, the source said.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics/matthew-whitaker-attorney-general-robert-mueller-investigation/index.html?adkey=bn

[C_U_L8R]

1. He is the Justice Dept, no?

[spanone]

2. added a link to original post: 'ethics officials at the Justice Department'

[EffieBlack]

4. No, he's not

The career ethics staff made this decision.

It made my eyebrows go up, but in my experience, the ethics teams in the various departments, including DOJ, are excellent - non-partisan, solid and unafraid to speak truth to power. So unless I hear more, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

It's possible this opinion was conditional - conditioned on certain promises from Whitaker - and could be revisited if he gives any sign of bias or inappropriate meddling. But, so far, as concerned as we may be, it appears that Whitaker has not hindered or compromised the investigation.

[C_U_L8R]

5. Got it. Thx.

[atreides1]

7. People have been known to change

Especially if it means keeping your job! Take the EPA as an example or the Department of Interior...both have been flooded with political appointees while the career employees have either been pushed out or reassigned to positions that they have little to no expertise in!

I have very little confidence in any "ethics" team that is part of the internal workings of this justice department!!!

Just my opinion!

[EffieBlack]

10. I understand your skepticism

But I know many of these people and know that they are straight arrows who would never issue legal opinions contrary to their sound legal analysis for any reason, but particularly not in order to keep their jobs.

First, they can't be fired absent cause and and an opinion a political appointee superior doesn't like is not cause.

Second, there are many levels of career staff that these opinions go through before it gets to any political appointee, so they have several layers of protection. And third, even if they were threatened with termination, they would stand up to it.

[kentuck]

3. Why would this come out at this time?

Is Trump asking him for a favor?

Like, fire Mueller?

[bluestarone]

8. You hit on something there!!

Expect BIG NEWS SOON!!!!!

[angrychair]

6. Well, there goes that

No report. No convictions. Everyone is good.

All done, nothing to see here. Move along!

[TheRealNorth]

9. Christmas Surprise

Wouldn't put it past Trump.