U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–001 WASHINGTON : 2019

OVERSIGHT OF THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 8, 2019 

Serial No. 116–3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington 

VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, 

Vice-Chair 

SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas 

JOE NEGUSE, Colorado 

LUCY MCBATH, Georgia 

GREG STANTON, Arizona 

MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania 

DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida 

VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking Member 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, California 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona 

GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania 

BEN CLINE, Virginia 

KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota 

W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida 

PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 8, 2019 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in the Congress from the 

State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary .................... 2 

The Honorable Doug Collins, a Representative in the Congress from the 

State of Georgia, and Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary .. 9 

WITNESS 

Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ................................................................................................. 16 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 20 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

A letter with questions for the record from the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, 

a Representative in the Congress from New York, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ........................................................................................ 5 

A letter for the record from the Honorable Doug Collins, A Representative 

in the Congress from Georgia, and Ranking Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 10 

Articles for the record from the Honorable David N. Cicilline, A Representative in the Congress from the State of Rhode Island ........................................ 66 

The Constitution of the United States of America for the record from the 

Honorable Ted Lieu, a Representative in the Congress from the State 

of California .......................................................................................................... 96 

An article for the record from the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in the Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ...................................... 111 

A case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division from Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in the Congress 

from the State of Pennsylvania ........................................................................... 114 

Articles for the record from the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Representative 

in the Congress from the State of Texas ............................................................ 122 

Internal Revenue Code for the record from the Honorable Debbie MucarselPowell, a Representative in the Congress from the State of Florida ............... 161 

Questions for the record from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in the Congress from the State of Texas .................................................. 167 

Articles for the record from the Honorable Shelia Jackson Lee, a Representative in the Congress from the State of Texas .................................................... 171 

APPENDIX 

An article for the record entitled, Texas Border Sherriffs: There Is No Crisis 

and We Don’t want Trump’s Wall ...................................................................... 189 

An article for the record entitled, Mueller’s investigation of Trump is going 

too far .................................................................................................................... 196

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 2141, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, 

Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries, Cicilline, 

Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon, Garcia, 

Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Collins, 

Chabot, Gohmert, Jordan, Ratcliffe, Roby, Biggs, McClintock, 

Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, and Armstrong. 

Staff Present: Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director; David Greengrass, 

Senior Counsel; Susan Jensen, Parliamentarian; Arya Hariharan, 

Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Oversight Counsel; Lisette Morton, Director 

of Policy, Planning and Member Services; Elizabeth McElvein, 

Clerk; Rosalind Jackson, Professional Staff Member; Brendan 

Belair, Minority Staff Director; Bobby Parmiter, Minority Deputy 

Staff Director/Chief Counsel; Jon Ferro, Minority Parliamentarian; 

Carlton Davis, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel; Ashley Callen, 

Minority Counsel; Ryan Breitenbach, Minority Chief Counsel, National Security; Alley Adcock, Minority Chief Legislative Clerk; 

Ella Yates, Minority Director of Member Services and External Affairs; and Jess Andrews, Minority Communications Director. 

Chairman NADLER. The Judiciary Committee will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the committee at any time. We welcome everyone to this morning’s 

hearing on Oversight of the Department of Justice, and we welcome our witness, the Acting Attorney General of the United States 

Matthew Whitaker. 

Before we turn to the business at hand, I want to take a moment 

to comment on the passing of our friend and former colleague 

Chairman John Dingell of Michigan. Representative Dingell was 

elected to Congress in 1955 and went on to become the longest 

serving Member of Congress in the history of the United States 

and, by virtue of enduring accomplishment, one of the greatest. He 

was a presence in the hearing room, a determined investigator, and 

a true believer in congressional oversight. He loved the House of 

2 

Representatives. We remember him for his humor, his charm, his 

unshakeable integrity, and, of course, his fantastic Twitter account. 

Our thoughts are with our colleague Debbie Dingell and the entire 

Dingell family. Chairman Dingell will be missed. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, can I just echo that as well, and 

you know, for Mr. Dingell’s service and also with our colleague 

Debbie during this time. Our thoughts and prayers are with them, 

and the service that he rendered, I will agree with you on that. 

Chairman NADLER. I thank you. I will now recognize myself for 

an opening statement. 

Mr. Whitaker, I want to begin my remarks by commending the 

tradition of independent law enforcement at the Department of 

Justice. As you and I both know, it is the career officials at the Department, the FBI, and the U.S. attorneys’ offices whose commitment to the rule of law protects our democracy. Given the focus of 

this hearing, I therefore feel compelled to single out for praise the 

career ethics officials who helped you transition into your role as 

Acting Attorney General. 

On December 20th, in a letter from the Department meant to 

justify some of the decisions we will examine here today, Congress 

learned the following, quote: In a meeting with the Acting Attorney 

General’s senior staff, ethics officials concluded that if a recommendation were sought, they would advise that the Acting Attorney General should recuse himself from supervision of the special counsel investigation because it was their view that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts likely would question the impartiality of the Acting Attorney General, close quote. 

In other words, even though you apparently did not ask for their 

advice on this topic, these career officials went out of their way to 

tell you that your many past public—many public past criticisms 

of the special counsel’s investigation were grounds for you to step 

aside. They insisted that your recusal would have been right for 

the Department and good for the country. They gave you this advice with no guarantee that their jobs would be protected 2 years 

into an administration distinguished for firing officials of the Department and the FBI who offended the President. They did so 

knowing that Attorney General Sessions had just been removed for 

no reason other than following their guidance 2 years earlier. Their 

advice to you is an act of bravery. It is worthy of the best tradition 

of independence and integrity at the Department of Justice. But in 

my view, your conduct, including your decision to ignore important 

ethics advice when you became Acting Attorney General no matter 

the consequences, falls well short of the mark. 

Before you joined the Department of Justice as chief of staff to 

former Attorney General Sessions, you were the sole full-time employee of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust. Your 

organization has been described by Republicans as, quote, a chop 

shop for fake ethics complaints, unquote, against Democratic politicians. FACT, as it is called, also funded your appearances in print 

and on cable television in the years leading up to your tenure at 

DOJ. These media appearances—and this is why this is relevant— 

have become the cause of much concern. One month before you 

joined the administration, you wrote a column titled, quote, 

‘‘Mueller’s investigation of Trump is going too far,’’ unquote. You 

3 

stated that the investigation was, quote, a lynch mob. You warned 

of serious consequences if the special counsel were to examine the 

President’s personal finances. You suggested that the special counsel’s budget should be squeezed until its investigation, quote, 

grinds to almost a halt, unquote. 

Like everyone else at the Department of Justice, you are entitled 

to your own political opinions. This committee should not be in the 

business of vilifying government personnel for their private views, 

particularly when the Department takes steps to mitigate even the 

appearance of a conflict of interest in an ongoing investigation. But 

when career officials of the Department recommended that you 

take steps to mitigate your apparent conflicts of interest, when 

they told you that your public criticism of the special counsel was 

bad for the Department and bad for the administration of justice, 

you ignored them. You decided that your private interest in overseeing this particular investigation and perhaps others from which 

you should have been recused was more important than the integrity of the Department. 

The question that this committee must now ask is, why? Why did 

President Trump choose to replace Attorney General Sessions with 

an outspoken critic of the special counsel instead of with any number of qualified individuals who had already received Senate confirmation? Why did you ignore the career officials who went to extraordinary lengths to tell you that your continued involvement in 

the special counsel’s work would undermine the credibility of the 

Department of Justice? Why did you choose to comment at length 

on the substance of the special counsel’s investigation at a January 

29th press conference? Is it true that you have been, quote, fully 

briefed, unquote, on the investigation and that the special counsel’s 

work is, quote, close to being completed, unquote? And why did 

President Trump leave you running the Department in an acting 

capacity as long as he did? What did he hope to get out of it? What 

did you provide? 

The committee is determined to find the answers to these questions today. To that end, we have taken certain steps to ensure 

your cooperation with members on both sides of the aisle. First, although I am pleased you eventually agreed to appear here voluntarily, the committee has authorized me to issue a subpoena to 

compel your testimony if necessary. 

The Ranking Member will no doubt argue that the subpoena 

threat was a mistake, but as you know, I gave you no assurances 

until after you agreed to appear today. Given our concerns about 

your attendance until late last night, our taking steps to ensure 

your appearance seems perfectly appropriate. 

Now that you are here and prepared to testify, I agree there is 

no need for us to resort to that measure for now. 

I nonetheless am concerned by some of the arguments the Department raised in a lengthy letter we received late yesterday. I 

very much doubt, for example, that any privilege attaches to communications about criminal investigations where the President, his 

campaign, his business, and his close associates are subjects and, 

in some cases, targets of the investigation. 

I also take issue with your written testimony, which we did not 

receive until almost midnight last night, when you suggest that 

4 

you, quote, will continue the longstanding executive branch policy 

and practice of not disclosing information that may be subject to 

executive privilege, close quote. In other words, you reserve the 

right to refuse to answer the question forever. That is not how it 

works. 

Nearly 3 weeks ago, I provided you with a list of questions related to communications you may have had with the White House 

about the circumstances of your hiring, the termination of Mr. Sessions, and any insight you may have into the special counsel’s investigation, among other topics. I gave those questions in advance 

so that you would have time to consult with the White House on 

any possible question of executive privilege. 

I understand that you may disagree with the committee about 

your responsibility to undertake that review and, as a consequence, 

you may not fully respond to every question we ask today. 

As we discussed, I am willing to work with the Department on 

those disagreements on a case-by-case basis, but I take your reluctance to answer questions about these communications as a deeply 

troubling sign. When our members ask if you conveyed sensitive information to the President or ignored ethics advice at the direction 

of the President or worked with the White House to orchestrate the 

firing of your predecessor, the answer should be no. 

Your failure to respond fully to our questions here today in no 

way limits the ability of this committee to get the answers in the 

longer run, even if you are a private citizen when we finally learn 

the truth, and although I am willing to work with the Department 

to obtain this information, I will now allow that process to drag out 

for weeks and months. The time for this administration to postpone 

accountability is over. 

It is my intent that there be no surprises today. We have laid 

all of the groundwork for this hearing out in the open. We have 

given you months to prepare. We have publicly documented every 

request we have made. We have provided our Republican colleagues with a meaningful opportunity to weigh in on the process. 

We have nothing to hide from you or anyone else. We hope you 

have nothing to hide from us. Despite the ethics advice you were 

given, Mr. Whitaker, you insisted on remaining in charge of the 

special counsel’s investigation, a job that comes with the responsibility to protect the special counsel until his work is complete. Your 

testimony here today is vital to that responsibility and to our 

shared responsibility to find the truth, to protect the Department, 

and to follow the facts and the law to their conclusion. Thank you. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 

his opening statement. 

[The statement of Chairman Nadler follows:] 

5 

CHAIRMAN NADLER FOR THE RECORD 

6 


Insert offset folio 15 here 36001A.002
7 


Insert offset folio 16 here 36001A.003
8 


Insert offset folio 17 here 36001A.004
9 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Acting Attorney General, for being here. 

But I would like to thank—I will start off this way—and I would 

like to thank the Chairman for a show of honesty. We now have 

the reason for this hearing. It has nothing to do with the oversight 

of DOJ. It has everything to do as we found out this morning in 

a document dump from the Democratic side of this committee and 

also another committee that this is nothing more than a character 

assassination, and we are going to also decide to see if we can just 

do something and get at the President while we have the chance. 

Yesterday—I want to tell you a story. My kids are now grown. 

They are 26 and down to 20, and I used to always love the Easter 

season and the time of the especially hide and seek and going to 

find, you know, eggs and that look on their face when they found 

that last egg they were looking for and just that look of surprise. 

And yesterday was that for me again. I was back being a father 

again because yesterday was nothing but pure political theater. It 

was wonderful. It was a time for hide and seek. 

The Chairman had a hearing: Let’s do a subpoena; we are going 

to stand tough. 

And let’s just do the timeline real quick. We get through with it, 

and as I had warned this committee, a preemptive subpoena was 

not a good idea. It chills all other witnesses coming before this committee and will probably have a detrimental effect to the Acting Attorney General. But, hey, I am the minority; who cares? 

So, we do it. And the Acting Attorney General’s Office responded. 

And at about 5 o’clock, the Chairman sent a letter saying: We know 

we will examine it on a case-by-case basis. 

The Acting Attorney General said: No, we need assurances that 

you are not going to issue a subpoena today or yesterday or today. 

So okay. We are back and forth. DOJ, as is our understanding, 

said: No, that is not enough assurance. 

And we were informed around a certain time last night, about 7 

o’clock last night, that an agreement had been made, and it was 

a full cave by the Committee Chairman: no subpoenas today. 

So everything that we did earlier in the day was a complete 

waste of time. 

Now, what was even worse about this—and let’s talk about, you 

know, Twitter accounts—last night around 8 o’clock, the Chairman’s Twitter account said the Acting Attorney General is going to 

show up today at 9:30. 

The interesting thing about that is they linked to the 5 o’clock 

letter, not this letter, which I ask now to be admitted to the record, 

which by the way, I was cc’d on but never—you know, I guess we 

are going to put this into the record now, the letter to the Acting 

Attorney General in which the Chairman of this Committee says 

there will be no subpoena tomorrow, and any differences we have 

we will work on later. And I ask unanimous consent that be entered into the record. 

Chairman NADLER. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

10 

MR. COLLINS, RANKING MEMBER FOR THE 

OFFICIAL RECORD 

11 


Insert offset folio 22 here 36001A.006
12 

Mr. COLLINS. So, at 8 o’clock, we decide to send out a tweet to 

the world, which many in the media, by the way, picked up on, and 

they were running stories today saying the reason the Judiciary 

chairman wins: The Attorney General is coming; he doesn’t have 

assurance. 

No, he does. Right here. There is going to be no subpoena today. 

So, when we talk about transparency, which was so evident yesterday, now we get to the real meat of the issue. It is also amazing 

to me, as I said yesterday, when you come here and you put an 

issue of this hearing, yet, on Thursday, Bill Barr was approved out 

of the Senate Judiciary Committee. By next Thursday, he will be 

the Attorney General. This gentleman right here is finishing up the 

last term of Acting Attorney General. He is willingly—was willing 

to come, but yet we had the charade yesterday. This hearing is 

pointless and basically was made even more pointless by the Chairman’s opening statement. 

This is not about what the good men and women at the Department of Justice are doing. This is not about FBI agents are doing 

their job. It could be about the FBI agents that we on our side have 

talked about that didn’t do their job, and we will probably hear a 

lot about that today. There is plenty of frustration of issues of DOJ 

oversight. 

But, sir, I am not sure, frankly, that the oversight of your financial situation from 2014 to 2016 has anything to do with this hearing. It is beyond the scope of this hearing. 

So, if this is what we are going to do, if this is where we are 

going, then I want to remind everyone that this is not the Senate. 

If my friends on the other side of the aisle of this committee wanted to do a confirmation hearing, they just ought to said it up front, 

and if they want to do a confirmation hearing as Senators, run for 

Senate. This is not a confirmation hearing. This is a Department 

of Justice oversight hearing, supposedly. Oops, oops, I am sorry. 

Back to theatrics again. The curtain opened up, and we found out 

what was really going on. No, we want to damage the President. 

We want to talk about your private conversations. We want to talk 

about what you did and why the President—the most amazing 

quote I just heard a moment ago: We want to know why the President may have put you there for what—that is offensive. 

When we look at this and we go through this, Mr. Whitaker, 

there are a lot of issues that we have discussed personally and also 

as far as knowing this and discussing things that we could do as 

oversight, that frankly, on our side, we are frustrated with, and 

that is going to come out today. But for the chairman to do what 

we did yesterday, to have this hide-and-seek game, to play it all, 

and then to willingly mislead the press and everybody else to think 

you are coming here today because of a partial assurance, not a 

full-blown cave, which is exactly what happened in this letter, is 

a travesty not only to this committee but to the people watching 

and the reporters who thought it was real. 

When we look forward into this hearing today, it is time on this 

one, if this is the way we are going to go, then we will have plenty 

of stunts. We are going to have plenty of theatrics. Bring your popcorn. I am thinking about maybe we just set up a popcorn machine 

13 

in the back because that is what this is becoming. It is becoming 

a show. 

When your presence was here, you were coming voluntarily. You 

have always said you are coming voluntarily. So we had the show 

yesterday. We now have had the curtain dropped down, and, Mr. 

Whitaker, I guess your confirmation hearing is here. You only have 

5 days left on the job or 6 days left on the job. 

We could join together with the Chairman and say, Mr. Barr, 

come in here because you have been—actually the Attorney General, Mr. Barr has been the Attorney General, and he has been before this committee before. We could have had substantive hearings, but no, we are going to have a show, a dog-and-pony show. 

Let’s get it out. 

This is the most amazing thing when—you know, but I go back 

to something—sometimes as a father—I started this as a father; I 

am going to end it as a father—I would give my kids advice, and 

they would look at me like, ‘‘Dad, I love you,’’ but then they give 

me that sort of dog look: I don’t believe you. 

You know what the sad part about this is? We predicted it all 

yesterday. We knew what was coming. The sad part about it is, is 

the chairman chose to play hide and seek. He chose to cave at the 

end, and by the way, still not have open and transparency. I am 

glad we did, glad we got it now, but this is no way to run the railroad, and it is definitely no way to run one of the most prestigious 

committees in this House. And this is something that everyone 

should be concerned about. 

There is enough at DOJ for us to do oversight on, but, Mr. 

Whitaker, this is your life, like the old TV show. They just want 

a piece of you. 

Mr. COLLINS. And, with that, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to clause 

4, rule XVI, I do now move to adjourn. 

Chairman NADLER. A motion to adjourn has been made. 

Motion is to adjourn and not debatable. 

All in favor of the motion to adjourn, say aye. 

Opposed, nay. 

The noes have it. 

Mr. COLLINS. Roll call. 

Chairman NADLER. Roll call has been requested. 

Where is the clerk? If the clerk is here, she will call the roll. We 

will wait a moment for the clerk. Where is the clerk? 

VOICE. Mr. Chair—— 

Chairman NADLER. The roll call is in progress. 

The clerk is prepared. The clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman NADLER. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Chairman votes no. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Lofgren votes no. 

Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no. 

Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. No. 

14 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Cohen votes no. 

Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Johnson votes no. 

Mr. Deutch? 

Mr. DEUTCH. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Deutch votes no. 

Ms. Bass? 

Ms. BASS. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Bass votes no. 

Mr. Richmond? 

Mr. RICHMOND. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Richmond votes no. 

Mr. Jeffries? 

Mr. JEFFRIES. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Jeffries votes no. 

Mr. Cicilline? 

Mr. CICILLINE. So we may continue to pursue the truth, I vote 

no. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Cicilline votes no. 

Mr. Swalwell? 

Mr. SWALWELL. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Swalwell votes no. 

Mr. Lieu? 

Mr. LIEU. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Lieu votes no. 

Mr. Raskin? 

Mr. RASKIN. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Raskin votes no. 

Ms. Jayapal? 

Ms. JAYAPAL. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Jayapal votes no. 

Mrs. Demings? 

Mrs. DEMINGS. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mrs. Demings votes no. 

Mr. Correa? 

Mr. CORREA. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Correa votes no. 

Ms. Scanlon? 

Ms. SCANLON. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Scanlon votes no. 

Ms. Garcia? 

Ms. GARCIA. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Garcia votes no. 

Mr. Neguse? 

Mr. NEGUSE. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Neguse votes no. 

Mrs. McBath? 

Mrs. MCBATH. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mrs. McBath votes no. 

Mr. Stanton? 

Mr. STANTON. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Stanton votes no. 

Ms. Dean? 

15 

Ms. DEAN. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Dean votes no. 

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell? 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes no. 

Ms. Escobar? 

Ms. ESCOBAR. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Escobar votes no. 

Mr. Collins? 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Collins votes yes. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Chabot votes aye. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Gohmert votes aye. 

Mr. Jordan? 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Jordan votes yes. 

Mr. Buck? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Ratcliffe? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mrs. Roby? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Gaetz? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Johnson? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Biggs? 

Mr. BIGGS. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Biggs votes aye. 

Mr. McClintock? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. McClintock votes aye. 

Mrs. Lesko? 

Mrs. LESKO. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mrs. Lesko votes aye. 

Mr. Reschenthaler? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Cline? 

Mr. CLINE. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Cline votes aye. 

Mr. Armstrong? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Armstrong votes aye. 

Mr. Steube? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Are there any other members wishing to vote? 

Chairman NADLER. Haven’t voted? The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Yes. 

16 

Chairman NADLER. Are there any other members who wish to 

vote who haven’t voted? 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Ratcliffe votes aye. 

Chairman NADLER. The clerk will report. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Chairman, there are 24 noes and 10 ayes. 

Chairman NADLER. The motion to adjourn is not approved. 

I will now introduce today’s witness. Matthew G. Whitaker is the 

Acting Attorney General of the United States. Previously, Mr. 

Whitaker served as Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He was appointed as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa on June 15, 2004, by President George W. Bush. Before that, he was a managing partner of the Des Moines-based law 

firm Whitaker Hagenow & Gustoff LLP. He was also the executive 

director for FACT, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic 

Trust, between 2014 and 2017. Mr. Whitaker graduated with a 

Master of Business Administration, Juris Doctor, and Bachelor of 

Arts from the University of Iowa. We welcome Mr. Whitaker, and 

we thank him for participating in today’s hearing. 

Now, if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you in. 

Raise your right arm. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of 

perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct 

to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you 

God? 

Mr. WHITAKER. So help me God. 

Chairman NADLER. Thank you. 

Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative. 

Thank you, and please be seated. Please note that your written 

testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. To 

help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your 

table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you will have 

1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it 

signals the time has expired. 

Mr. Whitaker. 

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. WHITAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Collins, for the opportunity to testify before the committee today. 

I am looking forward to discussing with you some of the accomplishments and priorities of the Department of Justice. 

Before I start, I would also like to acknowledge the passing of 

former Chairman Dingell. He was a statesman and a leader, and 

it is a sad day on this committee, I am sure. 

First of all, let me say that it is an honor to represent the 

115,000 men and women of the Department of Justice. The Department is blessed with extremely talented, highly principled public 

servants who are dedicated to upholding our great Constitution 

and the laws of the United States. I saw that up close during my 

5 and a half years as United States attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. Our office put criminals behind bars, and we kept the 

people of Iowa safe. I personally prosecuted several important 

criminal cases and worked with the men and women of the ATF, 

17 

DEA, FBI, and U.S. Marshals Service and our State, local, and 

Federal partners. It was a privilege. 

In 2017, I returned to the Department and served for 13 months 

as chief of staff to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a man 

for whom I have great respect. He led the Department with integrity, with dedication to the rule of law, and with a commitment to 

carrying out the policies of the President of the United States. I am 

deeply honored that the President selected me to continue this 

work at the Department. 

The Senate will soon consider the President’s nomination for our 

next Attorney General, and let me just say this: No one is more 

qualified than Bill Barr. I am working to ensure that he will inherit a strong, confident, and effective Department of Justice, and 

I believe that he will. 

For the last 3 months, I have had the privilege of serving as Acting Attorney General, and I am impressed every single day by the 

dedication and hard work of our agents, our attorneys, and our 

support staff. 

Over this time, I have visited a number of our offices and met 

with Federal prosecutors from across the country. For example, in 

December, we held our Project Safe Neighborhoods conference 

where employees from nearly every U.S. attorney’s office and hundreds of our State and local partners celebrated our successes and 

reductions in violent crime. 

Our hard work is paying off. I firmly believe that your constituents are safer because of the work that we have done over the past 

2 years. Under this administration, crime is down and police morale is up. In fiscal year 2017, the Justice Department charged the 

largest number of violent crime defendants since we started to 

track this category back when Bill Barr was Attorney General the 

last time. And then, in fiscal year 2018, we broke that record again 

by a margin of nearly 15 percent. We also charged more defendants 

with gun crimes than ever before. In fact, we broke that record by 

a margin of 17 percent. 

The Department has also banned bump stocks, improved the 

background check system, and prosecuted those who lied to get a 

gun. Our work is having an impact. In 2017, after 2 years of increases under the previous administration, violent crime and homicide rates went down nationwide. We do not have official numbers 

yet for 2018, but one estimate projected that the murder rate in 

our 29 biggest cities would drop by 7.6 percent. Those are real lives 

being saved. 

Much of the crime in this country is related to drug abuse and 

drug trafficking, but under this administration, prescriptions for 

the seven most frequently abused prescription drugs are down 

more than 21 percent to the lowest level in at least a decade. At 

the same time, the DEA has lowered the legal limits on production 

of the active ingredients in these prescription opioids by 47 percent 

since 2016. 

And there is no doubt in the law enforcement community that 

the vast majority of the illegal drugs in this country are coming 

through our southern border. There is also no doubt that criminals 

and cartels seek to exploit weaknesses in our southern border for 

their own profits and purposes, including by subjecting women and 

18 

children to dangerous and unspeakable conditions in an attempt to 

smuggle them into the United States. And, of course, the dangers 

of our porous southern border become all more apparent every time 

an illegal alien causes harm or death to an innocent American 

across this country, such as what happened to an outstanding 

young woman from my home State, Sarah Root. For this reason 

and for others, we continue our efforts to restore the rule of law 

at the border and in our immigration system. 

In fiscal year 2018, we charged more defendants with illegal 

entry than in any other year in American history. In fact, we 

charged 85 percent more defendants with illegally entering America than we did the previous year. At the same time, we increased 

the number of felony illegal reentry prosecutions by more than 38 

percent. Whatever our views on immigration policy, we should all 

be opposed to illegal immigration, and we should support these efforts. 

The Department is also taking decisive action against human 

trafficking, both domestically and internationally. Human traffickers, like other criminal enterprises, take advantage of our 

southern porous border to smuggle women and children into the 

United States to exploit them. We are bringing prosecutions to dismantle transnational trafficking networks that lure victims across 

our borders and traffic them for profits. 

Last year, the Department of Justice secured a record of 526 

human trafficking convictions, a 5-percent increase from the previous year. The Department is also doing its part to aggressively 

prosecute hate crimes. Under this administration, we indicted 50 

hate crime defendants and obtained 30 hate crime convictions in 

fiscal year 2018. In November, the Department provided election 

monitoring at polling places around the country. Our Civil Rights 

Division deployed personnel to 35 districts in 19 States to monitor 

for compliance with Federal voting rights laws. Our public integrity 

section prosecutor served as subject-matter experts for Federal 

prosecutors and investigators nationwide working with the FBI at 

the strategic information and operations center. 

Over my time as Acting Attorney General, I have done everything in my power to continue regular order at the Department of 

Justice. The Department has continued to make its law enforcement decisions based upon the facts and the law of each individual 

case in accordance with established Department practices and independent of any outside interference. At no time has the White 

House asked for, nor have I provided, any promises or commitments concerning the special counsel’s investigation or any other 

investigation. 

Since becoming Acting Attorney General, I have run the Department of Justice with fidelity to the law and to the Constitution. 

During my time as the leader of the Department of Justice, the Department has complied with the special counsel regulations, and 

there has been no change in how the Department has worked with 

the Special Counsel’s Office. 

Over the past day, the Department and the committee have exchanged letters concerning the respective prerogatives of the legislative and executive branches. I am pleased that we are able to 

reach an agreement that allows me to appear here voluntarily. I 

19 

am pleased also that we agreed that each branch would seek to accommodate each other and that if we have differences, we will try 

to work them out in good faith before resorting to subpoenas or 

other formal legal processes. 

I will answer the committee’s questions as best I can, but I will 

continue the longstanding executive branch practice of not disclosing information that may be subject to executive privilege, such 

as the contents of conversations with the President. As the Supreme Court has recognized, this executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in 

the separation of powers under the Constitution. 

I have spent nearly one third of my professional career at the Department of Justice, and I am personally committed to its success 

and integrity. I hope that today’s hearing will be constructive and 

help us partner together to address the priorities of the American 

people. The men and women of this Department are proud of our 

accomplishments, but we know that Congress can help us to 

achieve even more. And as our agents and our prosecutors have 

shown you again and again, they deserve your support. Thank you 

once again for the opportunity to testify today and for your attention to the matters facing the Department of Justice. 

[The statement of Mr. Whitaker follows:] 

20 


Insert offset folio 41 here 36001A.007
21 


Insert offset folio 42 here 36001A.008
22 


Insert offset folio 43 here 36001A.009
23 


Insert offset folio 44 here 36001A.010
24 


Insert offset folio 45 here 36001A.011
25 

Chairman NADLER. Thank you for your testimony. 

We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions. I 

will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

Now, we fully intend to examine substantive questions of Department policy, but part of our job is to make sure that core investigations at the Department have not been compromised. 

So, at a press conference last week, sir, you said that you have 

been fully briefed on the special counsel’s investigation. I would 

like to better understand that comment. Yes or no, since your appointment as Acting Attorney General, have you been briefed on 

criminal or counterintelligence matters within the special counsel’s 

purview? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Chairman, thank you for that question. As you 

know, I cannot talk about ongoing investigations. 

Chairman NADLER. You can say whether you have been briefed 

or not. 

Mr. WHITAKER. And as you commented about my recent press 

conference as it relates to the special conference—the special counsel’s investigation, I have been briefed on it. 

Chairman NADLER. So the answer is yes. Thank you. Were you 

briefed on those matters at any point while you were serving as 

chief of staff to Attorney General Sessions? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Chairman, I know you are 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. 

Chairman NADLER. So the answer is no. So the answer is no. 

Thank you. 

How many times were you briefed about the special council’s 

work, and when did the briefings take place? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman, I have said all that I am planning 

on saying about the number of times or the briefings that I received on the special counsel’s investigation. It is the subject matter of an ongoing investigation. I think it would be very improper 

for me as I sit here today to talk any more about it. 

Chairman NADLER. Wait a minute. Whether you were briefed is 

the subject of an ongoing investigation? I didn’t follow that. 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, the number of times I have been briefed and 

my involvement in the investigation, sir. 

Chairman NADLER. Well, it is our understanding that at least 

one briefing occurred in December before your decision not to 

recuse yourself on December 19th and Christmas day. Is that correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. What is the basis for that question, sir? 

Chairman NADLER. Yes or no, is it correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, I mean—— 

Chairman NADLER. It is our understanding that at least one 

briefing occurred between December—between your decision not to 

recuse yourself on December 19th and 6 days later, Christmas day. 

Is that correct? Simple enough question, yes or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman, I, again, what is the basis for 

your question? You are saying that it is your understanding—— 

26 

Chairman NADLER. Sir, I am asking the questions. I only have 

5 minutes, so please answer yes or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, Mr. Chairman. I am going to—you are asking me a question it is your understanding. Can you tell me where 

you get the basis? 

Chairman NADLER. No, I am not going to tell you that. I don’t 

have time to get into that. I am just asking you if that is correct 

or not. Is it correct? Were you briefed in that time period between 

December 19th and Christmas day? It is a simple question, yes or 

no. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, if every member here today asked 

questions based on their mere speculation—— 

Chairman NADLER. All right. Never mind—— 

Mr. Whitaker [continuing]. Factual basis, that would be very difficult for me to answer. 

Chairman NADLER. At any point—yes or no—yes or no, at any 

point since that briefing have you communicated any information 

you learned in that briefing to President Trump? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman, I know that there is a—— 

Chairman NADLER. It is a yes-or-no question. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Unique and special interest in this. 

I am sorry. 

Chairman NADLER. It is a yes-or-no question. Have you communicated anything you learned in that briefing about the investigation to President Trump, yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman, as I have said earlier today in my 

opening remarks, I do not intend today to talk about my private 

conversations with the President of the United States. But to answer your question, I have not talked to the President of the 

United States about the special counsel’s investigation. 

Chairman NADLER. So the answer is no. Thank you. 

To any other White House official? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my 

opening statement, I do not intend today to talk about my private 

conversations with the President nor White House officials, but I 

will tell you, consistent with what I have already said, I have not 

talked about the special counsel’s investigation with senior White 

House officials. 

Chairman NADLER. Okay. To any third party not already briefed 

about the special counsel’s investigation who might have conveyed 

that information to the President or his legal team? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Who do you consider third-party individuals? 

Chairman NADLER. It is really for your consideration. To any 

third party not already briefed about that investigation who might 

have conveyed—who you think might have conveyed that information to President Trump or his legal team? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Third persons who I think may have conveyed 

that information? 

Chairman NADLER. Yes, yes. 

Mr. WHITAKER. You know, as I sit here in this chair right now, 

Mr. Chairman, you know, that is an impossible question for me to 

ask. I mean, I do not believe that I have briefed third-party individuals outside of the Department of Justice. I have received the 

27 

briefings myself, and I am usually the end point of that information. 

Chairman NADLER. But you won’t answer the question? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I just did answer your question. 

Chairman NADLER. I don’t think you did, but let me just say this: 

Your iteration of the Department’s longstanding policy appears designed to delay answering these questions as long as possible. I 

find that unacceptable. I understand the role of executive privilege 

and respect its value in our system of governance. However, Congress is a coequal branch of government. We have a responsibility 

to conduct oversight. This is a responsibility we take very seriously. 

I have repeatedly tried to work with your office first in delaying 

the hearing until February and then in providing you our questions 

in advance. I did this because the executive branch’s own rules governing assertion of privilege, which were issued by President 

Reagan and have been followed ever since, say that ultimately it 

is up to the President to decide whether or not he wants to assert 

executive privilege. You cannot repeat forever that the President 

might want to assert privilege. 

I have given you a fair opportunity to prepare for the hearing 

and to speak with the White House in advance so that we could 

avoid this fight in the first place, but you don’t appear to have done 

any of that. The Department’s failure to do its due diligence here 

to me is deeply troubling. I do not believe that issuing a subpoena 

here would correct the problem, but I am going to give you the opportunity to rectify the situation. 

After today’s hearing, we will attempt to reach an accommodation with the Department to obtain answers to these questions. As 

part of that process, I ask for your commitment to return for a deposition before this committee in the coming weeks under oath with 

an understanding that the transcript will be released to the public 

as soon as practicable thereafter. 

Any questions that are unanswered today or require consultation 

with the White House will be asked again at that proceeding, and 

I expect either a clean answer or a proper assertion of privilege 

claimed by the President. I would ask members on both sides of the 

aisle to make those questions clear for the record so we know what 

must be addressed at the future proceeding. 

Now, in your capacity as Acting Attorney General, have you ever 

been asked to approve any requests or action to be taken by the 

special counsel? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman, I see that your 5 minutes is up, 

and so—I am here voluntarily. We have agreed to a 5-minutes 

round, and—— 

Mr. COLLINS. I think that is a fine place to end the 5-minute 

rule. 

Chairman NADLER. The committee will come to order. I will point 

out that we didn’t enforce the 5-minute rule on Acting Attorney 

General Whitaker. We will—— 

Mr. COLLINS. I understand, Mr. Chairman. I was just saying that 

might be a good breaking point for you. 

Chairman NADLER. The Attorney General was in the middle of 

saying something. Answer the question, please. 

Mr. CHABOT. Regular order. 

28 

Chairman NADLER. Should I ask the question? Okay. In your capacity—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Please ask the question. 

Chairman NADLER. Let me just repeat the question so people remember what we are talking about. In your capacity as Acting Attorney General, have you ever been asked to approve any requests 

or action to be taken by the special counsel? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman, I, as the Acting Attorney General, 

I am—under the special counsel’s rules, I am the person that is ultimately in charge of the investigation, and I have exercised that 

authority under the special counsel’s regulations of the Department 

of Justice. 

Chairman NADLER. So I assume the answer is yes? 

Mr. CHABOT. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NADLER. I assume the answer is yes, you have been 

asked to approve a request or action, and you have said yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear about 

what you are asking me. Are you asking me if I have asked the 

special counsel to do something? 

Mr. CHABOT. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NADLER. Well, I am asking if—I think my words were 

clear enough. Have you ever been asked to approve any requests 

or action to be taken by the special counsel? 

Last week, you commented on the status of the investigation 

stating it was close to being completed, unquote. This was said despite the fact you recognized just moments before that it was ongoing stating, quote: I really am not going to talk about an open and 

ongoing investigation otherwise, close quote. 

So all I am asking you is, have you been asked to approve or disapprove a request or action to be taken by the special counsel? 

Mr. CHABOT. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NADLER. I have asked the question. 

Mr. CHABOT. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NADLER. I have asked the question. 

Mr. CHABOT. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NADLER. Point of order is not in order until the question is answered. 

Mr. CHABOT. We are not operating under the 5-minute rule anymore then? 

Chairman NADLER. The witness will answer the question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I want to be very specific about this, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is going to allay a lot of fears that have 

existed among this committee, among the legislative branch largely, and maybe amongst some American people. We have followed 

the special counsel’s regulations to a T. There has been no event, 

no decision that has required me to take any action, and I have not 

interfered in any way with the special counsel’s investigation. 

Chairman NADLER. Very good. Thank you. My time has expired. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, it is playing out exactly as we thought. This is my colleagues across the aisle, when we had questions about the FBI’s 

29 

operation and investigations, it was: Oh, stay away; we don’t want 

to get close to Mueller. 

In fact, the Chairman even said, you know, it is no longer okay 

to wait for Robert Mueller. Well, let’s no longer wait. They have got 

you in front of them right now, so get ready. This is all this is 

going to be DOJ oversight. And it is—I am just going to say for a 

second there is some things interesting here that you did point out 

in your opening statement that do need addressing. I think there 

is a lot of things, whether it be voting rights issues, whether it be 

civil rights issues and other things, and I get that, but I am also 

going to deal with something that is directly under your oversight 

supervision, Mr. Acting Attorney General, and we are going to talk 

about because something I have written a letter about, and believe 

me, I believe that lying before this body or any body is wrong, especially under oath, and that is not the issue. But the issue is tactics. 

And my question is, were you aware of Roger Stone’s indictment 

before it became public? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, that is a, as you know, an important question. It is also—Mr. Stone is part of an ongoing investigation, but I have, again, been briefed on the special counsel’s investigation. That would have been—you know, that would have been 

considered a development that I would have been briefed on, and 

I was briefed on that. 

Mr. COLLINS. Are you familiar from public reports or otherwise 

that a CNN reporter was camped out outside of Stone’s house when 

the FBI arrested him? This wouldn’t be part of the investigation. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am aware of that, and it was deeply concerning 

to me as to how CNN found out about that. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, that is—I am glad we are going down that 

road, Mr. Attorney General. Did somebody at the Department of 

Justice seemingly share a draft indictment with CNN prior to 

Stone’s arrest or prior to a grand jury’s finding of a true bill? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Ranking Member Collins, the court had a sealed 

indictment that after Mr. Stone’s arrest was unsealed. Consistent 

with all of its prior indictments, the DOJ’s basic policy for transparency in criminal cases is that the indictment is posted on the 

DOJ web page promptly after it is unsealed, and then media outlets were notified. 

We do not know of any, and I do not know of any, other Special 

Counsel’s Office notice or DOJ notice to media outlets regarding 

Mr. Stone’s indictment or his arrest and otherwise—you know, I 

really, as I sit here today, don’t have any other information that 

I can talk about regarding Mr. Stone. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, given your answer even just then, it does 

seem concerning given the timing of this reporter’s knowledge and 

other things that there seems to have been a gap in that discovery. 

And just another question is, if anybody was outside this, would 

you view this as a problem? Because this looks like this is something—I am just going to ask you, in your final days here, would 

this be a problem with DOJ if we are looking at the timing doesn’t 

match up, that somebody was—it seems to appear this was given 

pre or prior knowledge, not going through the normal channels? 

Because if it was given through normal channels, every media outlet would have been there, but only one was. 

30 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Collins, I share your concern with the possibility that a media outlet was tipped off to Mr. Stone’s either indictment or arrest before it was made, that information was available to the public. 

Mr. COLLINS. One of the other issues, and this is—you know, 

since we are going to go down this, the chairman wanted to have 

this, and this is a question that is not unfamiliar, and it should be, 

is Bruce Ohr still employed with the Department of Justice? 

Mr. WHITAKER. To answer your question directly, Mr. Collins, 

Bruce Ohr is currently employed with the Department of Justice. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. Is there any process at this point or any that 

you can comment on—I understand personnel issues—but are you 

aware of the discussions and also the implication of investigations 

from Congress and from others surrounding Bruce Ohr’s involvement in many of the investigation problems that we have seen over 

the past few years at DOJ? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Collins, I am generally aware of Mr. Ohr 

being—questions being raised about his behavior at the Department of Justice. 

Mr. COLLINS. Let me tell you in a different way. Knowing what 

you know and seeing what you have seen and using your past experience and prior knowledge, do you believe Mr. Ohr was operating outside normal channels and appropriate channels in which 

he was operating under, which has been publicly reported? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Collins, this is a very important question for 

many people both in this body and in the general public. The Office 

of Inspector General is currently looking at the Carter Page FISA 

application. 

Mr. COLLINS. Which is very much a concern. 

Mr. WHITAKER. And it is also being reviewed at the same time 

as simultaneously by Mr. John Huber, who is the U.S. attorney 

from Utah, who was asked by Attorney General Sessions to conduct 

a review of certain matters at the Department of Justice. And so, 

together with the fact that any situation regarding Mr. Ohr’s employment would be part of a confidential human resources process, 

I just am unable to talk any more about Mr. Ohr, his involvement 

in any matters that could be subject to either an inspector general’s 

investigation or a human resource matter. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, Acting Attorney General Whitaker, barring 

the now again as we had another part to our play this morning and 

are now finding out that you may be subpoenaed to come back and 

do a deposition, which, again, as we continue down this line, any 

way around this to continue to attack at the investigation of the 

President—this is again is just an amazing. I just want to say, one, 

in your last few days, you know, do your best, do your job, and continue to do that part, but also, at a certain point in time, there are 

many on this committee and many on our side of the aisle as well 

as the other side of the aisle that have been very concerned with 

what we have seen at the Department of Justice, especially in the 

FBI and especially over the last few years, that should turn every 

citizen, whether they are Republican, Democrat, Independent, 

could care less about politics, when there is ever a perception, and 

I have shared this with others that came before you to testify, 

whenever there is a perception that there is not an equal treatment 

31 

on either side, that is a problem. It needs to be addressed. I am 

hoping that when Bill Barr comes in, this will be one of his first 

steps that we can continue with. I know you attempted to do that, 

but this is going to be a long day, and it is going to be a day in 

which we chase a lot of rabbits. Unfortunately, when we get to the 

end of the day, the good men and women on the Department side, 

the Department of Justice, which is what you were pitched with 

back before the Chairman was the Chairman—this is not going to 

be an oversight hearing; it is going to be more of a rabbit chase 

down a lot of holes. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Collins, if you don’t mind—Mr. Chairman, 

may I answer his question? 

Chairman NADLER. You may. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I think it is important as we sit here today that 

we understand that this is not a confirmation hearing, that I am 

probably going to be replaced by Bill Barr in the next week. This 

is an oversight hearing for the Department of Justice, and I am 

surprised, as we both had the chairman and the ranking member 

talk about what they want to talk about, that we haven’t talked 

anything about the work regarding violent crime; we haven’t talked 

about the opioid crisis; we haven’t talked about religious liberty; we 

haven’t talked about free speech on our college campuses and a 

whole host of other issues that I know are very important to you. 

And I look forward to talking about the substance of the work 

at the Department of Justice, but if this—I mean, it is your 5 minutes, and you can ask the questions that are of most interest to 

you, but, you know, as I sit here today, I would like to talk about 

the incredible work that we have been doing at the Department of 

Justice since I was chief of staff and now Acting Attorney General. 

Mr. COLLINS. I appreciate that, but if you had been glued to a 

TV yesterday morning, you would have found out this wasn’t what 

this was going to be about. 

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. 

Chairman NADLER. Ladies and gentlemen, there are votes on the 

floor. There are 11 minutes left. We are informed they are going 

to strictly enforce the 15-minute rule. We will see if that is true, 

but we will not risk it. So the committee will stand in recess until 

after the—immediately after the last of this series of votes. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman NADLER. The committee will come to order again. We 

will now resume questioning under the 5-minute rule. 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Whitaker, for being here today. On January 

28th, you made a statement, and I am trying to understand more 

about that. You mentioned, and this is a direct quote: Right now— 

referring to the Mueller investigation—right now the investigation 

is close to being completed. 

What was the basis for that statement that you made, Mr. 

Whitaker? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. I 

had a press conference announcing an important indictment related to Huawei and their stealing, alleged stealing of intellectual 

32 

property of an American company. During that course of that press 

conference, I was asked questions about the special counsel’s investigation, and I prefaced that answer by saying I can’t talk about 

an ongoing investigation like the special counsel’s investigation. 

And as I sit here today, I really don’t have anything to add to what 

I said. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, it seems to me that you did talk about an 

ongoing investigation, and therefore, you can understand, I am 

sure, we would like to know what you meant by what you said. In 

that same statement, you said, quote: You were, quote, comfortable 

that the directions that were made will be reviewed through the 

various means we have, unquote. What does that mean? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, thank you for that question. I 

would refer you to the special counsel regulations that, again, the 

question that I was—the—the answer that I gave to the inquiry 

was regarding the timing of the special counsel’s investigation. I 

have nothing, as I sit here, to add to that. But I do want to mention that the special counsel’s regulations by their very nature say 

that the Attorney General will receive a report, that that will be 

a confidential report, and that that will—that report will cover the 

decisions. And so I was talking about as Attorney General if—as 

Acting Attorney General, if and when I received that report, again, 

I only have less than a week, as you know, before Mr. Barr comes 

on board, that I would review those decisions pursuant to that report. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So is it fair to say that really what you are saying 

is that the special counsel’s investigation is proceeding within the 

scope of the authority set forth in Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s May 2017 order? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, thank you for an opportunity to 

clarify that. I think what I just explained to you is that the special 

counsel’s investigation is proceeding consistent with the regulations 

that outline why the appointment happened consistent with Mr. 

Rosenstein’s appointment. 

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. Thank you very much for that clarification. I would just like to note that, to some extent, it is hard to ignore that the willingness to discuss ongoing investigations has not 

been applied evenly. I mean, you have just mentioned today the 

Roger Stone indictment, and that is an ongoing matter, but let me 

get back to an opportunity you have to clear the air. Many have 

speculated that your appointment was based on your public appearances that harshly criticized the special counsel’s investigation 

prior to your hiring as chief of staff to then Attorney General Jeff 

Sessions. I would like to know. Did you discuss or share your private opinions of the special counsel investigation with President 

Trump or other White House officials, such as Mr. Kelly or Trump 

family members or public surrogates like Mr. Giuliani? And I 

would note that this is not covered by executive privilege because 

at that time, you were a private citizen. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, thank you for that question. I 

came to Washington, D.C., in October of 2017 to be Attorney General Sessions’ chief of staff. I have the greatest respect, as you 

know, for General Sessions, and I am really, you know, honored to 

carry out the role of Acting Attorney General. 

33 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, if I may, that is very nice, but that wasn’t 

the question I asked. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, as you know, I am, as I mentioned, honored 

to serve as Acting Attorney General, and I am honored that the 

President selected me to be the Acting Attorney General. I can assure this committee that before appointing me to this position, the 

President did not ask for and I did not provide any commitments, 

promises concerning the special counsel’s investigation or any other 

investigation, as I mentioned in my opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is not the question I asked, sir, and I see 

that my time is about to expire. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

add I know that we are going to have a followup deposition—— 

Chairman NADLER. I will allow you to ask the question again 

more specifically and ask the witness to answer the question specifically and not to continue filibustering. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The question is: Whether you shared your private 

opinions of the special counsel investigation with President Trump; 

other White House officials, such as John Kelly; Trump family 

members; public surrogates, such as Rudy Giuliani? At the time 

that I am referencing, you were a private citizen. So this is before 

you were hired, so it is not covered by executive privilege. Did you 

do that? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, just to be clear, you are asking 

me whether or not I talked with anybody essentially in the President’s circle or at the White House about my views of the special 

counsel’s investigation—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Correct. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. When I was a private citizen—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Correct. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. And not at the Department of Justice? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Correct. 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, I did not. 

Chairman NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Acting Attorney General, as you mentioned earlier, there are 

other important matters within the purview of the Justice Department and within the oversight responsibilities of this committee besides fishing expeditions, trying to get the goods on this President 

in an apparent effort to impeach him. For example, 70,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017. I am old enough to remember back in the mid ’80s when President Ronald Reagan and his 

wife felt so compelled to do something about the scourge of drugs 

in this country that the effort to just say no began and other efforts 

following that, and that was because back at that time, we had 

10,000 deaths a year due to drug overdoses, and we now have over 

70,000 deaths. So it is gotten, unfortunately, over time worse, not 

better. And most of the increase in deaths in 2017 were due to synthetic drugs, synthetic opioids specifically, like fentanyl, which accounted for a significant number of those deaths. This is clearly an 

epidemic which has been declared a state of emergency nationwide 

by the President and has deeply affected families in my home State 

of Ohio as well as families all across this Nation. 

34 

What efforts and resources has or does the Justice Department 

intend to use to combat this growing epidemic, and what help can 

Congress provide to assist you in your efforts? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I appreciate that question, and I 

know how Ohio has been dramatically affected by the opioid crisis. 

We have done a lot at the Department of Justice, and I would like 

to partner with this committee and I am sure General Barr would 

as well to combat and have additional tools to combat this opioid 

crisis. But some of the things that we have done is we set up in 

2017 the Opioid Fraud and Detection Unit, which was a way that 

the Justice Department could utilize data to help combat the devastating opioid crisis. We did the largest healthcare fraud takedown in June of 2018. We set up the PIL Task Force, otherwise 

known as the Prescription Interdiction and Litigation Task Force, 

in February of 2018. We set up a really innovative way called Operation SOS, which was Synthetic Opioid Surge. General Sessions 

and I went down to Tampa, Florida, where we saw Manatee County had taken an AUSA and embedded them once a week into the 

sheriff’s office in order to take every fentanyl overdose case, and 

they dramatically reduced the number of overdose deaths in Manatee County. And we decided to take that model and apply it to the 

most affected States and districts that could really make a dramatic difference in saving lives. 

Mr. CHABOT. Let me just—if I could, let me stop you there. I just 

have a followup question—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Sure. 

Mr. CHABOT [continuing]. Along the same topic, and the President addressed this to a considerable degree in his State of the 

Union the other night. And do you have an opinion; is there a relationship between enhancing border security, particularly at our 

southern border, and making at least some progress in reducing 

the scourge of drug addiction in this country? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, absolutely there is a connection 

between the drugs that are being imported through our southern 

border, which is a large majority of those drugs, and the opioid crisis we now face. In fact, I went to China in August as chief of staff 

for then General Sessions. He asked me to go to talk to the Chinese 

about what more they could do to reduce the amount of fentanyl 

that is being produced in China, and we had a nice dialogue with 

some high-level government officials. And the President, as you 

know, has agreed with General Xi to reduce fentanyl and eliminate 

fentanyl production in China. And one of the ways that China has 

agreed to do that was by scheduling the analogs of fentanyl. It is 

a very serious problem, and I know Ohio is dramatically affected 

by it. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

I have only got about 30 seconds, so let me just touch on one last 

thing. I know you only have about a week left, so you probably 

won’t personally—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Less than a week, actually. 

Mr. CHABOT. Yeah. Less than a week. Yesterday, this committee 

in a bipartisan manner passed the No Oil Producing and Exporting 

Cartels Act of 2019. This is something that I had introduced almost 

20 years ago along with my Democratic colleague John Conyers, 

35 

who was chair and ranking member of this committee over the 

years, that would basically give the Attorney General the authorization to bring suit against oil cartels when they manipulate, artificially manipulate the prices, and we all pay for this at the gas 

pump time and time again. So I know we have been in contact with 

the Justice Department, and we look forward to working with your 

successor in that effort. I don’t know if you have any comments you 

would like to make about that. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I am fully aware of that bill, and 

I look forward to the Department of Justice working with you to 

successfully not only pass it but implement it. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

I would like to give Mr. Nadler and some of our Democratic colleagues as well as Mr. Collins and others a lot of credit for that 

as well. So thank you very much. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman NADLER. Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much. 

These are extraordinary times, Mr. Attorney General. We know 

that the former Director of the FBI testified to the House Intelligence Committee in open hearing that there was an active investigation into the associates of the Trump campaign, and he was 

fired subsequently. Mr. Mueller was then hired. Investigations 

have secured numerous indictments, convictions, or guilty pleas, 

and, of course, a deal with perjury charges like obstruction of justice, perjury, false statements. So, at the current rate, we are seeing so many of the Trump organizations being indicted, and with 

the short time that I have, I want to make sure that your questions 

are answered in a yes-or-no manner. This is the first oversight 

hearing we have had in the Justice Department in almost 15 

months. You did not have a confirmation hearing, and you have not 

yet appeared for an oversight hearing. Yes or no? Yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I am the Acting—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes or no. Have you appeared before an oversight hearing in the Congress? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I have not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It has been 10 years—— 

Chairman NADLER. The witness will answer the question as 

asked, please. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, if he has—feels that a yes or no is 

appropriate, he will answer in a yes or no. If he does not feel it 

is appropriate, he should be able to answer in an appropriate, as 

many Democrat administration officials have done before this committee before. This is unreal. 

Chairman NADLER. The member has only 5 minutes, and if 

she—— 

Mr. COLLINS. If we have just discovered—— 

Chairman NADLER. If she wants a yes-or-no answer, she is entitled to it. I will not allow the witness to stall and waste members’ 

time. 

Mr. COLLINS. Where were you when Mr. Holder was here? 

36 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman, may I have my time restored? I 

think it was at 4 minutes. 

Chairman NADLER. Yes, you may. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Again, Mr. Attorney General, the question is, did you have a confirmation, and has it been more than 10 years since you have testified before Congress? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can the clock be restored? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am sorry. What was your—I don’t know if your 

time has been restored or not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Attorney General, we are not joking here, 

and your humor is not acceptable. Now, you are here because we 

have a constitutional duty to ask questions, and the Congress has 

the right to establish government rules. The rules are that you are 

here. So I need to ask the question, and I need to have my time 

restored so that you can behave appropriately. I will behave appropriately as a member of the Judiciary Committee. I have asked a 

question. 

Did you have a confirmation hearing, and have you not yet appeared for an oversight hearing? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I am an Acting Attorney General. I have been appointed according to the Vacancies Reform Act, 

and I have never appeared in front of Congress for any hearing, 

even when I was a United States attorney. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I asked for a yes-or-no answer. Is that? Yeah. 

Let me—and so you have never appeared. 

Let me quickly ask a question. Prior to the firing of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, did you discuss or share your private 

opinions of the special counsel investigation with the chief of staff, 

some family members and others, yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I previously answered, Congresswoman—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes or no, sir? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I previously answered, Congresswoman, I 

have not discussed—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I previously answered, Congresswoman, I 

have not discussed—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And since you were appointed Acting Attorney 

General, did you discuss or share your private opinions with the 

special counsel? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again, the special counsel’s investigation is an 

ongoing investigation, and I don’t—I have nothing more to say than 

what I have already said. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you are denying reports that you shared 

many one-on-one calls with President Trump and his then Chief of 

Staff, John Kelly, when Jeff Sessions was still Attorney General? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again, Congresswoman, is there someone that 

provides you the basis for that question, or is that an anonymously 

sourced article? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am asking the question, sir. Answer the 

question yes or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Could you repeat the question, please? 

37 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you are denying the reports that you 

shared many one-on-one calls with President Trump and then his 

chief of staff, John Kelly? Are you denying that, yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, as I mentioned several times 

today, in my opening statement and otherwise—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. I am not talking about the conversations that I have had with the President of the United States or 

senior staff. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So that is a no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I don’t think you can assume anything from that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me just pursue on my line of questioning. 

Since the investigation secured numerous indictments, I would 

like to pursue the line of questioning with respect to your understanding of the Mueller investigation and the review that you have 

given. Have you given an extensive review? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I have been briefed on the special counsel’s investigation. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you believe the involvement of the hostile 

foreign entities interfering with the elections is more severe than 

the false representation of voter fraud in elections? Do you believe 

that a foreign interference with the elections is more severe? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I think foreign interference in 

our election system in the United States is a very serious and ongoing concern. I also believe that voter fraud is a serious concern. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. After you left office, you pursued a series of 

other political offices, one of which was the United States Senate. 

Yes or no, if, during the pursuit of that office, a hostile foreign 

power contacted you to offer dirt on your opponent which at the 

same time included other candidates, such as Steve King and now 

Senator Joni Ernst, would you have contacted the FBI? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I am not here to address—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Hypothetical questions and, I am 

here for an oversight hearing. I don’t believe—you know, I was 

very unsuccessful in my Senate campaign—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You have the responsibility of answering the 

question. Would you have contacted the FBI if you were asked to 

take dirt on your opponents? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, if I was contacted by a foreign 

national or a foreign country when I was a candidate for the 

United States Senate, I would have most likely reached out to the 

FBI, but it didn’t happen, so it is hard for me to answer your hypothetical question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. With respect to civil rights, you have not 

under your jurisdiction prosecuted one voting rights case. Is that 

correct? 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 

witness may answer this question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, and just so I have a complete 

answer on this, we will follow up in writing as to the voting rights 

cases that we have done. 

Chairman NADLER. Thank you. 

38 

Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Whitaker, did why did Rod Rosenstein send a memo to Bob 

Mueller on August 2nd, 2017, concerning the scope of the special 

counsel investigation? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, thank you for that question, and 

I know this is of a great interest to you, and I hope we can have 

a discussion about this today. The special counsel regulations require a scoping of the special counsel’s investigation that identifies 

the subjects and the targets of the investigation, so I am certain 

that it would have identified the scope of the investigation pursuant to the special counsel’s—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, my question is—my question is not what—I 

will get to that. My question is, why? Because it was 2 and a half 

months after the special counsel was formed. So let’s go back to the 

beginning document, which you told the chairman earlier you were 

completely briefed on the special counsel’s investigation. I want to 

go—this is a 1-page document, Order No. 3915–2017. It says this, 

Mr. Whitaker: The special counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation, including any matters that arose or may arise directly 

from the investigation. 

That is pretty broad. Do you agree? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yeah, and in my experience, it is consistent with 

other appointments of special counsels. 

Mr. JORDAN. That is fine. I mean, I think it may be too broad, 

but it is as broad as you can get. One page order: Go do your investigation, and anything that arises out of it, you can investigate as 

well. 

But then 2 and a half months later, we get this, this 3-page 

memo from Rod Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General, to Robert 

Mueller, special counsel. Title says: Scope of the Investigation and 

Definition of Authority. This is what confuses me, because in this 

memo, that only Mr. Mueller and my guess is you and Mr. Rosenstein and a few people at the Justice Department have seen, most 

of it is blacked out, in this memo, it says this: The following allegations were within the scope of the investigation at the time of your 

appointment and are within the scope of the order. 

Well, if that is true, why do you have to say it? If you could do 

it all along, why do you have to put it in a memo? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman Jordan, first of all, I was—because 

of General Sessions’ recusal from the special counsel’s investigation, I was also recused from that investigation, and so I was not 

at the Department of Justice—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I am not asking that. I am asking—you said you 

were fully briefed. 

Mr. WHITAKER. You are asking me why at the time Rod Rosenstein—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I am asking you why 2 and a half months after the 

broadest order you can have, why did Rod Rosenstein say, ‘‘Hey, 

you could do this all along, but now I am putting it in a memo’’? 

And I will tell you what really troubles me, Mr. Whitaker, is right 

after that statement, the following allegations were within the 

scope of the investigation at the time of your appointment and are 

39 

within the scope of the order. Right after that, you know what? You 

know what happens? Everything is redacted. Look at this. The 

whole darn thing. So, if you could do it all along and you have to 

send a memo to them 2 and a half months later—and then you redact everything after it. Do you know what is under the redactions, 

Mr. Whitaker? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I do, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. You do. Are there names under the redactions, Mr. 

Whitaker? 

Mr. WHITAKER. In my experience with investigations generally, 

you would not have a public document identify targets or subject 

matter of an investigation, especially if someone is not ultimately 

charged with a crime. 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me frame it this way. Did Rod Rosenstein give 

the special counsel the authority to investigate specific Americans? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, Mr. Rosenstein, acting as the Attorney General because of Mr. Sessions’ recusal, gave authorization 

and jurisdiction to the special counsel. And so, yes, under the special counsel regulations, that is the whole purpose of the special 

counsel. 

Mr. JORDAN. So I want to make sure. So you said yes, so there 

are specific names 2 and a half months into the investigation that 

Rod Rosenstein gave the special counsel specific American names 

to go investigate? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as you know—— 

Mr. JORDAN. If that is the case, I hope you—I want to know yes 

or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER. As you know, this is the subject of an ongoing investigation, and I spoke to you generally about investigations. 

Mr. JORDAN. And I am asking you specifically, or let me ask it 

this way: Can you give us assurances that there are not specific 

names under this 70-percent-redacted memo that Rod Rosenstein 

sent to the special counsel? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman Jordan, I know this is a very important subject for you. 

Mr. JORDAN. And you know why I am asking this, Mr. Attorney 

General, because in this country we don’t investigate people; we investigate crimes. And if there are specific American citizens’ names 

in this redacted memo—and I asked Mr. Rosenstein to see this, 

and he got all mad and huffy with me in his office and wouldn’t 

show it to me, but I think the American people—if this alters, 

changes, and names specific Americans, the scope of the investigation of the special counsel, don’t you think it is appropriate for the 

American citizens to know the full parameters of an investigation 

into the guy they made President of the United States? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, let me be very specific about this 

because you are right: we investigate crimes, not individuals. 

Mr. JORDAN. That is why I am asking you the question. I would 

like a yes-or-no answer. Are there names mentioned under this redacted portion of this memo? 

Mr. WHITAKER. On that, as I mentioned before, that memo props 

up a confidential investigation, as is every Department of Justice 

investigation—— 

40 

Mr. JORDAN. Simple question, Mr. Whitaker. Are their names, 

specific American names, mentioned in this redacted—70-percentredacted memo that happens 2 and a half months after the special 

counsel gets his order to start his investigation where he was given 

the broadest latitude you can possibly have? 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

witness may answer the question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I would just refer the Congressman to the general practices of the Department of Justice, that we investigate 

crimes and not individuals. 

Chairman NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Attorney General, the inspector general of the GSA had a 

rather scathing report on the GSA’s decision not to address significant issues concerning the government’s Post Office and its lease 

to the Trump family concerning the Emoluments Clause, and it 

was said that GSA attorneys said they did not refer the matter to 

OLC, but a senior attorney told the IG that the OLC, the Office of 

Legal Counsel, knew about the Old Post Office lease, and it was 

up to them to do something. Were you aware of anything this Justice Department did to look into violations of the Emoluments 

Clause at the Trump Hotel? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, the Emoluments Clause as it relates to the Trump Hotel is the subject of several ongoing litigation 

matters. 

Mr. COHEN. Right. 

Mr. WHITAKER. And so, while I can acknowledge that I am aware 

of the—not only of the situation you described but generally the 

litigation surrounding the Emoluments Clause, as the Acting Attorney General sitting here today, I am unable to talk specifically 

about those cases. 

Mr. COHEN. You can’t say if there are any memos from the Office 

of Legal Counsel regarding Emoluments Clause violations and limitations? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I sit here today, those—the 

Emoluments Clause as it relates to The Trump Organization, especially the hotel in Washington, D.C., is the subject of ongoing litigation. 

Mr. COHEN. And the Justice Department is helping to represent 

the President in those suits, is he not? Is that appropriate when 

it is a violation of him making personal monies out of the Trump 

Hotel and being charged with violations of the Emoluments Clause 

by not reporting it to the Congress as he is supposed to by the Constitution? Shouldn’t he have his personal lawyers and not Justice 

Department lawyers represent him for this nefarious conduct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I can understand that this is an 

important issue to you, but as it relates to the Emoluments Clause 

and the Department of Justice defense of the President of the 

United States, it is well within our purpose to be involved in that 

case. 

Mr. COHEN. You said that if the special counsel’s investigation 

looked into President Trump’s finances it would be crossing a red 

line. You said that, I think, in a television interview. The Attorney 

41 

General has made clear that Mr. Rosenstein told the special counsel he could go into any matters that arose or may arise directly 

from the investigation. If matters arose from the investigation directly or indirectly that the Trump family owed lots of money to 

Russian oligarchs and people real close to Putin and that affected 

the actions that they took as the President of the United States on 

behalf of the United States of America, would you agree that that 

was not crossing a red line but, in fact, was a red line from Moscow 

that we need to look into? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, when I made that statement, I 

was a private citizen and had no publicly available information— 

I only had publicly available information, and so I made that as a 

commentator and not as the Acting Attorney General of the United 

States. I am very familiar with the responsibilities of my office as 

Acting Attorney General, and we make our decisions based on the 

law and the facts on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. COHEN. So that is no longer your opinion. It is not crossing 

a red line for him to look into the finances if they might have interfered with the objective judgment of the President concerning his 

duty of trust to the United States of America and not to his personal financial interest or his family’s. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I mentioned earlier, at the Department of Justice and as long as I am Acting Attorney General, 

we are going to follow the law and the facts wherever they may 

lead, and we are going to do our jobs with fidelity. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Let me ask you this: There has been a conviction in the special 

counsel investigation of Mr. Manafort, a jury trial conviction. There 

have been guilty pleas for Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, 

and Michael Cohen and dozens of indictments including 13 Russian 

nationals, 3 Russian companies, and Roger Stone. Would you say 

the special counsel’s investigation is a witch hunt? Are you overseeing a witch hunt? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I have mentioned previously, 

the special counsel’s investigation is an ongoing investigation, and 

so I think it would be inappropriate for me to talk about—— 

Mr. COHEN. But you wouldn’t oversee a witch hunt, would you? 

You would stop a witch hunt, wouldn’t you? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, it would be inappropriate for me 

to talk about an ongoing investigation. 

Mr. COHEN. You said that you are not interfering with the special counsel’s investigation. Have you denied him any funds he has 

requested at all? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I can tell this is an important 

issue for you, but—— 

Mr. COHEN. It is an important for the American public and for 

the whole world. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, to answer your question directly, 

I have not denied any funds to the special counsel’s investigation. 

Mr. COHEN. Have you denied him the opportunity to go any 

areas where he wanted to investigate or any matters of investigation? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I previously testified, I have not 

interfered with the special counsel’s investigation. 

42 

Mr. COHEN. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman NADLER. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Acting Attorney General, thank you for being here today. 

Mr. WHITAKER. It is good to see you again, Congressman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I am amazed that you would be coming since your 

successor is going to apparently be confirmed next week, and you 

will no longer be Acting Director, so I don’t know what kind of suicide wish you had or whatever, but it is good to see you. 

One thing I wanted to hit first was a statement that you had 

made, and I want to confirm that these are your words. And I 

quote: There is no doubt in the law enforcement community that 

the vast majority of the illegal drugs in this country is coming over 

our southern border, a pattern that is true for all crimes generally, 

and there is no doubt that criminals and cartels seek to exploit 

weaknesses in our southern border. 

Are those your words? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, I don’t know which speech or statement you 

are quoting. It sounds like something I would have said, yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah. And you wouldn’t have said that if you 

didn’t believe that, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Oh, I believe what you are saying. The drugs and 

the general illegality that is pouring in through our southern border is having a negative effect on our country. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Now, I want to get to this issue of career officials 

since colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made such a big 

deal about it, that you have not—they accuse you of not following 

the advice of career officials. Do you know the backgrounds of the 

people that are working directly under you and directly under Rod 

Rosenstein? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I sit on top of an organization that 

has 115,000 employees. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I am talking about the people directly to you and 

directly to Deputy Rosenstein. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am familiar with the people that report to both 

of us, yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Although I will tell you, I think Rod Rosenstein 

as Deputy Attorney General has over 100 direct reports as Deputy 

Attorney General. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, that was something I recommended to Attorney General Sessions, that he needed to reorganize and have 

some of those people reporting directly to him. 

But one of the mistakes I think my dear friend, Jeff Sessions, for 

whom I have immense respect, one of the mistakes that I saw him 

making: he was listening to people who love Sally Yates, loved her 

efforts to disrupt anything that President Trump tried to do. They 

loved what President Obama did through the Justice Department, 

and in fact, I had informed Jeff that one—that his contact with the 

NSC was sitting on his notices, so either he developed conflicts or 

wasn’t properly prepared, and that was Tashina Gauhar, and she 

reported directly to Rosenstein. The AG should have somebody— 

the liaison with the NSC should report directly to the AG and not 

43 

go through Rod Rosenstein and especially when they were setting 

the Attorney General up to be harmed. But this—and then Anthony Ferrante, I know currently apparently he is the senior managing director of FTI Consulting. He was another one that some 

considered a career position at the DOJ. Let’s see. He had Jordan 

Kelly there. She is currently Director of Cybersecurity Policy and 

Incident Response at the NSC through the White House. There are 

reports that she met routinely with the Mueller investigators. You 

know, between these people who, like Tashina Gauhar, just 

thought Yates was wonderful, I would hope that wisdom in you as 

acting director, wisdom in the incoming Attorney General will be 

to look at the backgrounds, look at the people who are political 

hacks, and figure out: Oh, they are giving me advice on this? This 

is not for my well-being. This is to hurt the President of the United 

States. 

And I know you may just have another week, but I would encourage you that, as people make a big deal about career, look beyond 

career. Look where their loyalties are because even though they 

may be in a career position, if their loyalties are not to the Attorney General and not to the President of the United States and are 

more political than they are constitutional, disregard what they 

say. 

I yield back. 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. 

Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you. 

General Whitaker, do you agree with the President’s statement 

that the Russian investigation is a witch hunt? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I mentioned previously, Congressman, I think 

it would be inappropriate for me to comment about an ongoing investigation. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, you commented about the Roger 

Stone investigation, which is ongoing, did you not? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, just to be clear about this—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. You did comment. I mean, we heard 

you comment on the Roger Stone investigation. Why would you 

comment on the Roger Stone investigation, but you are reluctant 

to answer our questions about the Mueller investigation? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, that is a good question, Congressman, and 

my comments about the Roger Stone investigation were merely to 

acknowledge that I was aware that CNN had appeared to receive 

or was at the residence on location—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, you don’t know whether or not 

the CNN reporter was camped out with no advance knowledge or 

whether or not he was tipped off or not. Isn’t that true? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, that is true, but I am very concerned that an operation of the FBI—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Let me move on. Let me move on that, 

sir. I am controlling the time. Let me move on. 

I would like to take a moment to better understand your decision 

not to recuse yourself from the supervision of the special counsel’s 

investigation. Isn’t it a fact, sir, that you received your final ethics 

guidance on this matter on December 19th, 2018? 

44 

Mr. WHITAKER. I appreciate this question, and I am glad this is 

an opportunity—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. It is a pretty direct question. Did you 

receive your final guidance on that question on December 19th—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. As you know, we have communicated with Congress the entire process that I went to—went through to address 

any recusal questions that I might have, and I had no conflict of 

interest. I had no financial—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, let me just ask you: I understand 

you take that position, but my simple question is, isn’t it a fact 

that you received your final ethics guidance on that question on 

December 19th, 2018? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, we laid out very explicitly the 

process that we went through, and ultimately the decision whether 

or not to recuse was my decision. 

Chairman NADLER. Mr. Whitaker, you were asked a direct question. Mr. Whitaker, you were asked a direct question, and it is getting a little tiresome hearing you stall and wasting the member’s 

time. The member only has 5 minutes. He asked you a specific 

question. Did you last receive advice on that on December 18th? 

The answer ought to be yes or no or some other date or ‘‘I don’t 

remember,’’ but we don’t need a speech. The gentleman may repeat 

his question. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to counsel the witness and act as his attorney on how he should answer, are you answering the question, or is the witness answering the question? 

Chairman NADLER. I am asking the witness not to stall. 

Mr. COLLINS. And we have endured that many times here were 

when he is trying to ask the question in the way that he is asked. 

Mr. COHEN. Point of order. Point of order. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman is out of order. Mr. Johnson 

has the floor. Your time will be restored. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, sir. 

Sir, isn’t it a fact that career officials at DOJ recommended to 

you that you recuse yourself to avoid an appearance of a conflict 

of interest or bias? That was the guidance that you got from career 

DOJ officials about your participation or oversight of the Mueller 

investigation. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I made my recusal decision by myself after consulting with—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. But there were career DOJ officials 

who advised you that you should not touch that investigation. Isn’t 

that correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. I consulted with career ethics officials. I consulted with my senior staff. I consulted with the Office 

of Legal Counsel. It was my decision to make. I decided not to 

recuse. I am happy to walk through the step-by-step advice that I 

received. And I consulted—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. There were four individuals who you 

consulted who advised you that you had the ability to not recuse 

yourself from this investigation. Isn’t that correct? 

45 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, the regulations actually say I 

have—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Four individuals advised you that you 

did not have to recuse yourself. Is that correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, let me be clear. It was my decision—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. You are not being clear sir, other than 

in your obstruction and refusal to answer the question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am not obstructing anything. I am answering 

your question. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, you are obstructing—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. I consulted with a lot of people regarding my 

recusal, but it was my decision to make. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. But you are not telling me who it was. 

Who did you consult with? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I mentioned, I consulted with career officials—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Name me some names. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I consulted with my senior staff, and I consulted 

with the Office of Legal Counsel. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Name me some names, sir. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, one person would be the Assistant Attorney 

General for our Office of Legal Counsel. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. What is his name or her name? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Steve Engel. He is a Senate-confirmed—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. And who else? Who else did you consult with? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I also consulted with his principal deputy. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. And that person’s name is? 

Mr. WHITAKER. His name is Curtis Gannon. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. And who else did you consult with, sir? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I am asking you a pretty clear question, 

sir. Who else did you consult with about whether or not you should 

recuse yourself from the Mueller investigation? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Generally who did I consult with? 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I want to know specifically who you 

talked to. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Okay. Well, I talked to Brad Weinsheimer, who 

is the senior career official at the Department of Justice. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. And he advised that your recusal was 

unnecessary, or did he advise you to recuse? 

Mr. WHITAKER. He actually could not identify any precedent for 

me to recuse. He said it was a close call. He said—I am sorry. Did 

you have a question? 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Go ahead. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Okay. He said that my other public statements 

did recognize the professionalism and competence of the special 

counsel. He said that, out of an abundance of caution, that he 

would—that, if asked, he would recommend a certain course, but 

again, it was—he also said—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Did he recommend that you recuse 

yourself? 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Can I finish? 

46 

Chairman NADLER. The witness may finish his answer. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Okay. He also said, Congressman, that the decision was mine to make based on the regulations of the Department 

of Justice, and I made that decision, and I stand by that decision. 

Chairman NADLER. Mr. Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Attorney General, I spent a number of years 

as a Federal prosecutor and because of that service, I have literally 

hundreds of friends at the Department of Justice right now and at 

its component agencies like the FBI, folks that I have tremendous 

respect for. And so I appreciate your stated desire earlier today to 

want to highlight their good work. 

And for the new members of the Judiciary Committee, an oversight hearing is typically where that would take place, where an 

Attorney General would give an accounting of the work of 115,000 

men and women in the Justice Department and provide some idea 

of the vision with respect to the Department’s priorities, priorities 

like drug and human trafficking, preventing terrorism, reducing 

gun and gang violence. 

Now, earlier this week, my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle indicated that they had a great desire to reduce gun violence 

in this country. In fact, we had an 8-hour hearing with six witnesses that talked about the need to reduce gun violence in this 

country. We started this hearing at 9:30 this morning. It is now 

12:30 in the afternoon, and I haven’t seen you field a single question from the other side of the aisle about any of the enforcement 

priorities of the Department of Justice, despite the fact that you 

are the head of an organization that has greater ability to impact 

and reduce gun violence than anyone or anything in the country. 

So I may be the only person today that wants to ask you a question 

about that, but I am going to use the remainder of my time for that 

purpose. 

When I was at the Department of Justice, we had a very successful initiative called Project Safe Neighborhood. It was a program 

that took guns out of the hands of criminal offenders. It was a successful program that was killed by the Obama administration. The 

Obama Justice Department ended it. I understand that it has been 

reinstated during the Trump administration. I would like you to inform us about its progress as well as any other measures or programs or enforcement priorities of the Department of Justice with 

respect to reducing gun violence in this country. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Thank you, Congressman. As you know, we 

served as United States attorneys together, until you went into politics, and I went into private practice. I want to talk specifically, 

and this is a really good question, about Project Safe Neighborhoods. 

In 2017, the Attorney General Sessions announced the expansion 

of Project Safe Neighborhoods, which encourages U.S. attorneys’ offices to work specifically with their unique communities they serve 

to develop a customized crime-reduction strategy. One study 

showed that, when you and I were doing PSN, it reduced crime 

over all by 4.1 percent and with case studies showing reductions 

up to 42 percent of violent crime. We had the Project Safe Neighborhoods national conference, as I mentioned in my opening statement, and I can tell you that especially in our largest cities, our 

47 

29 major cities, we are seeing a reduction of violent crime because 

of U.S. attorneys specifically working with their sheriffs and police 

chiefs and their Federal and State and local partners in reducing 

gun violence. You know, some other things that we have done is 

the Attorney General is one of the four Cabinet positions that were 

part of the School Safety Commission that came out with a report 

in the last several months that gave a practical outline as to how 

States especially could work to reduce gun violence, including the 

idea of ERPOs. And there is, you know, Congressman, I really— 

I appreciate your tone that this oversight hearing is not a hearing 

about the types of things that we are talking about, but to—you 

know, the Chairman sent me a letter specifically outlining things 

that he wanted to talk about, and I don’t feel like we have talked 

about many of those things. So I am glad that you offered that opportunity to talk about the Department of Justice’s efforts to reduce gun violence. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Attorney General. 

I would like to yield the remainder of my time to Congressman 

Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. 

Mr. Whitaker, are there any other memos, any other memos that 

Mr. Rosenstein has sent to Mr. Mueller that we don’t know about, 

and if we did, would be redacted like the one that happened on August 2, 2017? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as you know, the special counsel’s 

investigation is ongoing, and it would be inappropriate for me to 

talk about any other memos related to that. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, Mr. Whitaker, we already know that there 

has been some modification of the broadest order I think you could 

have with this August 2, 2017, memo. And all I am asking is, are 

there any other modifications, any other changes to the parameters 

of an investigation into the President of the United States? 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The witness may answer the question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, just to be clear, the special counsel 

understands the scope of its investigation and is complying with all 

the regulations and orders related to that. 

Chairman NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Whitaker, you and I are both lawyers. My first day of 

crim law, my professor came in and said: If someone asks you a 

yes-or-no question, don’t just repeat the question; answer yes or no. 

Otherwise, during your career, people will think you are not a good 

lawyer. We know you are a good lawyer. Let’s heed that advice 

going forward. 

In November—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. We did not go to the same law school. 

Mr. DEUTCH. We did not. The advice is good nonetheless. In November 2018, Chris Wallace asked the President a question. He 

said: Did you know before you appointed him that he—meaning 

you—had a record that was so critical of Robert Mueller? 

And the President said: I didn’t know that. I didn’t know that he 

took views on the Mueller investigation. 

48 

Do you believe President Trump was telling the truth when he 

said that he just did not know that you were critical of Mueller before your appointment? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, the President—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. No. I understand how it all worked. I am just asking you. Do you believe the President was telling the truth when 

he said he did not know that you had been critical of Robert 

Mueller before making your appointment? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I have no reason to believe when 

I sit here today that the President wasn’t saying what he believed. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Who did you interview with for this—for the Chief 

of Staff job? Not for this job, for the chief of staff job? 

Mr. WHITAKER. It was General Sessions’ decision to make. I 

interviewed with him, and he offered me the job. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And before you got the job, did you ever—before 

you took this job, did you ever speak with the President about the 

Mueller probe from May 17th, 2017 to September 22nd, 2017? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Are you saying about before I was actually the 

chief of staff? 

Mr. DEUTCH. I am saying between May 17, 2017—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, Congressman, I had never met the President until after I joined the Department of Justice in 2017. 

Mr. DEUTCH. So have you—let me just ask you another question. 

If you didn’t communicate with him, did you communicate with 

anyone at the White House about the special counsel investigation 

before September 22, 2018? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I assume you are excluding my appearances on 

CNN because I don’t think anybody at the White House was watching—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. If you talked to anybody at the White House—I 

mean, you have told me that the President wasn’t watching those. 

Otherwise, he would have been aware of your position. So I assume 

the President wasn’t watching. Did you talk about those appearances with anyone at the White House? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I did not talk about my experiences on CNN 

with—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. Did you talk about your views of the Mueller investigation with anyone at the White House? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I did not talk about my views of the Mueller investigation with any of the White House during—in this time period, essentially May of 2017, until I joined the Department of Justice in October of 2017. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And throughout that process, did you ever communicate with anyone—here is the question. By my count, you made 

six comments in op-eds, talk radio, or on cable news critical of the 

special counsel between the time you interviewed in June 2017 and 

the time you were hired as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. 

Did you ever use any intermediaries? Did you have anyone—since 

the President didn’t know, did you have anyone communicate with 

the White House or anyone at the White House, either staff members, friends, or others, to let them know exactly where you stood 

as expressed in at least those six public statements? 

49 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I had—at the time you describe, 

May of ’17 until I joined the Department on October 4th of 2017, 

I didn’t have a relationship with the White House. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Did you talk to any White House personnel before 

you were hired, anyone at the White House? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. That is an easy one. Did you talk to anyone at the 

White House? Is the answer no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I had previously been at the White 

House when I was a private citizen to talk about a different position. 

Mr. DEUTCH. No. I understand. But did you talk to anyone at the 

White House about your views on Mueller, any personnel at the 

White House at all before you assumed the position? Let me just 

ask—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. In May—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. Let me just go forward because here is the issue. 

When you became the Attorney General—since becoming the Attorney General, you said that you had been briefed on the special 

counsel. Did you use anyone else to have communications? Did you 

do anything to make sure that the White House might have 

learned some of what you learned in those briefings? Could it be 

that someone else on your staff might have spoken to someone at 

the White House since you told us you didn’t? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I am not aware of that happening. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Who else—how many people were in those briefings 

with you when you were briefed about the Mueller investigation? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I am not going to go into the specifics of the briefing, but it was a very limited group. There was 

only one member of my staff who was present with me. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And have there been—have you ever attempted to 

use any intermediaries to get information to the President or others on his staff? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. I have not attempted to use any intermediaries to get information to the President or his staff. 

Mr. DEUTCH. So I will close, Mr. Chairman, by saying this is 

going to be a long hearing. We have been going on for a while. The 

concern that we have, Mr. Whitaker, is that there was no Senate 

confirmation here. We are not the Senate, but the administration 

justified their decision in picking you under the Vacancies Reform 

Act. There was a law on the books for the Attorney General succession and the authority to oversee the special counsel’s work. It goes 

from one Senate confirming official to another, from the AG, Deputy AG, Associate Attorney AG, Solicitor General, Assistant Attorney General, the Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal 

Counsel, Assistant AG for National Security, Assistant AG in 

charge of the Criminal Division, and on and on and on. None of 

them, none of them are the Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. 

I think what we are trying to figure out is why is it exactly—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Point of order. 

Mr. DEUTCH [continuing]. That the President chose to go beyond 

the statute and choose you, and I hope over the balance of this 

hearing, that will become clear. 

I yield back. 

50 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

witness may answer. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Thank you, Congressman. I believe the President 

chose me to be the Acting Attorney General for a couple reasons. 

First, I had served previously in the Department as a United 

States attorney, which is a very important position, as Mr. Ratcliffe 

previously stated, in the administration of justice, and for 13 

months, I was the Chief of Staff for Attorney General Sessions, and 

I had done the full year with him, side by side. Obviously, he made 

the decisions, but I gave him advice and counsel, and I was aware 

of everything that was going on at the Department of Justice that 

I—obviously that General Sessions wasn’t recused from, and so I 

think the President was comfortable that to continue the momentum at the Department of Justice that we had established in addressing these important priority issues, like reducing violent 

crime, combating the opioid crisis, and others that the President 

felt I was best positioned to do the duties of Attorney General. 

Chairman NADLER. Mr. Biggs. 

Mr. BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will just say to Mr. Whitaker: My questions normally—in a normal oversight committee would be vastly different than the direction I am going to go because we have kind of wandered into this 

other stream over here, so I am going to ask you some questions. 

The longstanding constitutionally based Department of Justice 

policy holds that a sitting President cannot be indicted. Is that— 

and that is based on the last review, which happened under the 

Clinton administration. Is that still in effect, or has it changed? 

Mr. WHITAKER. That is still the policy of the Department of Justice. 

Mr. BIGGS. Have you spoken to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein about his statements on invoking the 25th Amendment and 

wiretapping President Trump? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I have seen the statements by Deputy Rosenstein 

that he made to the press regarding those statements, and I have 

no reason to believe that he did not—that those statements, you 

know, were consistent with what he believed at the time. 

Mr. BIGGS. Okay. I am not sure I understood that. You said you 

have no reason to believe that they were not consistent, so there 

are a couple of negatives there. Do you believe they were consistent 

with what he believed at the time? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I do. I believe what Deputy Attorney General 

Rosenstein said to the press when it was first reported about his 

decision. 

Mr. BIGGS. Oh. You are talking about his comments, not—his 

comments to the press, not the ones about him wearing a wire? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am talking about Deputy Attorney General 

Rosenstein’s comments to the press after it was reported that he 

had considered wearing a wire and invoking the 25th Amendment. 

Mr. BIGGS. And his response—I didn’t mean to interrupt, but his 

responses you think are consistent. So did you talk to him about 

this issue at all? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again, I am not here to talk about the internal 

discussions that I had with—— 

51 

Mr. BIGGS. This is really critical. With all due respect, this is not 

an ongoing—this has nothing to do with an ongoing investigation. 

What it has got to do with is Mr. Rosenstein and his role as an 

unbiased overseer of the Mueller investigation. So it is not directly 

dealing with the investigation but deals with his capacity to be unbiased. So I am not asking whether—I am not trying to get into 

the substance or even the periphery. I want to know, though, did 

you have a conversation with Mr. Rosenstein about his comments 

as reported? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, this is an important question to 

you, but I am not going to answer my conversations with Deputy 

Attorney General Rosenstein. I believe that they are deliberative. 

Obviously, I am exercising the full responsibilities of the Acting Attorney General position. 

Mr. BIGGS. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. I know that that 

answer is important to you. I know that is important to you, but 

answering in a way that we as the American people can understand it, that is important to us. 

So let’s get to June 21, 2017, where you said: The truth is there 

was no collusion with the Russians in the Trump campaign. There 

was interference by the Russians into the election, but there was 

not collusion with the campaign. That is where the left seems to 

be combining those two issues. The last thing they want right now 

is the truth to come out, and the fact that there is not a single 

piece of evidence that demonstrates that the Trump campaign had 

any illegal or even improper relationships with the Russians, it is 

that simple. 

Do you still adhere to that statement? Is that still true in your 

mind today? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I have mentioned before in a 

previous questioning about my statements, as a private citizen before I joined the Department of Justice, those were made based on 

publicly available information, and I had no inside information. I 

did not know the details of the investigation. I obviously know the 

traditions of the Department of Justice, the rules and regulations, 

and I will continue to follow those as I exercise the duties of Acting 

Attorney General. 

Mr. BIGGS. I remember the answer that you gave to a similar 

question but not this question here, and so that is not what I am 

asking. What I am asking is, as we sit here today, a year and a 

half later, has your opinion changed from what you stated June 21, 

2017? Has it changed? That is a simple question. That is not hard. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, the special counsel’s investigation 

is an ongoing investigation, and I am not going to characterize that 

investigation or give you my opinion of that investigation as I sit 

here today. 

Mr. BIGGS. So the scope memo indicates that the scope of the 

Mueller investigation was any links and/or coordination between 

the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump and, two, any matters that arose 

or may arise directly from that investigation. Has that scope been 

expanded in any way? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I was discussing with Representative Jordan, I am not going to talk about the scope—— 

52 

Mr. BIGGS. Okay. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Of the special counsel—— 

Mr. BIGGS. Then I will go forward, then, and say the indictments 

and the relation to the scope: One, Papadopoulos for false statements occurring after Mueller was appointed; Manafort for acts unrelated to the election or campaign; Gates, acts unrelated to the 

election or the campaign; Flynn, false statements about post-election conversations; Richard Pinedo, unrelated to the campaign or 

election; Cohen, referred by Mueller to Southern District of New 

York because it was out of his scope; Sam Patten, not related to 

the 2016 election or campaign; and Stone for false statements occurring after Mueller was appointed. Not one indictment alleged an 

illegal relationship between a member of the Trump campaign and 

Russia, and that is consistent with what we have seen so far. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Acting AG, I actually wanted to ask you some questions regarding what you did prior to being Acting AG. It is my understanding that before you moved to the Department of Justice, that 

you were the Executive Director of the Foundation for Accountability—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I have a point of 

order. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. 

Ms. BASS. FACT is a conservative ethics watchdog—— 

Mr. COLLINS. I have a point of order. 

Ms. BASS [continuing]. He made full use of the opportunity to 

call for investigations of multiple Democrats. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman will state his point of order. 

Mr. COLLINS. My point of order about the statement from the 

gentlelady is outside of the scope of an oversight investigative hearing of the Department of Justice. 

Ms. BASS. It is not. You need to let me finish my question, and 

you will see what I was asking. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentlelady will suspend. 

That is not a valid point of order. The gentlelady will continue. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order rule pursuant to the House rules that the question is outside the scope of—— 

Chairman NADLER. The gentlelady has the floor. 

Mr. COLLINS. Are you just going to override a point of order? 

Ms. BASS. Yeah, because your point of order is not valid. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentlelady will suspend. I ruled that it 

was not a valid point of order, and the gentlelady has the floor. 

The gentlelady will continue. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. I was not through with my point of order. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentlelady will continue. 

Mr. COLLINS. Appeal the ruling of the chair. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Move to table. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I move to table. 

53 

Chairman NADLER. The motion to table the appeal of the ruling 

of the Chair is before the committee. Motion to table is not debatable. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

One moment while we set up the clerk. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, may I make a unanimous consent 

request while we are waiting for this vote? 

Chairman NADLER. The clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman NADLER. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Chairman votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye. 

Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Cohen votes aye. 

Mr. Johnson? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Deutch? 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Deutch votes aye. 

Ms. Bass? 

Ms. BASS. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Bass votes aye. 

Mr. Richmond? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Richmond votes aye. 

Mr. Jeffries? 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Jeffries votes aye. 

Mr. Cicilline? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 

Mr. Swalwell? 

Mr. SWALWELL. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. 

Mr. Lieu? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Raskin? 

Mr. RASKIN. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Raskin votes aye. 

Ms. Jayapal? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mrs. Demings? 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mrs. Demings votes aye. 

Mr. Correa? 

Mr. CORREA. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Correa votes aye. 

Ms. Scanlon? 

Ms. SCANLON. Aye. 

54 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Scanlon votes aye. 

Ms. Garcia? 

Ms. GARCIA. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Garcia votes aye. 

Mr. Neguse? 

Mr. NEGUSE. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Neguse votes aye. 

Mrs. McBath? 

Mrs. MCBATH. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mrs. McBath votes aye. 

Mr. Stanton? 

Mr. STANTON. Aye 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Stanton votes aye. 

Ms. Dean? 

Ms. DEAN. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Dean votes aye. 

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell? 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes aye. 

Ms. Escobar? 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Escobar votes aye. 

Mr. Collins? 

Mr. COLLINS. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Collins votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Chabot? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Gohmert? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Jordan? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Buck? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Ratcliffe? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mrs. Roby? 

Mrs. ROBY. Nay. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mrs. Roby votes nay. 

Mr. Gaetz? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Johnson? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Biggs? 

Mr. BIGGS. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Biggs votes no. 

Mr. McClintock? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. McClintock votes no. 

Mrs. Lesko? 

Mrs. LESKO. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mrs. Lesko votes no. 

Mr. Reschenthaler? 

55 

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Reschenthaler votes no. 

Mr. Cline? 

Mr. CLINE. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Cline votes no. 

Mr. Armstrong? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. No. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Armstrong votes no. 

Mr. Steube? 

[No response.] 

Chairman NADLER. Is there any member of the committee who 

hasn’t voted who wishes to vote? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman NADLER. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. 

Chairman NADLER. Is there any other member who hasn’t voted 

who wishes to vote? 

The clerk will report. 

Ms. MCELVEIN. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 21, the noes are 8. 

Chairman NADLER. In that case, the motion to table is adopted. 

We return to Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Whitaker, during the time that you were the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, you recommended that—FACT called for ethics investigations into, or filed 

complaints about, the following Democratic politicians, officials, 

and organizations: the Democratic National Committee, Hillary 

Clinton, John Kerry, Speaker Pelosi, Representatives Ami Bera, 

Huffman, Lewis. In fact, the organization actually called for an investigation into a member of this committee, Representative Hank 

Johnson. 

So that is a total of about 46 individuals or organizations that 

over the time period when you were the executive director of FACT 

you called for either ethics investigations or filed complaints. 

So, since you have joined the AG’s office, I want to know whether 

or not any investigations have been initiated into those people 

and—well, just answer that. Yes or no, have there been investigations initiated into the people that you suggested be investigated 

during the time you were the ED of FACT? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I was the Executive Director of 

the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust. We were an 

independent, nonpartisan ethics watchdog group. We did file ethics 

complaints against Members of both parties. 

Ms. BASS. You filed ethics complaints against Republicans? Can 

you tell me which Republicans you filed ethics complaints against? 

Mr. WHITAKER. All of—again, you know, I am here for an oversight hearing, and I cannot imagine—— 

Ms. BASS. Yes, you are, and so my questions are leading to that. 

So can you answer that? Which Republicans did you file or ask for 

ethics investigations of? 

56 

Mr. WHITAKER. The nice thing about being an ethics watchdog 

group is that FACT filed all of its complaints on its website, and 

I would refer you to that. 

Ms. BASS. I don’t have time to look into the website. I am asking 

you a question now. You were the Executive Director. Which Republicans did you file? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, again, I—as I sit here today, all 

I can do is refer you to the website—— 

Ms. BASS. Okay. So, let me just ask this. Since you have been 

at the—— 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Of the Foundation for Accountability 

and Civic Trust. 

Ms. BASS. Since you have been in the DOJ, have any complaints 

been initiated against the 46 Democrats, either individuals or organizations, in the time that you have been the Acting AG? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, as I sit here today, I am not 

aware of any, but, obviously, if I had recommended as the executive 

director of FACT that someone be investigated, I would—and my 

recommendation was adopted by the Department of Justice, I am 

certain that I could not be involved in that investigation. 

Ms. BASS. You are certain, but you don’t know whether you—did 

you recuse yourself of any? 

Mr. WHITAKER. You know, recusal decisions—I think this is important for everyone to understand, is recusal decisions are made 

based on a matter—— 

Ms. BASS. Let me move on. I wanted to ask questions about ethics guidance that you received in December. Did they recommend 

that you recuse yourself from any involvement in the criminal investigation into the World Patent Marketing, the fraudulent patent 

promotion scam to which you still owe almost $10,000 to the court? 

Did they provide an ethics opinion, or did you not seek one related 

to the World Patent Marketing matter? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Just to be clear, Congresswoman, who do you 

mean by ‘‘they’’? Do you mean the ethics officials? 

Ms. BASS. I am asking you, what guidance—did they recommend 

that you recuse yourself? So that is a question to you. Did they recommend that you recuse yourself from any involvement in the 

criminal investigation into the World Patent Marketing? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am recused from the investigation into that 

company. 

Ms. BASS. What about any matter involving Hillary Clinton? It 

has been well documented of your public calls for renewed investigations into matters related to Mrs. Clinton. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again, any investigations into former Secretary 

Clinton, if they are open—confirmation or denial of a recusal would 

suggest that there is or is not an investigation regarding that person. 

Ms. BASS. You know, I actually believe I have more time on the 

clock since I was interrupted. 

Chairman NADLER. I am informed we paused the time. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. 

Go ahead. Continue. 

Mr. WHITAKER. What I am saying is your inquiry about whether 

or not I am recused from any matter concerning former Secretary 

57 

Clinton would, by its very nature, suggest that there is an open 

matter regarding Secretary Clinton. 

Any recusal decision that I would make would be based on what 

the matter was, and we would go through the exact same analysis 

that I went through in the case of the special counsel’s investigation. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Chairman NADLER. At the request of a number of people, the 

Committee will stand in recess for 5 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman NADLER. The Committee will come to order. We will 

resume questioning the witness under the 5-minute rule. 

Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whitaker, I am sure you would agree that the appearance 

of favoritism or partisanship by law enforcement agencies is absolutely deadly to a Nation that is founded upon the principle of 

equal justice under law. If law enforcement agencies are perceived 

to be biased or partisan, I think faith in them and in our system 

of justice can quickly collapse. And I am concerned about many 

alarming developments in the conduct of the FBI and the Department of Justice that call its impartiality into question. 

I have been reading Gregg Jarrett’s book on the Comey investigation into the Clinton emails and the Uranium One deal and the 

Mueller investigation into the Trump campaign. And in it, Mr. 

Jarrett meticulously documents case after case of political bias by 

the FBI, of illegal conduct at the highest levels of the Department 

of Justice, destruction of evidence, possible obstruction of justice by 

Mr. Comey himself, perjury by top DOJ officials, prosecutorial misconduct and political bias throughout Mueller’s team. 

Now, if the Russia investigation was initiated because of a patently false dossier, why aren’t we seeing an equally aggressive investigation into these very meticulously documented charges? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as you mentioned at the beginning, we do conduct our investigations independent of political interference at the Department of Justice. The—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That is not what—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Let me finish. Let me finish. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK [continuing]. The preponderance of the evidence is telling me from sources such as this one. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, and specifically related to the document 

you just described, that is the subject of an Inspector General’s review, investigation, together with the U.S. attorney from the District of Utah, that was appointed by General Sessions to look into 

and review certain matters that this Committee had asked be reviewed. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Can we expect a full, complete, and aggressive 

investigation of charges of wrongdoing by officials in the FBI and 

the Department of Justice on these matters? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I can assure you that any allegation of misconduct by an employee of the Department of Justice 

will be looked into thoroughly. 

58 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, I think back to the Lois Lerner scandal, 

and that never was addressed. Why should I be more confident in 

your assurances now? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I was a private citizen when the 

Lois Lerner situation occurred. In fact, it occurred mostly under 

the previous administration. I know that General Sessions did a review of that matter before I was chief of staff. So I really don’t have 

any visibility, as I sit here today as Acting Attorney General, as 

to what happened in that situation. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Let me talk about the apparent double standard and disproportionate show of force in cases like the arrest of 

Roger Stone. 

As I understand it, Stone’s attorneys were in constant contact 

with the Department of Justice. He is 66 years old, doesn’t own any 

firearms, and yet he was the subject of a pre-dawn raid by 29 combat-armed officers. 

And as Mr. Jordan has pointed out, CNN was obviously tipped 

off to have cameras there. And, in fact, they arrived to set up before the raid began. They were allowed to stay to film the entire 

spectacle, despite the fact the public was kept out, ostensibly because the FBI was so concerned of violence by this 66-year-old unarmed man in this pre-dawn raid. 

You compare that to cases like Bob Menendez, who was allowed 

to quietly turn himself in. The obvious explanation is that this was 

a political act whose purpose was to terrify anyone thinking of 

working in the Trump campaign in the future. Again, it harkens 

back to the conduct of the IRS, terrifying rank-and-file Tea Party 

members with tax audits because of their political views. 

How do you explain this, and what are you doing about it? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, this is a very serious situation 

that you raise, but just know that the FBI makes arrests in a manner most likely to ensure the safety of its agents and of the person 

being arrested. The FBI must also consider—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well—— 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. The safety of the surrounding community. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK [continuing]. I mean, how do you explain the 

discrepancy between the way Roger Stone was treated and the way 

Bob Menendez was treated? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again, the arrest team has to consider numerous 

factors in making the judgment as to how to conduct the operation. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Do you at least understand the appearance of 

impropriety that that projects to the country and undermines the 

faith that the American people have in their justice system and in 

its detachment from politics? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I cannot provide the details in this 

open hearing without revealing what factors the FBI considers in 

those decisions. And, obviously, that information could be used to 

put other FBI agents conducting other operations in harm’s way. 

What I can assure you, Congressman, is that the FBI is prepared 

to brief this matter, on the decisions that were made in that particular arrest, in a closed session of this committee. 

Chairman NADLER. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. Richmond? 

59 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whitaker, the DOJ was created in 1957 under the Civil 

Rights Act, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I believe—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. It was. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Grant signed the Department of Justice—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. No, no, no, no, no. It was. We are just not going 

to do all this delay stuff. It was. 

And it was created to protect against discrimination based on 

race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status, and national origin. Wouldn’t you agree? 

Mr. WHITAKER. You are talking about the Civil Rights Division 

specifically? 

Mr. RICHMOND. No. DOJ. 

Mr. WHITAKER. The Department of Justice was set up to—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. You know what? Never mind. Let’s keep going. 

You were Chief of Staff when Jeff Sessions testified in this committee in 2017, correct? November. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I was. And, in fact, I sat right behind him—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. Right. That is exactly where I am going. Because 

do you remember me asking him a question about diversity in leadership in DOJ and the fact that they had no African Americans in 

leadership at DOJ? 

Do you have any African Americans at the top leadership in the 

Department of Justice? 

Mr. WHITAKER. If the Senate confirms my friend Don Washington to be head of the U.S. Marshals, which I believe is pending 

on the floor of the Senate currently, then the answer to that question would be yes. 

But as we sit here today, I do not believe—but what do you consider the leadership of the Department of Justice? 

Mr. RICHMOND. The hierarchy with people responding to them, 

head of a division, Deputy Attorney Generals. If you look at the 

flowchart, the upper echelon. 

So think about the image to me. DOJ created to protect civil 

rights and advocate for all. We have had the last two Attorney 

Generals come here; not one of them thought they could find, or did 

find, an African American at DOJ to bring with them. And you are 

charged with enforcing civil rights and making people feel that you 

are fighting for equality. 

You mentioned Charlottesville and charging the person with 30 

counts, and I applaud you for that. Do you believe that in Charlottesville there were good people on both sides? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I think the act, while it is, you 

know, again, part of an ongoing prosecution, I can tell you—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. Let me just say this. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. The act was charged as a hate 

crime—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. I agree with you, and I applaud you—— 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Heinous act. 

Mr. RICHMOND. I applaud you for that. But that is one individual. I am asking you, in general, do you believe that there were 

60 

good people that were protesting and there were good people that 

were anti-protesters? So I am talking about the people—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman—— 

Mr. RICHMOND [continuing]. Marching with lights—I mean, the 

tiki torches and the chants. Do you think that some of them were 

good people, is the short question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, there is no place in a civil society 

for hate, for white supremacy, or for white nationalism. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you. 

Also, out of the 115,000 employees that you have at DOJ, are any 

of them transgender? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I sit here today, I don’t know 

the answer to that question. I could imagine that generally, based 

on the way the population is distributed, that we would. I would 

also be happy to get back to you with that answer if those people 

identify that way. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Would you have a problem with a transgender 

person being from a clerk to an agent in the field for any of your 

law enforcement agencies? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you. 

You mentioned also that voter fraud is of a serious concern. How 

many voter fraud cases have you all initiated? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I mentioned in previous questioning, I am happy to get those specific details back to you. As I 

sit here today, I don’t know off the top of my head. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Is it a lot? Is it a few? I mean, we are talking 

about a serious concern in the United States of America. I would 

think we are talking over 100. Are we talking less than 25? Just— 

but if you don’t know a ballpark, I am fine with that. 

What about North Carolina? Because that is the only congressional seat that has not been determined because of widespread 

voter suppression in that race. Has the DOJ—have they opened an 

investigation in that? And if they have, I guess you can’t talk about 

it. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. But are you looking at that? 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. While I can’t talk about open investigations—and I appreciate your acknowledging that there might 

be open investigations—I am very aware of what is happening in 

North Carolina. We have previously done voting rights cases in 

North Carolina. And we are watching that situation very carefully. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, I don’t want to go over my time, and I 

guess in the last 12 seconds I would just implore you to implore 

which will now be the third Attorney General during this term that 

after 2 years we should be doing better with diversity in the Department of Justice. And I am talking, more specifically, black and 

brown people and women. I applaud you for having one woman 

with you, but the DOJ should look like the country. And you all 

have been here twice, and it is not a fair representation of what 

makes this country great. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Cline? 

61 

Oh, I am sorry. I am sorry. 

Mrs. Lesko? 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you. 

You know, I have to say that I am very disappointed in this 

hearing. You know, I ran for Congress to get things done. And at 

the beginning of this, you know, we were told that this is about 

asking about DOJ oversight and some legitimate questions. And 

here we are. It is nothing but character assassination, harassment 

of our witness. And it is really disappointing. 

At first, I was mad. I have to tell you, when this thing started 

hours ago, I went outside, and a reporter asked me, ‘‘What do you 

think of the hearing?’’, and I said, ‘‘It is a joke.’’ 

But now I am just sad. I am sad. Because we were on the floor 

just a little while ago talking about how we were honoring our late 

Representative Dingell and talking about bipartisanship and how 

we need to get things done. And yet here we are with a blatant political show that doesn’t help anything. I imagine if American people are watching this right now, they would be shaking their heads, 

like, what are you doing there? We need to work together to get 

things done. 

And so that is my statement, but I do have a question for Mr. 

Whitaker about DOJ oversight. 

Following the New York Governor Cuomo’s support of abortion 

up to the moment of birth and Governor Northam of Virginia’s 

comments indicating support of an action which, in my opinion, relates to infanticide, are you concerned about some of these actions 

of late that implicate the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act that 

criminalizes gruesome procedures? I mean, I am getting really concerned that this is violating the law. And has DOJ looked into this? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, as an American citizen, I am very concerned. 

Mrs. LESKO. And can you also tell me—I read recently a Wall 

Street Journal opinion piece. It was from 2018. And in that, it said, 

in New York City, thousands of more black babies are aborted than 

born alive each year. And my grandkids are African American. 

And so, you know, if there was a crime occurring in this country 

that exceeded the number of deaths from cancer, heart disease, 

AIDS, accidents combined, which abortions do, is that something 

that the DOJ would get involved in and be concerned about and try 

to stop? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, every life is valuable. And while 

I can’t wade into the political issue that you raise, the members of 

this committee have a lot of power as to how we value life and how 

we enforce the laws at the Department of Justice. 

And this is an issue that I know there is a lot of passion about, 

and I appreciate your passion, and it is something that we actually 

share together. And if you look at my statements previous to joining the Department of Justice, especially during the 2014 campaign 

for the United States Senate, I was very outspoken in this regard. 

But as I sit here as Acting Attorney General, I think it would 

be inappropriate for me to comment more fulsomely on this issue. 

But we are going to enforce the laws that Congress passes, and we 

are going to hold those accountable that violate the law. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you. 

62 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Jeffries? 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Whitaker, thank you for your presence here 

today. 

This hearing is important because there are many Americans 

throughout the country who are confused. I am confused. I really 

am. We are all trying to figure out: Who are you, where did you 

come from, and how the heck did you become the head of the Department of Justice? So hopefully you can help me work through 

this confusion. 

Mr. WHITAKER. All right, well, I mean, Congressman—— 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Whitaker, that was a statement, not a question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Okay. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I assume you know the difference. 

The investigation into possible Trump-Russia collusion in the 

2016 election has resulted in 37 indictments. Is that correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I believe that number is correct, but most of 

those folks were Russian citizens. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thirty-four individuals have been indicted, true? 

Mr. WHITAKER. While I haven’t counted those as I prepared for 

my hearing preparation, I believe those are consistent with the 

numbers as I know them. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Three corporate entities have been indicted, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I believe so. Correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. The investigation has identified 199 different 

criminal acts. True? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I haven’t counted every indictment, but that 

sounds consistent with what I understand. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. There have been seven guilty pleas, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, there have been seven guilty pleas. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Four people have already been sentenced to prison. True? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I believe so, but, again, I do not have this information in front of me. So, to the extent that I disagree with you, 

it is because these are facts—— 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Understood. Thank you. 

Trump’s best friend, Roger Stone, was recently indicted for lying 

to Congress in connection with his possible involvement with 

WikiLeaks and Russian interference with the 2016 election, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes. And I mentioned Mr. Stone’s indictment and 

arrest. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Trump’s Campaign Chairman, Paul Manafort, pled 

guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States. True? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Manafort did plead guilty, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Trump’s Deputy Campaign Manager, Rick Gates, 

has pled guilty to lying to the FBI, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. While I don’t have the indictment in front of me, 

I have no reason to disagree with you. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, has been guilty to lying to the FBI, correct? 

63 

Mr. WHITAKER. That is a true fact, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Trump’s longtime personal attorney and 

consigliere, Michael Cohen, pled guilty to lying to Congress about 

the Trump real estate organization’s Moscow project. Is that true? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I believe that was one of the bases for his plea 

agreement. I actually—there were several other reasons that Mr. 

Cohen pled guilty. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Trump’s campaign foreign policy advisor, George 

Papadopoulos, has pled guilty to lying to Federal investigators 

about his contacts with Russian agents during the 2016 campaign. 

True? 

Mr. WHITAKER. While I am sure there are many who would disagree with the title that you put on Mr. Papadopoulos, it is true 

that he has pled guilty, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. So, despite all of the evidence of criminal wrongdoing that has been uncovered, do you still believe that the Mueller 

investigation is a lynch mob? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, can you tell me specifically where 

I said that? 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I would be happy to. So, in a tweet that you issued 

on August 6 of 2017, you made reference to ‘‘Note to Trump’s lawyer: Do not cooperate with Mueller’s lynch mob.’’ Do you recall 

that? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I recall that I said—that I retweeted an article 

that was titled that. I did not necessarily agree with that position, 

but my point was that it was an interesting read for those that 

want to understand the situation. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Reclaiming my time. 

Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Cohen, Papadopoulos, and Stone are all 

in deep trouble. One by one, all of the President’s men are going 

down in flames. It is often said, where there is smoke, there is fire. 

There is a lot of smoke emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

right now. 

Yet you decided not to recuse yourself. Is that right? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, the decision to recuse was my decision to make. I looked at all of the information, I consulted with 

many people that I have discussed today, and I determined that it 

was not necessary for me to recuse. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And Donald Trump considered the Sessions 

recusal to be a betrayal. Is that right? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I have no idea, as I sit here today, 

what the President believed about General Sessions’ recusal. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay, so let’s be clear. The investigation into Russia’s attack on our democracy is not a witch hunt, it is not a fishing 

expedition, it is not a hoax, it is not a lynch mob. It is a national 

security imperative. The fact that people suggest otherwise comes 

dangerously close to providing aid and comfort to the enemy. 

In your final week, keep your hands off the Mueller investigation. 

I yield back. 

Chairman NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline. 

Mr. CLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Acting Attorney General. 

64 

I was hopeful that we would get into some oversight over the 

array of areas of the Department of Justice that are so critical and 

so important to addressing the problems that are facing my community. Drugs, crime—all of these issues are of top concern to my 

constituents. 

And one of the most important things that I hear about when I 

get back to my district is, are you going to keep the government 

operating? Can you reach an agreement on immigration issues? 

So when we talk about immigration, I can ask you a couple of 

questions that would probably help get to an immigration agreement. 

The backlog of pending cases in immigration courts nationwide 

have been growing exponentially since 2008, from fewer than 

200,000 cases in 2008 to more than 800,000. And Border Patrol is 

currently apprehending almost 50,000 aliens each month, a certain 

percentage of which ends up in that same pending-case backlog. 

And in the face of this backlog, what steps is DOJ taking to ensure that its immigration judges can efficiently and effectively adjudicate cases and reduce this backlog of pending cases in a fair 

and efficient manner? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Thank you, Congressman. This is an important 

issue to the Department of Justice, and our immigration judges 

work hard every day to adjudicate those cases. But, quite frankly, 

the number of immigration judges we have have been overwhelmed 

by the number of asylum seekers. 

Over 80 percent, and really over 90 percent, of those that are encountered at the border and detained and arrested claim some form 

of asylum. Ultimately, that causes those folks to be put into the immigration court system and then requires that a hearing be held 

by an immigration judge. 

And, meanwhile, most of these folks, those 800,000 that are 

pending, are not part of the detained docket; they are part of the 

released docket. And those cases take longer, the ones that are not 

detained, the nondetained docket. And they have caused since 2008 

that number to go dramatically up. 

What we have done about that situation is General Sessions and 

I have issued Attorney General orders changing some of the specifics as to how those cases are adjudicated. And, in addition, we 

have, together with the help of Congress—which you have authorized and funded more immigration judges—we have put a dramatic 

number of more judges especially to the areas where it is needed, 

which is oftentimes at the border. 

Mr. CLINE. So you have also put in place an additional performance metric to gauge the performance of judges working to complete cases and reduce the backlog. Are those working? 

And you have gotten pushback from groups who are concerned 

that they amount to case quotas. And if they are working, are you 

aware of any organization in which productivity of its workers isn’t 

assessed as one part of a multidimensional performance review? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes. In fact, government-wide, where there are 

administrative law judges, similar to our immigration judges, there 

are typically performance metrics that are in place to not only 

evaluate their productivity but also to budget and manage that 

workforce. 

65 

Mr. CLINE. And what are you doing to ensure that continuances 

in immigration cases are not abused and are granted solely for 

good cause? 

Mr. WHITAKER. We issued an Attorney General order which set 

the standard, which had been different based on what the immigration appeals board, which is an internal—the Board of Immigration 

Appeals, which is an internal DOJ body that the Attorney General 

sits over. We have passed rules and regulations and a new standard for issuing those continuances for good cause, as you mentioned. 

Mr. CLINE. All right. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

I will now yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would ask unanimous consent that the following articles be 

placed in the record. 

The first is an article entitled ‘‘Exclusive: Trump Loyalist Matthew Whitaker Was Counseling the White House on Investigating 

Clinton.’’ 

The second article, ‘‘Sessions Replacement Matthew Whitaker 

Called Mueller’s Appointment ‘Ridiculous’ and ‘a Little Fishy.’ ’’ 

The third article, All the Times Robert Mueller’s New Boss 

Railed Against the Russia Probe.’’ ‘‘Trump’s Pick to Replace Jeff 

Sessions Once Said Mueller Investigation Risked Becoming a 

‘Witch Hunt.’ ’’ 

And, finally, an article entitled ‘‘Trump’s New Acting Attorney 

General Once Mused About Defunding Robert Mueller.’’ 

Chairman NADLER. Without objection, these documents will be 

placed in the record. 

[The information follows:] 

66 

MR. CICILLINE FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD 

67 


Insert offset folio 144 here 36001A.013
68 


Insert offset folio 145 here 36001A.014
69 


Insert offset folio 146 here 36001A.015
70 


Insert offset folio 147 here 36001A.016
71 


Insert offset folio 148 here 36001A.017
72 


Insert offset folio 149 here 36001A.018
73 


Insert offset folio 150 here 36001A.019
74 


Insert offset folio 151 here 36001A.020
75 


Insert offset folio 152 here 36001A.021
76 


Insert offset folio 153 here 36001A.022
77 


Insert offset folio 154 here 36001A.023
78 


Insert offset folio 155 here 36001A.024
79 


Insert offset folio 156 here 36001A.025
80 


Insert offset folio 157 here 36001A.026
81 


Insert offset folio 158 here 36001A.027
82 


Insert offset folio 159 here 36001A.028
83 


Insert offset folio 160 here 36001A.029
84 


Insert offset folio 161 here 36001A.030
85 

Chairman NADLER. I now recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITAKER, I am going to be really straight with you up 

front. I am going to cut you off if you make long speeches. We have 

very limited time. You do not need to thank me for asking the 

question or compliment me that it is a good one. I will assume they 

are all good questions and you are grateful. 

One, you were briefed by the special counsel. You have acknowledged that. Did you share that information with any members of 

your staff, the information you learned in that briefing from the 

special counsel or his team? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I previously testified, there was 

one other individual in that briefing with—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. And who was that individual? 

Mr. WHITAKER. It is the U.S. attorney from the Eastern District 

of California who I brought on—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. What is the name of the individual, Mr. 

Whitaker? 

Mr. WHITAKER. His name is Gregg Scott. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Did you communicate any information you 

learned in those briefings to other members of your staff? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I don’t believe so, no. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Do you know whether any information that you 

learned in those briefings were communicated to anyone at the 

White House? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I mentioned previously, Congressman, we 

have a kept a very close—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Whitaker, it is a ‘‘yes’’ or a ‘‘no.’’ Do you know 

whether it was communicated to anybody at the White House? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I sit here today? I don’t know whether it was 

communicated, but I do not believe Mr. Scott or I—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Did you put into place any restrictions or limitations or instructions to your staff not to share this information with 

anyone at the White House or the President’s legal team? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, together with the general standard that investigative information and materials are need-to-know and law 

enforcement—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. 

Did the President lash out at you after Michael Cohen’s guilty 

plea for lying to Congress about a Trump Organization project to 

build a tower in Moscow? 

Mr. WHITAKER. The President specifically tweeted that he had 

not lashed out. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I am asking you, Mr. Whitaker, did the President 

lash out at you? I am not asking what he tweeted. I don’t have a 

lot of confidence in the veracity of his tweets. I am asking you 

under oath. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, that is based on an unsubstantiated—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Sir, answer the question ‘‘yes’’’ or ‘‘no.’’ Did the 

President lash out to you about Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, he did not. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And did anyone from the White House or anyone 

on the President’s behalf lash out at you? 

86 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Whitaker, did the President lash out to you 

on or about December 8th, 2018, to discuss a case before the Southern District of New York where he was identified as Individual 

One? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, Congressman. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Did anyone on the President’s behalf, either inside the White House or outside the White House, contact you to 

lash out or express dissatisfaction? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Did they contact me to lash out? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes. Did they reach out to you in some way to express dissatisfaction? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. 

Did you ever share the questions that Mr. Nadler forwarded to 

you prior to this hearing with anyone at the White House or the 

President’s legal counsel? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I did not. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So when you claimed earlier that you were going 

to invoke a privilege, you were invoking a privilege about questions 

the President hasn’t even seen. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, to be clear, I am not invoking any 

privilege. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Well, you said earlier in your written testimony 

that you would not answer questions about your conversations with 

the President, did you not? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, I did. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So you are not sitting here today saying the President has instructed you not to answer a question, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am not sitting here today saying that the President has instructed—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. So then you are prepared to answer all these 

questions? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I think I was pretty explicit in my 

opening statement—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. So have you spoken to the President, Mr. 

Whitaker, about the Mueller investigation? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I previously testified, I did not 

talk to the President about the Mueller investigation. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Have you ever spoken to the President or parts 

of his legal team about information that you learned in your capacity as Acting Attorney General related to the Mueller investigation 

or any other criminal investigation involving the President? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, while I have specifically been saying that I am not going to comment about my conversations with 

the President or his senior staff, I have also been very clear that 

the President has not instructed me to do anything—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. That wasn’t my question. My question is, have 

you had conversations about what you learned? That is a ‘‘yes’’ or 

a ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I have—I spend all day every day 

talking—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Whitaker, my question is very specific. Have 

you spoken to the President or his legal team about what you have 

87 

learned in the Mueller investigation or the related criminal investigations that may involve the President? Yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I specifically answered earlier 

to a question—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Whitaker, you are clearly not going to answer 

the question, so I am going to move on. 

You know Professor John Barrett, correct? 

Well, anyway, this is a law school professor who tweeted that you 

told him in June of 2017 that you were flying out from Iowa to 

New York City to be on CNN regularly because you were hoping 

to be noticed as a Trump defender and, through that, to get a 

Trump judicial appointment back in Iowa. 

You then went on to describe the Mueller appointment of the 

special counsel as ridiculous and a little fishy, that Mueller investigating Trump’s finances would be going too far, that there was no 

criminal obstruction of justice charge to be had against President 

Trump, that there was no collusion with the Russians in the 

Trump campaign, that any candidate would have taken the same 

meeting as Donald Trump Jr. with the Russian lawyer; and, finally, that a replacement for Sessions could have reduced Mueller’s 

budget so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt. 

You said all those things, and they are all in print. And it answers Mr. Deutch’s question. The American people wonder, just 

how is it that Mr. Whitaker becomes the Acting Attorney General 

of the United States in violation of existing statutes? Was he put 

there for a particular purpose? 

That wasn’t a question. It is a statement. 

I yield back. 

Chairman NADLER. I observe that the time of the gentleman has 

expired. Who is next? 

Mr. Reschenthaler is recognized. 

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Whitaker, for being here today. 

I just want to quickly reference the letter that was sent to you 

from the chair on January 9th. In this letter, in the Chairman’s 

own words, it said that this committee was here to, quote/unquote, 

‘‘conduct oversight of the Department.’’ 

In this letter, there are also important other topics that were 

supposed to be discussed here today, like immigration, gun violence, the Violence Against Women Act, ObamaCare, national security. And that is not even the complete list. I know you read the 

letter. 

I was excited to be here. I thought these were critically important issues that affected constituents in my district and millions of 

Americans. And, frankly, a lot of these issues are life-and-death. 

So I am really confused as I sit here today in this hearing with 

my Democrat colleagues focused solely on one topic, and that is the 

Mueller investigation. I really hoped that my friends across the 

aisle would have used this opportunity for more bipartisanship and 

less showmanship, but clearly I was wrong. 

With that said, I want to get to some of the important topics that 

we were supposed to have focused on today. One of those is sanctuary cities. 

88 

In my home State of Pennsylvania, the sanctuary city of Philadelphia has released at least three child molesters back onto the 

streets. And everyone knows the tragic story of 32-year-old Kate 

Steinle, who was murdered by an illegal immigrant who was convicted of seven felonies and deported five times. 

Now, those child molesters in Philadelphia, the murderer of Kate 

Steinle, they were all released because some city wanted to score 

cheap political points. And that is why I am focused on ending 

sanctuary cities. 

Mr. Whitaker, what steps is the DOJ taking to end the dangerous practice of sanctuary cities? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, first of all, we are ending taxpayer-funded 

grants to sanctuary jurisdictions. 

Attorney General Sessions announced new conditions for our 

Byrne/JAG grants that will increase information-sharing between 

Federal, State, and local law enforcement to ensure public safety. 

I don’t know if the Congressman knows this, but one of the challenges we have is, in a sanctuary jurisdiction, jails will release convicted criminals back into the community instead of informing Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the person is available to 

be picked up at the jail. 

It is an incredibly dangerous situation to make an ICE officer go 

into a community to try to arrest somebody that is here illegally 

and has been convicted of a crime, oftentimes crimes like you mentioned. And I cannot imagine a situation where a mayor or a city 

council or a county executive or otherwise would put law enforcement officers in harm’s way. 

It is, quite frankly, bad policy, and we are going to work very 

hard to end it. And one of the ways we are ending it is by taking 

away the resources to those jurisdictions that have that policy. 

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. 

Mr. Whitaker, I have one more question regarding the opioid crisis. This crisis is striking our country hard, particularly southwestern Pennsylvania. Data from 2017 shows that it is more likely 

now that someone is going to die of a drug overdose than a car 

crash. My district has been hit really hard. In particular, Fayette 

County saw an 88-percent increase in overdose deaths from 2015 

to 2017. 

What steps has the DOJ taken to address this shift? And do you 

think that a lot of the problems that we are seeing in these stats 

comes from a porous southern border? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I will address your second question first. I do believe that most illegal opioids, like fentanyl—nonprescription illegal 

opioids, like fentanyl, heroin, and their derivatives, are imported 

through our southern border. Some, not a majority, but some are 

also imported via direct mail—for example, an order off the dark 

net. 

I went through a list of things that the Department of Justice 

is doing to combat this opioid epidemic. I hope that this committee, 

while, you know, it is something I was prepared and wanted to talk 

about—and I appreciate the question—will look at other ways that 

we can put resources into the opioid crisis. 

Seventy-thousand people, as you mentioned, have died of drug 

overdoses. A majority of those are from some form of opioids. 

89 

And we also, quite frankly—and I mentioned my trip to China 

last August. We have to work together with the Chinese Government to reduce the inflow of fentanyl. And we also have to—you 

know, we have emergency scheduled right now the fentanyl 

analogs, but we need an act of Congress—and I hope that we can 

get that—to make that permanent, that these fentanyl derivatives 

and creative chemists that change the chemical makeup of fentanyl 

do not continue to try to evolve their drug to avoid our regulation. 

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman NADLER. Mr. Swalwell is recognized. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Whitaker, does your watchdog organization ever receive contributions from foreign donors? 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Mr. SWALWELL. I would ask to stop the clock. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman will suspend. 

The gentleman will state his point of order. 

Mr. COLLINS. My point of order—and I am going to go back to 

this, and, again, undoubtedly, that majority does not care, but this 

is outside the scope of this hearing. This was not while he was employed here. And whether he outside had donors or not during the 

time he was not employed, making no connection either way, is not 

inside the scope of this hearing. And that is not the call of this 

committee. 

Now, you know, look, I am outgunned over here. I have no votes. 

This is not part of the call of the hearing. 

Mr. Swalwell, there are plenty of things to do. 

And, Mr. Cicilline, you—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Collins, if you want to sit down there with 

his lawyers, you can go sit down there—— 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman—— 

Mr. SWALWELL [continuing]. But you are not his lawyer. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman will suspend. 

Mr. COLLINS. And neither are you, Mr. Swalwell. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman will—— 

Mr. COLLINS. And if you have any questions that are actually 

part of this, instead of running for President, damn near we could 

get this done. 

Mr. SWALWELL. You can sit down there. There is room. 

Chairman NADLER. Both gentlemen will suspend. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman has stated a point of order. 

The Chair will rule the point of order is not well-taken. The scope 

of people’s questioning, we afford a wide latitude. And we don’t 

even know where it is going at this point. The gentleman—so the 

gentleman’s point of order is not well-taken. 

The gentleman will resume. 

Mr. COLLINS. Appeal the ruling of the chair. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Move to table. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman appealed the Ruling of the 

Chair. The gentlelady moved to table. A move to table is not debatable. 

90 

The clerk will call the roll on the motion to table. 

STAFF. Voice vote. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman NADLER. Oh, let’s—call the roll—all in favor of tabling 

the resolution—I am sorry. All in favor of tabling the appeal of the 

ruling of the chair will say aye. 

Nay? 

The ayes have it. The appeal of the—the motion is tabled. 

The gentleman will continue. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Whitaker, does your organization have foreign contributions? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Just to be clear, are you talking about—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. What do you mean by my organization? 

Mr. SWALWELL. You led an organization called FACT. Did it receive foreign contributions while you were there? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I don’t actually know the answer to that. I do not 

believe, as I sit here today, that it did. But our main donor was 

a group that was a U.S. entity. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Did you interview with Don McGahn in July 

2017 to have the job that Ty Cobb would ultimately get? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I ultimately did not meet with Mr. McGahn, so— 

I met with his staff. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Did you talk with him on the phone? 

Mr. WHITAKER. You know, we actually never did end up talking 

on the phone either. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Who do you meet with on his staff? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I talked to Annie Donaldson from his staff, who 

was his Chief of Staff at the time. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And when you talked to Mr. McGahn’s Chief of 

Staff, did you express in that conversation your prior views about 

the Mueller investigation? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, I did not. In fact—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Was it brought up by the Chief of Staff? 

Mr. WHITAKER. In fact, at the time, Congressman, everyone at 

the White House did not want to talk about the special counsel’s 

investigation—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. But you were interviewing for a job that would 

respond to the special counsel’s investigation. Is that right? 

Mr. WHITAKER. At the time I was interviewing for the position 

that was ultimately occupied by Ty Cobb—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. But I want to understand how you could interview for a job that would respond to the special counsel investigation but you were not to talk at all about the special counsel investigation. How would they know—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, I said we didn’t talk about it. They did not 

want to talk about the investigation because the folks were dealing 

with that investigation. And that is why they wanted to bring in 

someone that had been unrelated to the investigation and the campaign—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Did they talk to you about your prior opinions 

about the Mueller investigation? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, we did not discuss it. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Has there been—— 

91 

Mr. WHITAKER. We discussed about my background as a United 

States attorney and my legal practice. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Has there been discussion at the Department 

about keeping the Mueller report from going to Congress? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. In fact, we are continuing to follow the special counsel regulations as it relates to the report. We haven’t received the report, but—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Has there been a draft opinion about keeping it 

from going to Congress? 

Mr. WHITAKER. You know, Congressman, I am not going to talk 

about the, kind of, ongoing investigation that is the special counsel. 

I will share with you that—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Whitaker, did Donald Trump ask you if you 

would recuse before you became Acting Attorney General? If that 

question came up, did he ask you what you would do? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I have already answered that 

question in my opening statement. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Do you believe Attorney General Sessions should 

have recused? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I mentioned in my answers previously, the 

recusal decision—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. No. Do you believe, yes or no, that he should 

have recused? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I actually, as I sit here today, I do not have an 

opinion. I believe he determined it was the right decision for him 

to make, and so I agree that he made the right decision for him. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Have there been any discussions at the Department about pardons for Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael 

Flynn, or Michael Cohen? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, we have a very well-worn system 

for—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. That the President doesn’t follow. But have there 

been discussions about pardons for those individuals that you are 

aware of, yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I have been Acting Attorney 

General, I have not been involved in any discussions of any pardons, even—and including the ones you are discussing. 

Mr. SWALWELL. You made a public statement last week that the 

investigation was nearly complete. Is that your characterization, or 

is that Bob Mueller’s characterization? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, that position that I mentioned last 

week in a press conference was my position as Acting Attorney 

General. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Would Bob Mueller, if sitting before us right 

now, agree with you? 

Mr. WHITAKER. You know, Congressman, Bob Mueller is going to 

finish his investigation when he wants to finish his investigation. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Is Mr. Mueller honest? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I have been on the record about 

my respect for Bob Mueller and his ability to conduct this investigation. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Do you believe he is honest, yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I have no reason to believe he is not honest, so, 

yes, I do believe he is honest. 

92 

Mr. SWALWELL. Do you believe he is conflicted, yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I mentioned regarding recusals, 

you know, sort of, the conflict analysis is for the individual lawyer 

to make once a matter is before them. And I am sure that whether 

it is Bob Mueller, whether it is Rod Rosenstein—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. But the President has called him conflicted. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Or anybody else at the Department 

of Justice—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. The President has called him conflicted, and you 

oversee the investigation. Do you believe that Mr. Mueller is conflicted? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as Acting Attorney General, I have 

followed regular order at the Department of Justice, and I have expected that the lawyers and the support staff and the agents that 

work for me follow regular order. And as I sit here today, I don’t 

have any reason to believe that. 

Mr. SWALWELL. So you don’t believe—you believe he is honest; 

you don’t believe he is conflicted. Can you say right now, ‘‘Mr. 

President, Bob Mueller is honest and not conflicted’’? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I am not a puppet to repeat what 

you are saying. I—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Are you able to say it, or do you not believe it? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I have answered your question as to what I believe about the special counsel. I stand by my prior statement. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Can you say it to the President, though? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I am not here to be a puppet to 

repeat terms and words that you say that I should say. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Can you say that to the President? 

Mr. COLLINS. Regular order. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Chair, he hasn’t answered that question. 

Chairman NADLER. Sorry? 

Mr. SWALWELL. He has not answered the question, if he would 

say that Mr. Mueller is honest and not conflicted to the President. 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The witness may answer the question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I don’t have anything further to add. I think I 

have answered the Congressman’s question. 

Chairman NADLER. That is a question for observers. 

The gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. ARMSTRONG. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Whitaker, you have obviously been Acting 

Attorney General during some fairly interesting times, and we 

have heard a lot about that today. But I also want to commend the 

Department of Justice, the FBI, the White House, and all other law 

enforcement who was involved in the FIRST STEP Act. 

This is a tremendous shift not just for the Department of Justice, 

not just for Republicans, and not just for Democrats. And it is the 

way government is supposed to work. It is supposed to show redemption; tough on traffickers, organized crime; and also work towards a smarter way to deliver criminal justice, particularly with 

addiction-related crimes. 

So my only hope is that, because it is called the FIRST STEP 

Act, there will be a second step. And if you ever—unfortunately, I 

have some other questions for you, so any time on your way out, 

93 

if you have any advice on something Congress can do to continue 

this momentum, I would be very, very appreciative. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, you know, Congressman, I was involved on 

behalf of the Department of Justice in the FIRST STEP Act. And 

I just want to commend everyone on this committee that worked 

on the FIRST STEP Act. To successfully get that passed and to get 

it through both the House and the Senate, I actually know how difficult that is. 

I think one of the things that we could use your help on is to 

make sure you fund the FIRST STEP Act and you have requested 

the Department of Justice to do. You know, we continue to implement the FIRST STEP Act consistent with the law that you passed. 

And, in fact, just last night, we sent out guidance to our U.S. attorneys offices on how to implement the FIRST STEP Act. And I know 

that the Bureau of Prisons, as well, is implementing the act. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. And I would hope to work towards having a 

Federal-level pretrial release program to be available to every 

State and county courthouse across the country. Because one of the 

great ironies I have always found about your pretrial release program is it is incredibly effective and then you get a 10-year minimum mandatory. 

So the pretrial release program at the Department of Justice and 

U.S. attorneys offices across this country is phenomenal, and they 

deserve to be credited for that. 

Mr. WHITAKER. And as a former United States attorney for 51⁄2

years in Des Moines, Iowa, I understand uniquely how pretrial release works. And so, you know, we would be interested in your proposal, and we will look at that and work with you carefully to try 

to implement something like that. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Now, in our role as oversight, I do actually have 

a question about something that has come up in the past and that, 

given the nature of the testimony today, very possibly could come 

up in the future. 

And I think, often, when we have names like Clinton and Comey 

and Rosenstein and Trump and Mueller and Russia, we forget that 

the law is the law. You testified earlier to Representative Jordan 

that we prosecute crimes, not people. And I think, often, across this 

country, we think laws apply differently to people depending on 

their status. 

And one of the areas where this came up—and it was something 

that concerned me before I was involved in this—is when we started talking about the difference between gross negligence and intent. And it was in a very particular statute, and we were dealing 

with it, and there were members of the FBI and the DOJ that were 

concerned about vagueness. 

But as far as I understand, in the Federal Code, particularly the 

Federal Criminal Code, gross negligence has the same definition 

approximately everywhere in the Criminal Code, right? 

Mr. WHITAKER. In my experience, your statement is generally 

correct, yes. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. So, if gross negligence would be vague under 

one particular statute of the Criminal Code, then we should be concerned that it is vague under every other criminal—other section 

of the Criminal Code. 

94 

Mr. WHITAKER. That is correct. And there is, for example, jury 

instructions that would, say, inform a jury as to how to evaluate 

a gross negligence standard to convict someone of a crime. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. And assuming that it wasn’t political in nature 

as to why gross negligence wasn’t looked forward in any particular 

case has—under your leadership under the DOJ, has anybody reviewed this, looked at it, and made any proposals to Congress particularly regarding whether or not we need to tighten up gross negligence language, not just let’s say in the Espionage Act but in any 

section of the Federal Criminal Code? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I sit here right now, I don’t know the answer 

to your question, but I would be happy to get back to you on that. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I would appreciate that. And just, again, under 

normal course of order, I am assuming it works the same as everywhere. Law enforcement agents—and I know a lot of FBI agents 

do have law degrees, but FBI agents investigate crimes, and then 

it goes up the food chain to the U.S. attorney’s office. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Remember, you need a predication to even open 

investigation, and that is the step that I think a lot of people forget. I mean, there are many steps along the way and when you 

conduct a criminal investigation—first, you have to predicate the 

investigation. Then it is investigated by the special agents that investigate the crimes. Typically an AUSA works with them to get, 

you know, search warrants and the like, and then, ultimately, a 

case is developed and presented to a grand jury, and that is 

charged. So, I mean, that is, you know—and then, again, there is 

a discovery process and a trial process. 

It is very well worn, and to, you know, go back to something you 

mentioned earlier, Congressman, all of that is done at the Department of Justice without interference, improper interference or interference based on a political nature. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, I am just concerned moving forward that 

we have this—I mean, everybody knows—and obviously this is hypertension and hyperpolitical, but I am very concerned moving forward that everybody knows what the rules of the game are as far 

as statutes are and that the law is actually applied in the way the 

law should be applied because I do believe in the past it has not 

been, and obviously this is continuing to go on. This hearing today 

is noticeable of that. So, on your way out, maybe it is the best time 

to deal with some of those things because sometimes that is when 

we have the courage to do it, but this could very much come up 

again in the future. 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

committee will stand in recess for 2 minutes. I would ask that the 

members remain here if they can. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman NADLER. The hearing will come to order, and we will 

resume questioning under the 5-minute rule with Mr. Lieu. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you Chairman Nadler. 

Mr. WHITAKER, thank you for being here today. Last year, FBI 

Director Christopher Wray came before this committee and stated 

that no one is above the law. You would agree with that statement, 

wouldn’t you? 

95 

Mr. WHITAKER. I would, and, in fact, there is a Time Magazine 

that is—— 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you, we are good. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Framed in my office that says the 

same thing. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. You don’t have to keep saying, but thank 

you. You haven’t taken any sort of a loyalty oath to Donald Trump, 

have you? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, I have not taken a loyalty oath. 

Mr. LIEU. Have you signed any nondisclosure agreement with the 

White House or Donald Trump? 

Mr. WHITAKER. We signed our ethics pledge, which was the most 

robust ethics pledge, but I haven’t signed any other documents 

other than the normal DOJ employment documents. 

Mr. LIEU. And there was no nondisclosure agreement with anything you signed, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I don’t believe so, but I don’t know what the 

standard DOJ forms are. 

Mr. LIEU. In fact, the only thing you really had to do before you 

could assume your current position was take an oath to the United 

States Constitution. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I probably took the oath for the second time 

when I came back to the Department of Justice. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. So let me ask you a series of questions 

about the U.S. Constitution that you can easily answer yes or no. 

And the first question is: There is no sentence in the Constitution 

that states that the President’s National Security Advisor can’t be 

indicted, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as is consistent with the practice 

of the Department of Justice, we investigate crimes, and we prosecute individuals that commit crimes. 

Mr. LIEU. I am just asking a simple question. I will go on. There 

is no sentence in the U.S. Constitution that states the President’s 

former Campaign Chairman can’t be indicted, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Same answer to your previous question. 

Mr. LIEU. Does that sentence exist in the Constitution? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Of course it does, Congressman. You know that, 

and I know that. 

Mr. LIEU. Right. Because Paul Manafort was indicted. There is 

no sentence in the Constitution that says the President’s children 

can’t be indicted, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, you know, you can give me the 

whole list, I mean, you know, sort of—— 

Mr. LIEU. No, I will give you three more. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Okay. 

Mr. LIEU. Yes. Right? 

Mr. WHITAKER. There is no sentence in the United States Constitution that says that the President’s children cannot be indicted. 

Mr. LIEU. There is no sentence in the U.S. Constitution that says 

the Vice President can’t be indicted, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. That is correct. 

Mr. LIEU. Right. There is no sentence in the U.S. Constitution— 

this is my last one—there is no sentence in the U.S. Constitution 

96 

that says the sitting President of the United States cannot be indicted, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, because that is the opinion of the 

Office of the Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice—— 

Mr. LIEU. I don’t actually care what the DOJ policy is. I am asking about the Constitution. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Consistent with the practices of the 

Department of Justice for years. 

Mr. LIEU. Mr. Whitaker, it is a yes-or-no question. Mr. 

Whitaker—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Under both administrations. 

Mr. LIEU. After this hearing, you can spin the Constitution all 

you want. As you sit here today—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am not spinning the Constitution. 

Mr. LIEU. You just have to answer a factual yes-or-no question. 

I am going make it even easier for you: There is no sentence in the 

Constitution that says, quote, ‘‘The sitting President of the United 

States cannot be indicted,’’ unquote, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman—— 

Mr. LIEU. It is a yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. You know—— 

Mr. LIEU. I have it right here. Is that—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. I have a copy myself, Congressman. 

Mr. LIEU. Is that sentence in this Constitution? It is not, correct? 

I am not trying to trick you. It is not a hard question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again—— 

Mr. LIEU. It is a founding document of our Federal Government. 

Is that sentence in this Constitution? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, you and I both know that the way 

that the OLC opinion is written is that—— 

Mr. LIEU. I am asking about the Constitution—— 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Lays out a very clear question as to 

why the President of the United States, sitting President of the 

United States, cannot be indicted. 

Mr. LIEU. I am just going to—Mr. Chair, I am just going to submit the U.S. Constitution for the record and say: No, that sentence 

is not in there. 

Now I am going to move on. 

Chairman NADLER.—Record. 

[The information follows:] 

https://CONSTITUTIONUS.COM 

Mr. LIEU. Earlier today, you had testified that you did not communicate to Donald Trump or senior White House advisers about 

the special counsel’s investigation. So I am going to ask you a related question. Did you communicate to Donald Trump or any senior White House advisors about investigations from the Southern 

District of New York concerning The Trump Organization, the 

Trump inaugural committee, Michael Cohen, or the investigations 

that relate to Trump entities or potentially the President? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I mentioned that I said other investigations in my opening statement, and I really don’t have anything further to add to that answer. 

97 

Mr. LIEU. And when you said ‘‘other investigations,’’ you mean 

you communicated to the President about other investigations? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. That is not what I said in my opening statement. I will refer you back to my opening statement. I was very 

clear about that. 

Mr. LIEU. Did you communicate to the President or any senior 

White House advisers about investigations from the Southern District of New York related to Trump entities—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again, I was very explicit in my opening statement as to that not only about my communications regarding the 

special counsel’s office, and I said ‘‘other investigations,’’ and the 

Southern District of New York would be included in other investigations. 

Mr. LIEU. Okay. Thank you. So I want to move to another subject. The President has talked about a national emergency. Under 

the latest FBI data, it is correct, isn’t it, that violent crime across 

the United States has gone down? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yeah, we celebrate actually that violent crime 

has gone down in the last 2 years. 

Mr. LIEU. In fact, property crime has gone down as well, isn’t 

that right? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as I sit here right now, I believe 

generally all crime is down over the last 2 years since President 

Trump was elected. 

Mr. LIEU. My last question to you is: You would agree with Donald Trump when last year he tweeted out that border crossings are 

at a 45-year low? 

Mr. WHITAKER. We saw a precipitous decline in border crossings 

after the President was elected and sworn into office. Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to retain those gains, and we have 

seen an absolute dramatic surge in family units. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. Raskin. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Whitaker, before you took the call from President Trump, you had a fascinating career: owned a daycare center, 

a concrete supply business, trailer of sales, GOP activist, U.S. attorney who unsuccessfully prosecuted Iowa’s first openly gay State 

legislator on trumped-up Hobbs Act charges that were dismissed by 

the jury in about an hour, Senate candidate. 

There have been some scandals, too. Here is one: ‘‘Trump’s Acting Attorney General involved in firm that scammed veterans out 

of life savings.’’ Veteran says: I spent the money on a dream. I lost 

everything. 

But the newspapers say you struck gold when you arrived in 

Washington, which the President calls the swamp. Here is one that 

tells the story: ‘‘Conservative nonprofit with obscure roots in undisclosed funders paid Matthew Whitaker $1.2 million.’’ According to 

The Washington Post, in the 3 years after he arrived in Washington, Whitaker received more than $1.2 million as the leader of 

a charity that reported having no other employees. That is a pretty 

good deal. 

Now what was the name of the charity that you ran, Mr. 

Whitaker? 

98 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, you have mentioned a lot in 

your—— 

Mr. RASKIN. No, but I am asking you a very specific question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. You have challenged my character, and I have 

the ability to answer. 

Mr. RASKIN. No, no. I am asking you a question. I control this 

time, Mr. Whitaker. If you want to ask the Chairman for time of 

your own, you can do it. This is my time. Mr. Whitaker, you don’t 

run this Committee. You don’t run the Congress of the United 

States, and you don’t run the Judiciary. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman 

is correct. The witness will answer the questions, and it is up to 

the gentleman to decide what questions. The gentleman will continue. We will resume. 

Mr. RASKIN. What was the title of the not-for-profit that you ran? 

Mr. WHITAKER. What time period, sir? 

Mr. RASKIN. What was the last title? I know it changed its name 

three different times, right? What was the final name? 

Mr. WHITAKER. While I was employed as the executive director, 

it was called the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust. 

Mr. RASKIN. Did you name it? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I did. Actually—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Those are highly noble goals: accountability and 

civic trust. So let’s talk about some accountability. 

Mr. WHITAKER. He asked me a question. I would like to answer. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Whitaker, I have got a question for you. 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, you asked me a question. 

Mr. RASKIN. I asked you a question. I control the floor, Mr. 

Whitaker. You don’t understand. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman 

controls the time, and if he wishes, as many members have done 

on occasion, they make a statement and they don’t even ask a 

question, but if he wishes to proceed to another question, it is his 

time. 

Mr. WHITAKER. But Congressman—I mean, Mr. Chairman, I do 

not feel—I do not feel like my answer would be complete on the 

record to the question he asked. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Mr. Whitaker, see if you can get into this. 

Tell us where the money came from that you were paid, the $1.2 

million that you were paid before you went to the Department of 

Justice? 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Mr. RASKIN. I am asking my question. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, point of order, which overrules your 

question. Point of order. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman 

will state his point of order. 

Mr. COLLINS. Look, we are going to go down this probably many 

more times, but again, if he wanted to do a confirmation hearing, 

this is not within the scope of this hearing. This is not a confirmation hearing, and he has not shown—— 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman’s point of order is not well 

taken. 

99 

The gentleman from Maryland has the discretion to ask the 

questions. The gentleman will proceed. 

Mr. COLLINS. Appeal the ruling of the chair. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman has appealed the Ruling of 

the Chair. The gentlelady has moved to table. All in favor of the 

Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair will vote aye. 

Opposed, nay. 

The ayes have it. The ruling—the motion is tabled. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, can you and I engage in a colloquy? 

Suspend the clock. Can we suspend the clock and you and I can 

engage in a colloquy? It may solve some—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is the Ranking 

Member just going to continue to interrupt when he doesn’t like 

the flow of questions? 

Mr. COLLINS. I will probably make a point of order when it needs 

to be made. 

Mr. CICILLINE. It would be useful it was actually a point of order. 

Chairman NADLER. Everyone will please suspend. The gentleman 

made a point of order. It was ruled out of order. Right now, the 

gentleman has the time. If the Ranking Member wants to make a 

point, I will recognize him after the gentleman is completed. The 

gentleman will resume. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It has been reported publicly that there was one donor, and as 

we understand it, I think you are testifying today that you were 

the sole employee of the group. So there was one donor and one 

employee. Do you know who the donor was to the group that funded your salary for $1.3 million? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, I do. 

Mr. RASKIN. Who was the donor? 

Mr. WHITAKER. The donor was another nonprofit 509(c)(3) organization called the Donors Trust. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Now that was the passthrough vehicle, but 

who reached into their pocket and wrote the check to go through 

that to pay your salary? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, as you know, because you have 

looked at this issue, the Donors Trust is much bigger than the 

Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust and raises millions 

if not hundreds of millions of dollars every year. I actually, as I sit 

here today, have no idea who the donors to Donors Trust then 

funded the foundation—— 

Mr. RASKIN. I have got a theory that I want to float with you, 

and it goes to something very strange that has been happening in 

the Department of Justice really recently. Casino billionaire and 

magnate Sheldon Adelson hates online gambling for obvious reasons: it is competition for him. He wants people in the casinos not 

online. And he spent more than a million dollars lobbying Congress 

to override the 2000 opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ 

saying that the Wire Act plainly prohibits only sports gambling online, not gambling in the States, which was why Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, lots of States have built important businesses 

for themselves online. But Congress wouldn’t change the law according to the demands of Mr. Adelson, so rather than change the 

law, he decided to try to get the Department of Justice to change 

100 

the interpretation of the law, and he threw millions into a campaign to remake the DOJ and get the Office of Legal Counsel to 

perform a complete reversal and say that the Wire Act bans the 

kinds of lotteries that States run online, even though its language 

plainly prohibits only sports betting. 

And when Donald Trump won and Mr. Sessions became AG and 

you became chief of staff, DOJ leadership ordered a reevaluation 

of this legal question, and what do you know? The Office of Legal 

Counsel found some subtle and invisible points of law that apparently escaped the Department of Justice back in 2011, and it reversed the plain reading of the interpretation, which talked specifically about sports betting. 

Now, were you involved in that decision? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, General Sessions was recused at 

the time that that decision came out. 

Mr. RASKIN. So you were recused, too? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Therefore I was recused, and so I was not involved in that decision. 

Mr. RASKIN. Did you ever talk to Sheldon Adelson about it? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. I have actually never met Sheldon Adelson. 

Mr. RASKIN. Did you talk to any of his lobbyists about it? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, I did not. 

Mr. RASKIN. Did you talk to Charles Cooper about it? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, but I do know Charles Cooper. And I would 

point out: One of the things, Mr. Raskin, it is very important—— 

Mr. RASKIN. You can ask the Chairman for time, but I can’t give 

you my time. Forgive me, we only have 5 minutes here. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman controls the time. At the conclusion of his statement—at the conclusion of his 5 minutes, I will 

afford the witness some time, but the gentleman controls the time. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Okay. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In January and February of 2018, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Wild Rose Casino and Resort—it is a casino in Iowa—each 

donated $2,600 to your Senate campaign, which was over 4 years 

before when you lost that campaign. How did these casino operators come to donate to your campaign several years after you lost? 

Did you talk to them? 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The witness may answer the question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. To answer your question specifically, no, I did 

not. 

To go back to the other point I would like to make, Congressman, 

is that the first OLC opinion that preceded the one we just issued 

in November was done, and the State of Illinois provided a white 

paper regarding the position on the Wire Act. And so I think it is 

very consistent, and your inference that somehow that that process 

was corrupted or corrupt is absolutely wrong, and the premise of 

your question I reject. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentlelady from Washington, Ms. 

Jayapal. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whitaker, thank you for being with us. 

101 

Our country is still reeling from the horrors of family separation 

that occurred at the border. I was the first Member of Congress to 

talk to hundreds of women and men who had been ripped apart 

from their children. I went into a Federal detention—Federal prison to talk to those women. Many of them had not even been able 

to say goodbye to their children. They sat in the room next door 

as they heard their children yelling for them, and they were not 

able to go and speak to their children. And for weeks they didn’t 

know where their children were. 

Most of these women, most of the men were seeking asylum, and 

your Department, instead of allowing them their legal right to seek 

asylum, your Department instead imposed a zero-humanity policy 

to prosecute them in mass proceedings, resulting in the U.S. Government tearing thousands of children from their moms and dads, 

and this is still happening. And the truth is we may not know how 

many children were separated from their parents. 

So, Mr. Whitaker, you were Attorney General—former Attorney 

General Jeff Sessions’ chief of staff at the time. Is that correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Of the zero-tolerance policy being implemented? 

Ms. JAYAPAL. You were his chief of staff at—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. At what point in time? 

Ms. JAYAPAL [continuing]. Of the family separation policy. Let 

me just tell you, you were. 

Mr. WHITAKER. There was no family separation policy. There was 

a zero-tolerance policy in the Department of Justice. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. This has been given four Pinocchios multiple times. 

I am just going to tell you, you were the former Attorney General’s 

Chief of Staff at the time. 

Last month, Senator Merkley released a leaked draft memo by 

senior officials at the Department of Justice and Homeland Security outlining policies to separate children from their families. Were 

you aware of this memo at the time? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. So, as the chief of staff, you were not aware of 

what your boss was doing? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Was the memo—I am sorry. You are talking 

about the leaked memo or the memo that General Sessions 

issued—— 

Ms. JAYAPAL. There was a leaked draft memo by senior officials 

at the Department of Justice. You were the Chief of Staff; I would 

think you would know—and you would be a senior official—you 

would know about that memo. The memo stated that a policy of 

criminally prosecuting parents would require close coordination between DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services, 

which would be tasked with housing children separated from their 

moms and dads. And yet a report released by the Government Accountability Office last October says that DHS and HHS were, 

quote, unaware that your former boss’ zero-tolerance prosecution 

policy memo was coming. Is it correct that the Department of Justice provided no advance notice to those Departments? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, the Department’s policy—— 

Ms. JAYAPAL. It is just a yes or no. Did you provide advance notice to the—— 

102 

Mr. WHITAKER. We conducted a press conference in San Diego 

with the head of the Immigration Customs Enforcement when we 

announced the zero-tolerance policy, and all the zero-tolerance policy does is it says we will take all referrals from DHS. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. I am going to stop you right there because it is my 

time. 

According to the GAO report, the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, report on family separation: DHS and HHS officials 

told us the agencies did not take specific planning steps because 

they did not have advance notice of the Attorney General’s April 

2018 memo. 

It went on to say specifically: CBP, ICE and ORR officials stated 

that they became aware of the April 2018 memo when it was announced publicly. So, before or after the zero—and actually let me 

go back. Are you saying that CBP, ICE, and OOR lied to the GAO 

and that they were somehow aware and given advance notice? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, I am not going to suggest that anybody was 

not telling the truth. I am saying that when we publicly announced 

the zero-tolerance policy, it was pursuant to a public event in San 

Diego—— 

Ms. JAYAPAL. And so, prior to the public event—Mr. Whitaker, 

prior to the public event, these ICE, CBP, and ORR officials told 

the GAO that they had not gotten any notice—I am not talking 

about once it was public; I am talking about whether there was advance notice. 

Let me go on. Before or after the zero-tolerance policy was put 

into place, and I call it the zero-humanity policy, did the U.S. attorneys track when they were prosecuting a parent or legal guardian 

who had been separated from their child? There is only one answer 

to this. It has gone through the courts. 

Mr. WHITAKER. You know, did we track it? 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Did you track when you were prosecuting a parent 

or legal guardian who had been separated from a child? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I don’t believe we were tracking that. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. You were not tracking it. That is the correct answer. And when parents are prosecuted and sentenced, they are in 

DOJ custody, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Correct, their custody is transferred to the U.S. 

Marshals. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. So these parents were in your custody. Your attorneys are prosecuting them, and your Department was not tracking 

parents who were separated from their children. Do you know what 

kind of damage has been done to children and families across this 

country, children who will never get to see their parents again? Do 

you understand the magnitude of that? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I understand that the policy of zero-tolerance—— 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Has the Justice Department started tracking parents and legal guardians who were separated from their children 

at the border? 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The witness may answer the question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I appreciate your passion for 

this issue, and I know that you have been very involved on the 

front lines of this. 

103 

Ms. JAYAPAL. This is about more than my passion. This is about 

the children’s future, Mr. Whitaker. Please answer. Go ahead, 

please. 

Chairman NADLER. The witness may answer. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, the responsibility for the arrest 

and the detention and together with the custody of the children 

was handled by DHS and HHS before those people were ever transferred to DOJ custody through the U.S. Marshals. 

Chairman NADLER. Thank you. The time of the gentlelady has 

expired. 

Mrs. Demings. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whitaker, I spent 27 years in law enforcement. I served as 

the Chief of Police. I took an oath just like you did, and I took that 

oath very, very seriously to uphold the Constitution and to protect 

this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. I hope you took 

the oath that you took very, very seriously. 

But today, as I have sat through—and my colleague is right. This 

has been painful because I believe that you have worked to make 

our criminal justice system to make a mockery out of it, and it is 

painful for me for you to do that and anybody up to and including 

the President of the United States. But let me ask you this, and 

it really has been painful for someone who has been given so much 

responsibility representing the men and women who have dedicated their lives to public service. That really means a lot to me. 

I hope it means a lot to you. 

Mr. WHITAKER. It does. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Lieu asked you if you had ever proven—Mr. 

Lieu asked you if you ever communicated with President Trump 

about investigations in the Southern District of New York. Instead 

of answering, you referred him back to your statement, referred 

him back to what was written for you. But all you said is that you 

didn’t make—in your statement—that you didn’t make any promises or commitments to President Trump. I want to know whether 

you talked to President Trump at all about the Southern District 

of New York’s case involving Michael Cohen. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, as I have mentioned several 

times today, I am not going to discuss my private conversations 

with the President of the United States. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. So yes or no, did you—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. No matter what the question is. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Yes or no, did you discuss with President Trump 

anything about Michael Cohen? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, as I have expressed several 

times today, I am not going—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Did you ever have any conversations with the 

President about firing or reassigning any personnel, U.S. attorneys 

or others, who work with the Southern District of New York, with 

the President or anybody, anybody at all? Did you ever have any 

conversations with anybody about reassigning or firing any personnel, including U.S. attorneys with the Southern District of New 

York? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I sit on top of the Department 

of Justice, as you mentioned—— 

104 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Did you ever have any conversations about anybody who worked with the district of Virginia firing or reassigning, 

with anybody, not just the President, anybody at all? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I am not going to talk today—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. So let’s talk about the great 115,000 men 

and women who work for the Department of Justice, because I 

agree that they, as your words, are extremely talented, highly principled public servants, who are dedicated to upholding our great 

Constitution and the laws of the United States. I am sure you are 

familiar with this because you keep up—at a rally last fall the 

President said: Look what is being exposed at the Department of 

Justice and the FBI. You have some real bad ones. You see what 

has happened at the FBI. They are all gone. They are all gone, but 

there is a lingering stench, and we are going to get rid of that, too. 

Do you agree with the President’s characterization of the Department of Justice and the FBI? As the Attorney General, please tell 

me why you would agree or why you would not agree with that 

statement? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, since I have become the Acting 

Attorney General I have reestablished a positive relationship between the Department of Justice and the White House—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Before you became—established that positive relationship, what was your opinion of the 115,000 men and women 

who dedicate their life to public service? Before you had your current position, what was your opinion of them? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I have actually a very high estimation of the men 

and women at the Department of Justice. They are the most exceptional, hardworking people that I have ever—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. So you disagree with the President’s characterization, because they don’t deserve it, Mr. Whitaker. And you are 

here—you supervise; you manage them. You don’t—then you don’t 

agree with the President’s characterization of them. Is that correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Listen, before—Congresswoman, in all due respect, I feel very strongly that, as the Acting Attorney General of 

the United States, that I have to set the tone for the entire Department of Justice, and what is so important—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. If I worked for you, Mr. Whitaker, and you 

thought I was highly principled and very talented and that was 

your answer when I was asked or you are asked about how do you 

view the people who work for you, that is your answer; that is pretty pitiful. 

Let me ask you this: You have only mentioned drugs coming 

through the southern border, the problem at the southern border 

as characterized by you and the President. Could you please paint 

a picture of drugs flowing through our ports of entry? Because I am 

told the overwhelming number of percentage of drugs that flow into 

our country come through the ports of entry. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? And if so, yes or no, why not? 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The witness may answer the question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, we actually both agree the ports 

of entry at our southern border are most trafficked with drugs and 

illegality. It also comes in between ports—— 

105 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Overwhelming of drugs come through the ports of 

entry—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. On our southern border, yes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Do you agree or disagree with that? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I believe that a tremendous amount of drugs 

come through our ports of entry on the southern border, yes. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentlelady—I am sorry. 

Mr. Correa. 

Mr. CORREA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, sir. I wanted to ask you about your enforcement 

priorities. One of my jobs here in Congress is to serve on the Department of Homeland Security, and within that job, one of my 

most important critical jobs is to make sure our citizens are safe 

to protect our Nation against terrorist threats. 

In May of 2017, a joint FBI-DHS bulletin warned of a growing 

threat of violence posed by white supremacists, neo-Nazis, rightwing extremists, and other white nationalist groups. An extensive 

study of terrorist plots between ’08 and ’16 found that plots and attacks by white nationalist groups in the U.S. outnumbered the 

threats by Islamic extremists 2 to 1. White supremacist groups 

have been aggressively recruiting on our college campuses, and violent incidents involving these groups have more than tripled since 

2017. More than 100 people have been killed or injured since 2014, 

and more than 60 in 2017 alone by these alt-right groups. 

Sir, just a very basic question, do you believe that white nationalism, white supremacists, extremists or right-wing groups in this 

country pose a threat? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, I do. 

Mr. CORREA. Is it growing? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Based on that report issued by the FBI, I have 

no reason, as I sit here today, to disagree with it. 

Mr. CORREA. Do you believe that the administration is placing 

enough of an emphasis, enough resources allocated dedicated to 

stopping these kinds of homegrown terrorist attacks? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I believe that we are dedicating resources to the 

appropriate threats. That is done obviously below my role. It is 

done mostly at the line and the management level at the FBI and 

our other agencies, including our partners at DHS, as you mentioned. And I really, as I sit here today, I think we are adequately 

addressing the threats that we face, but we are always reallocating 

resources based on how those threats evolve. 

Mr. CORREA. Adequately addressing the threat, and you mentioned earlier in your opening statement 30 convictions—hate 

crime convictions, yet in 2017, an increase of 17 percent hate 

crimes reported, which they are usually underreported in this country. More than 7,000 hate crimes in 2017, and you have 30 convictions. Do you think you are allocating adequate resources towards 

prosecuting hate crimes? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I do. And if you look at some of the high-profile 

cases we have done, like the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh or 

the Charlottesville situation that we previously discussed or even 

the case where we sent a prosecutor to my home State of Iowa to 

help prosecute a State hate crime, I think we have addressed the 

hate crime. 

106 

Mr. CORREA. Again, sir, if you look at the number: 7,000 reported, almost 20 percent increase in 2017, 30 convictions. Adequate? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, we always work with our State 

partners and the local police to determine where is the best place 

and the most effective place to prosecute a crime, and so to suggest 

that somehow that those victims of those crimes don’t receive the 

proper justice I think would be—— 

Mr. CORREA. I think I am looking at it from relative—we are 

looking at foreign terrorism, and yet are we ignoring domestic terrorism? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, we are not ignoring that. 

Mr. CORREA. Are we allocating the equal or more resources to domestic versus foreign, yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, we allocate our resources based 

upon the threats and where the Federal Government should deploy 

those resources. And, again, it is a very dynamic daily evaluation 

as to where the threats are, and I believe that we are adequately 

resourcing all of the threats including the ones you described. 

Mr. CORREA. Do you think domestic terrorism from white extremist groups is on the rise, and do you think we should allocate 

additional resources to combatting these kinds of terrorist attacks 

in this country? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I believe I already answered this 

question, but I just want to be clear: I agree with the FBI’s assessment—— 

Mr. CORREA. I am sorry. I didn’t hear your answer. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Okay. Well, I believe, with the FBI’s statement, 

that those crimes are on the rise. I also believe that we have adequately deployed our resources on a daily basis dynamically as required by those threats, and I have seen it based on my intelligence briefings that I participate on almost a daily basis, and I 

know that the FBI and the other Federal law enforcement agencies 

are adequately resourcing these threats in addition to all the other 

threats we face. It is a target-rich environment when it comes to 

law enforcement and making sure that—— 

Mr. CORREA. Sir, I am running out of time. I will say we are 

going to continue to look at this on Homeland Security because I 

believe that we are missing the ball here. In 2017, DHS terminated 

granted funding to look at some of these issues of domestic terrorism. We have to keep addressing this issue. Lives, the safety of 

our citizens is at stake. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentleman has yielded. 

Ms. Scanlon. 

Ms. SCANLON. Good afternoon, Mr. Whitaker. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Good afternoon. 

Ms. SCANLON. In response to a question from my Pennsylvania 

colleague, you mention that the Department of Justice has been attempting to withhold Federal dollars from so-called sanctuary cities. Is that right? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, yes, I talked about the Byrne JAG grants. 

Ms. SCANLON. Thank you. And one of those cities is Philadelphia, 

right? 

107 

Mr. WHITAKER. I believe so, yes. 

Ms. SCANLON. I happen to represent Philadelphia. Isn’t it true 

that Judge Mike Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

ruled that the Department of Justice’s attempt to withhold this 

money was illegal and unconstitutional? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman that is—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Isn’t it correct that that was the ruling of the Federal court? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Isn’t it correct—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am not going to discuss ongoing litigation. 

Ms. SCANLON. Isn’t it correct that the Federal court ruled that 

the Department of Justice’s action was illegal and unconstitutional? That is a matter of public record, sir. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Is that correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I don’t disagree—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Whitaker, you may be confused here. This 

may appear to be a contact sport, but it is not a gridiron, and I 

am not letting you run out the time, okay? Isn’t it true the Federal 

court ruled that that was illegal and unconstitutional? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, again—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. I will take that as a yes. 

Mr. WHITAKER. This is the subject of ongoing litigation, and—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Isn’t it also true, Mr. Whitaker—Mr. Whitaker, I 

am asking the question. Isn’t it also true that the court found that 

the Department of Justice had not produced any credible evidence 

that undocumented immigrants committed crime at a higher rate 

than any other group? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, this is the subject of ongoing 

litigation—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Isn’t it true that the Federal court found that in 

a public opinion? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I am not going comment on ongoing litigation. 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. I will take that as a yes as well. Let’s move 

on to some other questions. And just to be clear I am asking oversight questions about your enforcement priorities during your tenure, okay, at the Department of Justice. I want to make sure we 

are clear on when that tenure began. I have a date of September 

22, 2017, that you became chief of staff. Is that correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. That is incorrect. 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. When is your first working date as chief of 

staff for Attorney General Sessions? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I started at the Department of Justice on October 

4th of 2017. 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. And then you became Acting Attorney General as of November 7, 2018? 

Mr. WHITAKER. The President tweeted that I was going to be the 

next Acting Attorney General on November 7th of 2018. The order 

that I have received from the President has the date of November 

8th of—I am sorry, 2018. 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. Do you have a copy of that order? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I do have a copy of that order. 

108 

Ms. SCANLON. Can you provide it to the committee please? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I would be happy to. I don’t have it with me, 

though, if that is your question. 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. That would be wonderful. Turning to some 

other enforcement priorities. On December 22, 2017, the Department of Justice sent a formal request to the Census Bureau asking 

for an addition to the Census of a question asking about citizenship 

status. Did Attorney General Sessions direct the Department lawyers to draft that request? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, the Department is currently defending the Census Bureau in litigation on this issue across the 

country. 

Ms. SCANLON. Did Attorney General Sessions ask or are you refusing to answer the question? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I think it is inappropriate for me to comment 

about the subject of ongoing litigation. 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reflect Mr. Whitaker hasn’t answered the question, and I would ask this matter to be addressed 

in the upcoming deposition. 

Do you know if the President directed Department of Justice lawyers to make that request? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, this is the subject of ongoing 

litigation—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. So you are not going to answer that question either. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. That we are currently defending in 

the United States courts. 

Ms. SCANLON. Thank you. Was Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore involved in the drafting of that request to add the 

Census question? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, as I have previously stated, this 

is the subject of ongoing litigation that we—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. So we will let the record reflect that again 

you are refusing to answer the question. 

Okay. We can agree that one of the functions of the Department 

of Justice is to enforce the Voting Rights Act, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Correct. One of the jobs of the—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. Thank you. Isn’t it also true that the most 

recent Voting Rights Act enforcement action was filed on January 

10, 2017? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I have mentioned previously, the Department 

is—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Is it correct that the most recent voting rights enforcement action filed by your Department was in 2017, January 

10? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I will give you an example—— 

Ms. SCANLON. It is a yes-or-no question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. During the first term of the Obama administration, they filed, I believe, one section—— 

Ms. SCANLON. Okay. Reclaiming my time, no running out the 

clock. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am trying to answer your questions. 

109 

Ms. SCANLON. Chairman, if we can enter into the record the Department of Justice website, which reflects when the last Voting 

Rights Act case was filed: January 10, 2017. 

Chairman NADLER. Without objection, the fact is noted on the 

website and will be entered into the record. 

[The information follows:] 

110 

MS. SCANLON FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD 

111 


Insert offset folio 221 here 36001A.032
112 


Insert offset folio 222 here 36001A.033
113 


Insert offset folio 223 here 36001A.034
114 


Insert offset folio 224 here 36001A.035
115 


Insert offset folio 225 here 36001A.036
116 


Insert offset folio 226 here 36001A.037
117 


Insert offset folio 227 here 36001A.038
118 


Insert offset folio 228 here 36001A.039
119 


Insert offset folio 229 here 36001A.040
120 


Insert offset folio 230 here 36001A.041
121 

Ms. SCANLON. Thank you. 

Isn’t it true that, under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has reversed its position on at least three important Voting Rights Act cases? 

Mr. WHITAKER. May I answer the question? I see my time has 

expired. 

Ms. SCANLON. I think there is a yes or a no. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The witness may answer the question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Thank you. The Department of Justice has 

changed positions only in one voting case, and that is the Husted 

case, and the Supreme Court agreed with our new reading of the 

statute. 

Chairman NADLER. Ms. Garcia. 

Ms. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have about four documents I ask unanimous consent be entered 

into the record. The first one is titled ‘‘Crime and Murder in 2018: 

A Preliminary Analysis.’’ The second one reads, ‘‘Border Communities Have Lower Crime Rates.’’ The third one reads, ‘‘Amid ‘crisis’ 

rhetoric, local leaders defend border region from misconceptions,’’ 

and this is a report from the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. And then 

the last one is Progress Times, Mission, Texas, ‘‘Sheriff: Crime 

dropped 10 percent in rural Hidalgo in the last year.’’ 

Chairman NADLER. Without objection, these documents will be 

entered into the record. 

[The information follows:] 

122 

MS. GARCIA FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD 

123 


Insert offset folio 234 here 36001A.043
124 


Insert offset folio 235 here 36001A.044
125 


Insert offset folio 236 here 36001A.045
126 


Insert offset folio 237 here 36001A.046
127 


Insert offset folio 238 here 36001A.047
128 


Insert offset folio 239 here 36001A.048
129 


Insert offset folio 240 here 36001A.049
130 


Insert offset folio 241 here 36001A.050
131 


Insert offset folio 242 here 36001A.051
132 


Insert offset folio 243 here 36001A.052
133 


Insert offset folio 244 here 36001A.053
134 


Insert offset folio 245 here 36001A.054
135 


Insert offset folio 246 here 36001A.055
136 


Insert offset folio 247 here 36001A.056
137 


Insert offset folio 248 here 36001A.057
138 


Insert offset folio 249 here 36001A.058
139 


Insert offset folio 250 here 36001A.059
140 


Insert offset folio 251 here 36001A.060
141 


Insert offset folio 252 here 36001A.061
142 


Insert offset folio 253 here 36001A.062
143 


Insert offset folio 254 here 36001A.063
144 


Insert offset folio 255 here 36001A.064
145 


Insert offset folio 256 here 36001A.065
146 


Insert offset folio 257 here 36001A.066
147 


Insert offset folio 258 here 36001A.067
148 


Insert offset folio 259 here 36001A.068
149 

Chairman NADLER. The gentlelady is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. GARCIA. So, Acting Attorney General, what is it in your mind 

that leads you to conclude that the border region is crime-ridden 

when these documents that I just entered into the record clearly 

show that Del Rio, Brownsville, El Paso, all the areas in the border 

region—and, in fact, even El Paso is listed in the top 29 cities 

where crime has gone down that you quoted in your written testimony—if all of these stats show differently, why are you still insistent that this is a crime-ridden area? And just, please, a short answer because I have only got 5 minutes. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I don’t recall saying today that the border region 

is crime-ridden, but I will answer your question as fulsomely as I 

can, and that is that illegal immigration through our southern border is dramatically and negatively impacting the crime rate in our 

cities. It would be lower if we didn’t have illegal immigration. I 

point to the example of Mollie Tibbetts, for example—— 

Ms. GARCIA. You are talking about other cities, not the cities that 

are, in fact, in the border areas. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, I think you would agree with me that most 

illegal immigrants that come into our southern border don’t reside 

at the border regions, that they transit through there and then 

make their way to other parts of our country. 

Ms. GARCIA. Well, I know many come to Houston because we 

have got good jobs, and we are an open city. But I heard you say 

earlier, and maybe the word crime-ridden was not the exact word 

you used, but it was alluding to the fact that the border areas had 

a lot of crime, and I just simply don’t agree with you. 

But let me move on to another topic and following up some questions about the family separation policy or the zero-tolerance policy. You said earlier in answer to a question about some of your 

background that you were by General Sessions’ side for 4 years 

side-by-side, and you were aware of everything in the Justice Department’s separation policy. Is that true? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I served as chief of staff for 13 months, and I am 

familiar with the zero-tolerance policy, yes. 

Ms. GARCIA. But you said you were with him side-by-side, so can 

you tell us if you were in the room when it happened when the actual zero-tolerance policy was hatched? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I participated in discussions about the zero-tolerance policy internally, but, again, I am not going to talk about the 

internal deliberations. The decision was to issue a zero-tolerance 

policy. 

Ms. GARCIA. But who is the brain child of the policy? Who 

hatched it? I mean, where did it come from? We have never had 

it before to the level it is being executed now. 

Mr. WHITAKER. It was General Sessions’ decision to implement, 

and he signed the memo implementing it and distributed that to 

our border district U.S. attorneys. 

Ms. GARCIA. All right. So let me go on and ask this question: 

How many children are still separated from their families as we sit 

here today? 

Mr. WHITAKER. That is a number that only DHS and HHS would 

know. As I sit here, the Department of Justice isn’t involved in 

150 

handling children that are encountered at the border, whether as 

a family unit or as unaccompanied minors. 

Ms. GARCIA. So you have no idea how many children might be— 

you have not seen any documents cross your desk from DHS or 

OOR or anybody else? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again, those are different departments within 

the—— 

Ms. GARCIA. I know that, sir, but I know that you are the Acting 

Attorney General and you get a lot of reports, a lot of documents, 

a lot of data. You have not seen anything to give us any idea just 

how many children have been torn away from the arms of their 

mothers? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, I would have to refer you to HHS and DHS. 

Again, when—— 

Ms. GARCIA. Do you know how many have been reunited with 

their families? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again, Congresswoman, those are not statistics 

that I am involved in because those cases—— 

Ms. GARCIA. Again, you don’t have to be the one to write the little finger sticks counting the children. I just want to know if you 

have seen anything cross your desk or any member of your staff 

so that Americans who are—just find this policy to be abhorrent 

and inhumane, they have an idea as to when the children will ever 

be reunited with their families; you cannot tell us that today? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, I would have to refer you to HHS and DHS, 

which would be responsible for the parts of the process because 

once we have received individuals for prosecution under the zerotolerance policy, we only deal with the adults, and we don’t keep 

track—— 

Ms. GARCIA. One last question because I am running out of time. 

At the State of the Union, the President said he was going to 

make, and I am paraphrasing, it a priority to make sure that people with preexisting conditions were protected. Does that mean 

that you are going to drop all the ACA litigation that you are involved in? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As you know, Congresswoman, the Affordable 

Care Act litigation is ongoing. 

Ms. GARCIA. The question is, are you going to be willing to settle 

it? Are you going to be able to drop some of that since the President is changing priorities and direction for his Department of Justice? 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The witness may answer the question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. We have a unitary executive, and if the President 

sets a policy and issues a policy directive, we will follow that policy. 

Ms. GARCIA. Thank you. 

Chairman NADLER. Mr. Neguse. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being here. 

I also want to thank my colleague, the distinguished gentleman 

from South Dakota, for his support of criminal justice reform and 

looking forward to working with him. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. North Dakota. 

Mr. NEGUSE. North Dakota. My apologies. I look forward to 

working with him on criminal justice reform. 

151 

I want to talk about another policy matter with respect to cannabis. I represent the State of Colorado. In Colorado, recreational 

use of marijuana was legalized in 2014. Today, more than half the 

States have legalized either the recreational or medical use of 

marijuana. 

Researchers at the University of Colorado, which I am proud to 

represent, are working hard to understand the health effects. They 

are studying promising approaches that use marijuana to relieve 

chronic pain and the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. 

In August of 2016, I understand this is before you were at the 

Department of Justice, Mr. Attorney General, the DEA took a big 

step towards improving scientific research on marijuana when it 

submitted a request in the Federal Register for applications to 

produce federally approved research-grade marijuana. Several institutions have submitted an application but have yet to receive a 

response. What is the status of those applications, if you might 

know, and do you know if the Department of Justice and the DEA 

intend to support legitimate cannabis research that could help protect the health and safety of our citizens? 

Mr. WHITAKER. For the 3 months that I have been the Acting Attorney General, this is an issue that I have been aware of, and I 

have actually tried to get the expansion and the applications out. 

We have run into a very complicated matter regarding a treaty 

that we are trying to work around. We have some international 

treaty obligations that may not allow the way the marijuana has 

to be handled from the research facilities to the researchers—or the 

grow facility to the researchers. So it is something that I am very 

aware of. It is something I am trying to push. Unfortunately, I 

have 6 days left in this chair at the most. I don’t know if I am 

going to successfully get to it, but I understand the concern and 

know that we are trying to make it work. 

Mr. NEGUSE. I appreciate that and applaud that. And if I could 

get your assurances that, within the 6 days, if you could just follow 

up with the Department staff to follow up with our office in writing, it would be incredibly helpful for us as folks reach out. 

Mr. WHITAKER. We will try to get an answer as to the current 

status, but my recollection where I last found it is that—— 

Mr. NEGUSE. That is sufficient. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. 

You mentioned earlier that the public essentially learned that 

Attorney General Sessions was fired on November 7, 2018, by 

tweet. And you were appointed via that same tweet. When did you 

first learn that Mr. Sessions was fired, would be fired? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I learned on November 7th, if that is your question. I mean, I, you know—— 

Mr. NEGUSE. It is. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yeah, okay. 

Mr. NEGUSE. So you learned by virtue of that same tweet that 

we all learned. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes. I would suggest—the only point I would put 

on that, Congressman—I am sorry to interrupt—is that Mr. Sessions resigned, you know, sent in his resignation letter. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Understand. Did you have any conversations with 

folks at the White House prior to November 7, 2018, about AttorVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:42 May 22, 2019 Jkt 036001 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A001.XXX A001
152 

ney General Sessions resigning or being fired, however you would 

characterize that? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As is the longstanding practice of the Department of Justice and the executive branch generally, the President 

is entitled to confidential communications, and while I am not confirming or denying the existence of any conversation, I am not 

going to talk about my private conversations with the President of 

the United States. 

Mr. NEGUSE. We will follow up on that front—or I would ask the 

chairman to take that up in a deposition to the extent one is noticed. 

All right. A question around—you mentioned earlier in some of 

your testimony around the reasoning behind your appointment that 

one of the reasons you believed in your view that you were appointed was—to the position of Acting Attorney General—was your 

experience as a former U.S. attorney, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, correct. I spent 5 and a half years as a 

United States attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Yes, sir. And you also mentioned that one of the 

reasons in your view that you believed you were appointed Acting 

Attorney General was that you have been at the Department of 

Justice for the last year or so working as the chief of staff to Attorney General Sessions, side-by-side I think you mentioned. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes. I knew all of the active matters that we 

weren’t recused from, obviously. I knew all the policies that we had 

not only implemented but that were in progress. I knew all the 

people and the individuals both inside the Department of Justice 

and the interagency. 

Mr. NEGUSE. I understand. I want to reclaim my time here. So 

I appreciate that, and I guess the question I have is I am sure you 

are aware that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is a 

former U.S. attorney, that he also has been at the Department of 

Justice, that he knows the people, he knows the matters and that, 

under the Vacancies Act, he was next in line in succession to be 

appointed Attorney General in the occasion in which that office was 

vacant occasioned by Mr. Sessions’ termination or resignation or 

what have you. And so I am trying to understand—were you surprised that you were appointed rather than Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, that the ordinary rules of succession weren’t followed? 

Mr. WHITAKER. It has been an honor of a lifetime to serve as the 

Acting Attorney General, and I have, as I mentioned, 6 days left, 

and I am going take full advantage of that, including enjoying this 

hearing, but, you know, there are two different statutes that applied to the vacancy that was created by General Sessions’ letter 

of resignation, and one was the succession statute by the Department of Justice, and as you know, the other one is the vacancy reform act, which has been passed by Congress. And so my appointment, as is outlined in the 20-page OLC opinion, is legitimate and 

has precedent. 

Mr. NEGUSE. And I am not, with respect to the Attorney General, 

I was not referencing the legitimacy. The point of what I was saying is, under the Vacancies Act, 28 U.S.C. 508, the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant to the Attorney General, and so, 

153 

therefore, would be the appropriate designee to fill that role, but 

with that, I yield back the time. 

Chairman Nadler. The gentleman has yielded back and—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I 

am sorry. 

Chairman NADLER. Yes. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I just wanted to address that issue really quickly 

just so we are all on the same page. The first assistant together 

with any other Senate-confirmed individual together with anyone 

that served 90 days or less, 365 days at a senior position is eligible 

to be, and there is really no ranking or hierarchy of those three positions. Obviously, I am in the third bucket as chief of staff. I just 

wanted to make sure we were clear on that. 

Chairman NADLER. Thank you. 

Mrs. McBath. 

Mrs. MCBATH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITAKER, I am completely aware that North Carolina and 

Georgia were dealing with similar problems with voter suppression, 

and I can actually tell you I witnessed voter suppression firsthand 

in Georgia even as I was running in my own election. 

Is it fair to say that the Department was not remotely interested 

in securing the elections in North Carolina, rather that its intent 

was abusing its subpoena powers and wielding its mandate to protect our elections in a thinly veiled effort to suppress minority elections and populations? 

Mr. WHITAKER. The Department of Justice is committed to upholding the voting rights of all Americans. 

Mrs. MCBATH. I understand that. But what I need you to clarify 

for me is what actions were taken for all of the voting rights to be 

upheld, because you have stated earlier—your statement earlier 

was that you were side-by-side with Attorney General Sessions advising him on all aspects of the Department, yet you don’t know— 

but at this point, you are saying you don’t appear—you do not suspect that there was any voter suppression. So what I am asking is 

that, do you not know of any voter suppression, or do you not know 

whether or not those laws are being enforced? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I don’t believe I said that I am not aware that 

there might have been voter suppression. Did I—that is something 

you heard me say? 

Mrs. MCBATH. I am just asking you, might it be the case that 

you were not aware of any voter suppression? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, at the Department of Justice, I sit atop a 

massive organization, as you can imagine, and cases regarding 

voter suppression, voter fraud, or really any enforcement of the 

Voting Rights Act or other statutes is done by U.S. attorneys and 

FBI agents that are in the district doing those cases. And so it 

would be unusual that I would have specific knowledge about any 

of the evidence in those cases. So, you know, obviously, we do our 

cases free of political interference, and if there is evidence of, as 

you suggest, voter suppression, and we can predicate investigation, 

that is something we will seriously look at. 

Mrs. MCBATH. So did the Department assess the need for election monitors in the 2019 elections? 

154 

Mr. WHITAKER. I think I—I mentioned in my opening statement 

that we sent out 35 Civil Rights Divisions teams to I believe 19 

States, if I remember right. I might be wrong, and I would refer 

you back to my statement, but I—we did send out election monitors 

from the Civil Rights Division. 

Mrs. MCBATH. Okay. Because I was in Georgia, and I can tell 

you, I saw the problems, but I didn’t see the election monitors. Did 

you send any that you are aware of? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I sit here today, I do not know if Georgia received what I am describing. Obviously, we would have—we would 

have—the Civil Rights Division would have determined where 

those assets could be deployed. I know in the 2004 election when 

I was U.S. attorney, the Civil Rights Division sent, I think, three 

or four lawyers to my office to monitor the elections in Des Moines, 

so I wouldn’t be surprised that they did send election monitors to 

Georgia. 

Mrs. MCBATH. Well, I can tell you, I—I really think that we 

needed them, and I am very disappointed in the numbers that we 

received. We needed far more help than we—than we got. 

But also, on February 1, the committee sent you a letter asking 

again for information on the Department’s voting rights enforcement, and these questions were asked by members during the 

115th Congress but were never answered. Will you commit to providing this information for this committee? 

Mr. WHITAKER. We try to respond to all the letters we receive 

from Congress. Obviously, February 1 was I believe only a—a week 

or so ago. I have kind of lost track of what day it is, but yeah. I 

mean, we will—we will look at that letter and we will respond consistent with the way we respond to requests from Congress. But I 

mean, these are important issues, and I—and I share your concern 

about some of these places where there is alleged voter suppression. And I know that we are going to enforce the voters rights, the 

Voting Rights Act robustly, and we will continue—again, if—if 

there is evidence, we should get that to our FBI and the people 

that enforce these laws so we can properly predicate an investigation. 

Mrs. MCBATH. Okay. Well, thank you for that, because if we 

don’t get answers, I promise you, we will keep asking. 

Another question that I have is what steps did the Department 

take to support election security efforts during the 2018 election, 

specific efforts? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Are you talking about the actual voting devices—— 

Mrs. MCBATH. Yes. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Or—the responsibility for the security of the voting devices, the machines, is actually the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mrs. MCBATH. Uh-huh. Can you tell this committee what those— 

what those responsibilities were, those steps that were actually 

taken? Because I can tell you, there were many, many instances in 

Georgia we saw over and over again where people were not allowed 

to vote. 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 

gentleman—the witness may answer the question. 

155 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again, if there is specific evidence that crimes 

have been committed, we would be very interested in that at the 

Department of Justice. 

Mrs. MCBATH. Thank you. 

Chairman NADLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Stanton—Mr. Stanton. 

Mr. STANTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Whitaker, thank you for appearing before us here today. 

Your time as Acting Attorney General is near end. After that, you 

may or may not be working for the Department of Justice or another position within the Trump administration, but there are, of 

course, several congressional investigations that involve yourself. 

And I want you here today to pledge that you will answer any Inspector General questions and cooperate fully with his investigations even after you depart from your current position. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Are you talking about the DOJ Office of Inspector General? 

Mr. STANTON. Yes, sir. The Justice Department’s Inspector General is currently considering several congressional requests for information and investigations that involve you. Since you will be 

leaving this position soon, I want you to commit here today in front 

of this committee that you will answer the IG’s questions and cooperate fully with those investigations. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am happy to commit to that. I will cooperate 

with the Inspector General. Michael Horowitz is a fine DOJ career 

employee. I have the utmost respect for him. I think he has done 

exceptional work. 

Mr. STANTON. Excellent. Thank you so much. 

The impact of the government shutdown on the functioning of 

the Department of Justice, the law enforcement functions, is it fair 

to say that the shutdown was devastating on the ability of the Department to do their work? 

Mr. WHITAKER. The shutdown really was a difficult time at the 

Department of Justice, because most of our employees are law enforcement and are—you know, are excepted in their performance of 

their duties, and so they showed up every day like dedicated public 

servants and did their job knowing that you here in Congress 

would ultimately pay them and come to some resolution of the 

shutdown. 

Mr. STANTON. We appreciate your recognition of that. I think 

every person up here, in a bipartisan way, would agree that the 

work of the rank-and-file members of the Department of Justice, 

FBI, the other law enforcement officials is outstanding. It seems 

appropriate, then, that the Department did issue a memorandum 

saying that, during the time of the shutdown, ancillary functions 

of the Department that involve travel would be not allowed. Is that 

accurate? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I don’t have that memo in front of me, but that 

is consistent with my understanding of our guidance in that regard. 

Mr. STANTON. On January 13, 2019, in the middle of the government shutdown, did you travel to give a speech to The Heritage 

Foundation? 

156 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, this is an important question, but 

I want to be very clear. I have 24/7 security detail that—that 

drives me everywhere, and so the term ‘‘travel,’’ I am not sure what 

you mean. I went to Capitol Hill to give a speech to The Heritage 

Foundation, yes. 

Mr. STANTON. Okay. Would you consider that activity, a speech 

to The Heritage Foundation, to be an ancillary function of the Department? 

Mr. WHITAKER. You know, Congressman, again, I had no other 

way to get to a speech that I had committed to give before the 

shutdown. 

Mr. STANTON. Thank you. The speech involved the topic of RFRA 

and the Commemorate RFRA. In October 2017, during the time 

that you were Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, the Attorney 

General’s office did issue guidance on the—on Federal law for religious liberty. The guidance involved expansion of exemptions to 

RFRA at a religious liberty summit held in the summer of 2018. 

Attorney General Sessions announced the formation of the Religious Liberty Task Force to further coordinate implementation of 

the guidance across the Federal departments at agencies. It is fair 

to say that there has been limited public information on the task 

force and its work. The only public documentation is a 2-page 

memorandum issued establishing the task force. Are you aware of 

any additional documents or guidance that further explain the task 

force’s mandate and processes? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No, I am not familiar with any additional—— 

Mr. STANTON. Do you know what the budget is of the task force? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I do not believe, as I sit here today, that we have 

actually effectuated the task force yet, and so I don’t—you know, 

again, it is going to be an internal task force that would come— 

that would have no specific separate budget. 

Mr. STANTON. Will you commit that during the remaining time 

that you are attorney—Acting Attorney General to provide to this 

committee any additional details regarding that task force, which 

has been in place now for, I guess, 7 months or more? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes. Congressman, I will be happy to follow up 

in writing with you or someone from the Office of Legislative Affairs about that religious liberty task force. 

Mr. STANTON. Recently, HHS interpreted RFRA to allow a Christian-based foster cage—foster care agency that does receive Federal 

tax dollars to discriminate against a potential foster parent because 

they happened to be Jewish. Do you know if the Justice Department stands behind this HHS determination that a taxpayer subsidized organization can discriminate against a Jewish individual? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am certain that the Department of Justice will 

defend that—that position of a—of a sister agency. 

Mr. STANTON. Thank you very much. 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Ms. Dean. 

Ms. DEAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Whitaker, for agreeing to appear before us today. And I am delighted to hear of your Department’s focus on the scourge of gun 

violence, and so I look forward to your full endorsement and support for H.R. 8, the universal background check bill. 

157 

Today you said a couple of things that really touched me. You 

said that you have to set the tone of the Department, and you said 

that the job you are doing now is the honor of a lifetime. All of us 

here can quite imagine that. I believe that actually you do, as the 

head, as the Acting AG, set the tone for the Department. 

Tell me—and this is not a negative question. It is just a factual 

question—how many positions did you interview for with this administration prior to you going to the Department of Justice? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As we previously explored with one of your colleagues, I had interviewed preliminarily for the position that ultimately Ty Cobb occupied and then Emmett Flood I think currently 

occupies, and then I interviewed with General Sessions and some 

of his staff for the chief of staff job. So in fact, I—I had never— 

after the election of 2016, I had never intended to come into the 

administration, but I was—you know, I was—I was happy to be 

asked, and I explored opportunities. And those are the two that I 

interviewed for. 

Ms. DEAN. And in the meantime, in your private life, you became 

a commentator on CNN and other places, and you disparaged the 

Mueller investigation. Is that true? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I used my experience as a United States attorney—— 

Ms. DEAN. Is it true? Yes or no? 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. I wouldn’t characterize it as disparagement, 

no. I—I think I tried to explain to the American people, when I was 

on CNN and—and other outlets, how the process worked, how the 

process for appointment, how the process for—— 

Ms. DEAN. No, I am not asking you about process. I am asking 

you about the subject and the investigation and—and the validity 

of the investigation. We know—the record is public—that you did 

say very negative things in your private life, and you have said 

today you are not willing to take those back, so they stand. Your 

thoughts on the Mueller investigation are fully public and they 

stand because you did not take them back today. 

How did you learn of the extraordinary honor that was bestowed 

upon you? How did you learn you got the job? 

Mr. WHITAKER. You know, I can’t remember if it was—which preceded which, but I—I believe I received a phone call from the President of the United States asking me to be the Acting Attorney General. 

Ms. DEAN. A moment ago you said you learned by tweet. Did I 

misunderstand you? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yeah, I think you did. 

Ms. DEAN. Okay. So it was—you learned first by a phone call 

from the President? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I believe so, but they were very close in time, and 

so I—actually as I sit here right now, I can’t remember which preceded which. 

Ms. DEAN. Okay. And how long was that phone call? Was it just 

simply, I am letting you know of this, or was there substantive conversation about your role? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, I am not going to discuss the private conversations I have had with the President. I think it is important 

158 

that he is entitled to that confidentiality from a Cabinet secretary, 

even acting like I am. 

Ms. DEAN. Okay. Tell me your—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. I will tell you that it was not a substantive phone 

call. 

Ms. DEAN. It was an honorary—an honor phone call, probably. 

And following that and the tweet, when did you next meet with 

the President about your job? Because it is during this time you 

have to decide—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I don’t remember. 

Ms. DEAN. It was during this time, in that month or more, that 

you have to decide whether or not to recuse. Am I right? So how 

many times did you meet with the President prior to your decision 

not to recuse? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, while I am not going to discuss 

any meetings that I have had with the President nor conversations, 

I will tell you that I—I—I interact with the President on a regular 

basis, including after I was appointed Acting Attorney General. 

Ms. DEAN. You said you set the tone for the entire Department, 

and so you had to carefully consider whether or not to recuse yourself from any dealings with Robert Mueller—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yeah. I spent 5 weeks—I spent 5 weeks considering that question. 

Ms. DEAN [continuing]. Five weeks determining that. And you 

got information from two sources, that we know of. Career officials 

at the Justice Department recommended you recuse yourself to 

avoid the appearance of a conflict or bias. Is that correct? And that 

was on December 19. To avoid even the appearance of a conflict or 

bias, based on your previous statements. Is that correct? Is that the 

advice you got? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman—— 

Ms. DEAN. It is a yes or no, please. My time is running out. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I would just point you to the 

letter—— 

Ms. DEAN. And I have waited a long time. Please. It is a yes or 

no. 

Chairman NADLER. Answer the question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. This—this question is not a yes or no because it 

is—it—you have to understand how it was my decision to make. 

Ms. DEAN. I am not talking about your decision. I am talking 

about the guidance that you received, not your decision. 

Mr. WHITAKER. It was not their decision to make. 

Ms. DEAN. No, no, no. I am asking you factually about the guidance you received. Career officials told you you should recuse to 

avoid even the appearance of an impropriety of bias, and you set 

the tone for your Department. Am I correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, they told me it was a close call. 

They said it could go either way, and they said—— 

Ms. DEAN. So to set the tone, you think on a close call, you go 

the other way? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As the Attorney General, and not to bind my successors, yes, I believe on a close call as the Attorney General of the 

United States that I made the right decision. It was my decision 

to make. 

159 

Ms. DEAN. And yet you had—have I lost my time, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman NADLER. Get this question out, and I will let him answer it, and that will be that. 

Ms. DEAN. Would you be able to provide us the written guidance 

that you got from the career professionals in terms of recusal? They 

recommended recusal. Would you please provide this committee 

that written document? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, that would require me to provide you internal deliberations that are not typically provided in 

this relationship, but I can tell you, as we sit here today, I did not 

receive any written advice from the career ethics officials. 

Chairman NADLER. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

Ms. DEAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NADLER. You are welcome. 

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whitaker, I want to go back to your time when you worked 

for the Foundation for Accountability and Civil Trust. I worked for 

many, many years for various 501(c)(3)s, so I—it is very interesting 

to me, when I look at the board, is this a private or a public foundation? FACT, is that—the 501(c)(3). Is it a private or a public? 

Mr. WHITAKER. It is a 501(c)(3). I don’t know. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. There are two separate types. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I don’t have the 990 filings 

or—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. But you worked there from 2014 to 

2017? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I was. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. And you were the executive director for 

the foundation. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, I was. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. But you don’t know if it is a private or 

a public? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I haven’t worked for FACT in 16 months and I— 

in my preparation for this oversight hearing—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Whitaker. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. I didn’t review the filings, so I don’t 

know which—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. So were there only—thank you, Mr. 

Whitaker. Thank you. 

Were there only three board members in this 501(c)(3)? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I believe there were—yes, there were three board 

members. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. William Gustoff, Neil Corkery, Matthew 

Whitaker, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yeah. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Okay. So it is also my understanding 

that you filed numerous FEC complaints while working there? 

Mr. WHITAKER. All of our complaints were posted online. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Were they FEC complaints, Mr. 

Whitaker? You filed FEC complaints. 

Mr. WHITAKER. We filed all—we filed many different types of 

complaints that were—that were very similar to—— 

160 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Were—did you file FEC complaints? I 

am just—this is very—you worked as the executive director of this 

501(c)(3). Did you file FEC complaints? Very—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Very easy—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes. Yes. We filed FEC complaints, in addition 

to others. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. And—and who made the decision to file 

these complaints? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I was the executive director. I believe I signed 

all, if not all of those—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Did you make the sole decision to file 

these complaints or were you directed—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. No. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL [continuing]. By any—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. I was not directed. I—I was the executive—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. You did that on your own? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes. We were an independent nonpartisan—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. 501(c)(3). Nonpartisan. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Ethics watchdog, yes. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. It is a nonpartisan. 

Did you file any FEC complaints against any Republicans? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I sit here today, I don’t recall, but I mean, all 

of our complaints—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Okay. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Are posted online. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. 

I would like to ask for unanimous consent to make part of the 

record the restriction of political campaign intervention by section 

501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, and it reads: Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely 

prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in or intervening 

in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for elected public office. 

Chairman NADLER. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

161 

MS. MUCARSEL-POWELL FOR THE 

OFFICIAL RECORD 

162 


Insert offset folio 290 here 36001A.070
163 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Thank you. 

I have some other questions here, if you give me some time. All 

this time I am waiting, and I can’t find the—the questions. No. No. 

Thank you. 

This pertains to also an issue that is very close and dear to my 

heart, LGBTQ issues. In October 2017, the Department of Justice 

withdrew a 2014 memo which stated that the best reading of the 

Title VIII—Title VII prohibition on sexual discrimination in the 

workplace encompasses antitransgender discrimination. The new 

memo instructs the Department of Justice attorneys to now argue 

that Federal law does not protect transgender workers from discrimination. 

Are you familiar with both memos? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, I am familiar with those memos that do not 

extend Title VII to LGBTQ. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Thank you. And at the time of the reversal, were you serving as the chief of staff for Attorney General Sessions, correct? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I served as chief of staff from October 4 of 2017 

until I was appointed Acting Attorney General in 2018. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. So who ordered the reversal of this policy? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am—I am certain it was Attorney General Sessions who sets the entire policy for the Department of Justice. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. And who drafted the new memo? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I don’t have—as I sit here today, I—I don’t have 

any idea. That would be deliberative work done by, I am sure, 

many people at the Department of Justice. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Any outside groups that were involved 

in the process? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Not that I am aware of, but again, I wasn’t—I 

wasn’t directly—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. And do you stand by the Department’s 

decision to reserve its position that Title VII protects transgender 

people from discrimination? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I think a plain reading—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Please just answer the question. Do you 

stand by the Department’s decision to reverse its position that Title 

VII protects transgender people from discrimination? 

Mr. WHITAKER. If Congress wants Title VII to extend to 

transgender people, you can change the law. We cannot read into 

something that is not the law. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. So I take that as yes. Okay. 

Do you believe that members of the LGBTQ community should 

not be protected under Federal discrimination laws? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Again, Congresswoman, I personally believe that 

discrimination of any kind shouldn’t happen, but I will tell you that 

Title VII—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Mr. Whitaker, yes or no, please. I don’t 

have much time. Do you believe that members of the LGBT community should not be protected under Federal discrimination laws? 

Mr. WHITAKER. The plain reading—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Yes or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER. The plain reading—— 

164 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Yes or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Of Title VII—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Yes or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. Does not extend—— 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. To transgender, and you uniquely 

control what is the law. We merely enforce the law. 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Do I still have time, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman NADLER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. Escobar. 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whitaker, this hearing began this morning at 9:30. I have 

been waiting almost 6 hours. It is nearly 3:30 in the afternoon. I 

have been waiting nearly 6 hours to ask my questions. I am going 

to ask you for a favor. Out of respect for this committee, out of respect for me as a Member of Congress, I am going to ask that you 

try not to run out the clock and that you please answer my questions with a yes or a no, and if I have a followup, that you please 

answer the followup as succinctly as possible. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, with all due respect—— 

Ms. ESCOBAR. I am sorry. Excuse me. If I could please get my 

statement out, sir. 

Mr. WHITAKER. With all due respect, I am going to answer your 

questions. 

Ms. ESCOBAR. I have watched you do that to every member on 

this committee. I am asking that you please—— 

Mr. WHITAKER. Because a lot of questions don’t have yes no answers. 

Chairman NADLER. The time belongs to the member. 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Thank you. 

I represent El Paso, Texas. I live on the safe, secure, vibrant 

U.S.-Mexico border. Unfortunately, my community, one of tremendous goodwill and generosity, has been ground zero for many of 

this administration’s cruel anti-immigrant, anti-American policies, 

including family separation, child detention in tents, the ongoing 

prevention of asylum seekers from stepping foot on American soil 

at our ports of entry, and in December, the death of two immigrant 

children in U.S. custody. 

Earlier, you said you believed every life is valuable, and I would 

hope and assume that that includes the lives of the most vulnerable among us. 

There is a new policy that is about to unfortunately be rolled out 

in my community called the Migrant Protection Protocol, which I 

believe is a misnomer for a dangerous and, in some cases, deadly 

and I believe also an illegal policy that allows our government to 

return migrants and asylum seekers back to Mexico while they 

await their asylum hearing. 

Here is my question. Because the Department of Justice oversees 

the Executive Office for Immigration Review, will the Department 

of Justice ensure that asylum seekers have access to counsel in 

Mexico in order to allow them to prepare for their hearings? Yes 

or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER. We are going to continue to follow the policies at 

EOIR that are currently in place. 

165 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Will you facilitate, assist, help ensure that asylum 

seekers have access to legal counsel in Mexico? Yes or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, there is a very well-defined 

process for asylum seekers to obtain counsel and we are going to 

continue to follow that. I—— 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Mr. Whitaker, even while they are in Mexico? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As the Acting Attorney General, I—I cannot 

make an assurance, especially regarding what happens in a foreign 

country. I mean, I—I know you understand that. 

Ms. ESCOBAR. And this is part of the reason why this is such a 

terrible policy. 

Another question. About a week after the policy was announced, 

reports surfaced that immigrant rights advocates and attorneys 

were denied entry into Mexico. The attorneys said their passports 

had been flagged, and reports also indicated that this was not an 

issue on the Mexican side, but it was on the U.S. side. Did the Department of Justice have anything to do with flagging these passports? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I am not familiar with the situation you are describing, but I am happy to look into it and get 

back to you. 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Thank you. 

Another question related to this issue. Does the Department of 

Justice have an immigrant advocate watch list? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I am not aware of the question 

you are asking me, the answer to it, so I am happy to look into 

it and get back to you, but I just—— 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. WHITAKER. That is not something that sounds familiar and 

that I prepared for today. 

Ms. ESCOBAR. I look forward to the answers to those questions. 

Now, switching gears a little bit. At the President’s State of the 

Union address, he claimed that my community, El Paso, Texas, 

quote, used to have extremely high rates of violent crime, one of 

the highest in the entire country, end quote, and he claimed that 

we became one of the safest communities in America because of the 

wall. 

Data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program shows 

that El Paso has historically been one of the safest communities in 

the—in the Nation and that we were such long before a wall was 

constructed. Do you have any reason to disagree with the FBI’s 

Uniform Crime Reporting data? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, we use the UCR on a regular, 

ongoing basis to not only know where our crime hot spots are, but 

to also put our resources at the Department of Justice. 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Sir, that is not my question. Let me repeat my 

question. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Okay. 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Do you have any reason to disagree with the FBI’s 

Uniform Crime Reporting data? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congresswoman, I think the UCR—— 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Do you have any reason, sir, to disagree with your 

FBI’s data? 

Mr. WHITAKER. As I sit here today—— 

166 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Yes or no. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. I do not have any reason to disagree—— 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Okay. Great. Perfect. 

Mr. WHITAKER [continuing]. With the FBI’s data. 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Thank you very much. 

Switching gears again. Did you ever create—— 

Chairman NADLER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. I will let 

her finish this one question. 

Ms. ESCOBAR. Thank you, Chairman. 

Did you ever create, direct the creation of, see, or become aware 

of the existence of any documents relating to pardons of any individual? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I am aware of documents relating to pardons of 

individuals, yes. 

Chairman NADLER. The gentlelady’s time as expired. 

I am going to ask one question to follow up on the gentlelady’s. 

Sir, since it is, well, black letter law that someone in the United 

States may apply for asylum, that any person who applies for asylum and states a reason therefore is entitled to have that claim adjudicated, that that person is entitled to legal assistance as that 

claim is adjudicated, doesn’t it strike you that a policy that says 

that people who set foot on American soil and claim asylum will 

be sent to a foreign country where they may not have access to 

legal help which they are constitutionally guaranteed for their asylum adjudication may have a constitutional problem? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I am sure you are aware that Federal law allows asylum seekers to be returned to a safe third country. 

Chairman NADLER. I am not aware, though, that it allows people 

not to—that it allows the government to do something that effectively eliminates their right to counsel for their asylum claim. 

This concludes today’s hearing. I want to thank all the members 

who are still here for their patience and their fortitude. I want to 

thank Attorney General Whitaker for appearing today. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman NADLER. Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. I am not asking—I am putting 

these questions on the record. 

Chairman NADLER. Excuse me. Submit them for the record. 

Without objection, the questions are admitted. 

[The information follows:] 

167 


Insert offset folio 300 here 36001A.071
168 


Insert offset folio 301 here 36001A.072
169 


Insert offset folio 302 here 36001A.073
170 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the article—and two articles, articles— 

three articles, for the record, GQ, Washington Post, New York 

Times, and also an article by Shane Crouch. 

Chairman NADLER. Without objection, the articles are admitted. 

[The information follows:] 

171 

MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD 

172 


Insert offset folio 305 here 36001A.075
173 


Insert offset folio 306 here 36001A.076
174 


Insert offset folio 307 here 36001A.077
175 


Insert offset folio 308 here 36001A.078
176 


Insert offset folio 309 here 36001A.079
177 


Insert offset folio 310 here 36001A.080
178 


Insert offset folio 311 here 36001A.081
179 


Insert offset folio 312 here 36001A.082
180 


Insert offset folio 313 here 36001A.083
181 


Insert offset folio 314 here 36001A.084
182 


Insert offset folio 315 here 36001A.085
183 


Insert offset folio 316 here 36001A.086
184 


Insert offset folio 317 here 36001A.087
185 


Insert offset folio 318 here 36001A.088
186 


Insert offset folio 319 here 36001A.089
187 

Chairman NADLER. Before we adjourn, I want to note for the 

record that—Mr. Whitaker, that you owe us responses on a number 

of issues raised here today, responses that we intend to secure, including but not limited to the times and dates you were briefed on 

the special counsel’s investigation, your communications with the 

President after you received those briefings, the basis for your 

statement that the special counsel’s investigation is reaching its 

conclusion, and whether you told the special counsel not to take 

any specific investigative or prosecutorial steps. 

I would also note that your testimony was, at best, inconsistent 

on the topic of your communications with the White House prior 

to your tenure at the Department. It is not credible that you both 

interviewed for a job handling the President’s response to the special counsel’s investigation and never conveyed your opinions about 

that investigation to the White House. 

We require answers to these questions. I ask the Department to 

work with the committee to provide them. As part of that work, I 

fully intend to call you back for an interview under subpoena, if 

necessary, and I expect more fulsome answers at that time. 

Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witness or additional 

materials for the record. 

And with the thanks of the chairman, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

188 

APPENDIX 

189 


Insert offset folio 323 here 36001A.091
190 


Insert offset folio 324 here 36001A.092
191 


Insert offset folio 325 here 36001A.093
192 


Insert offset folio 326 here 36001A.094
193 


Insert offset folio 327 here 36001A.095
194 


Insert offset folio 328 here 36001A.096
195 


Insert offset folio 329 here 36001A.097
196 


Insert offset folio 330 here 36001A.098
197 


Insert offset folio 331 here 36001A.099
198 


Insert offset folio 332 here 36001A.100