Matthew Whitaker, the New Acting Attorney General, Was Obsessed With Clinton’s Emails

He pitched a list of questions for Clinton to answer during a presidential debate. Nearly all were about her emails.

Then-Iowa Republican Senate candidate Matthew Whitaker before a debate in 2014.Charlie Neibergall/AP

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

In January 2016, Matthew Whitaker drew up a list of eight questions he wanted NBCā€™s Lester Holt to ask Hillary Clinton at a Democratic presidential debate. Seven of them were about her emails. ā€œHow can people trust you to ensure their personal safety and security…when youā€™ve admittedly been ignorant about security risks with your own email and those risks have been shown to be serious?ā€ he suggested Holt ask Clinton. Two months later, Whitaker argued there was an ā€œurgent needā€ to ā€œimmediatelyā€ appoint a special counsel to investigate Clintonā€™s emails.

On Wednesday, Whitaker became the acting attorney general after Jeff Sessions resigned at President Donald Trumpā€™s request. Sessions had recused himself from the Russia probe, but Whitaker will have oversight of Mueller’s investigation into misconduct far more serious than Clintonā€™s use of a private email server.

Before joining the Justice Department, Whitaker ran the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, a conservative nonprofit ostensibly ā€œdedicated to promoting accountability, ethics, and transparency.ā€ But FACT does not reveal its donors and almost exclusively targets Democrats. Whitaker was the organizationā€™s only full-time employee in 2015 and 2016, according to tax filings.

The filings show that FACT paid more than $260,000 to CRC Public Relations between 2015 and 2016. CRC had made a name for itself by helping spread the inaccurate Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign. It recently guided conservative activist Ed Whelan as he spread a conspiracy theory suggesting that Christine Blasey Ford was actually assaulted by a classmate who looked like Brett Kavanaugh.

During the 2016 campaign, FACT focused on a wide range of alleged misconduct by Clinton. In June 2015, FACT filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, asking it to investigate interactions between Clintonā€™s campaign and a PAC promoting her candidacy. In October, Whitaker followed up with a complaint to the Internal Revenue Service based on allegations that the Clinton Foundation had made improper payments to Clintonā€™s 2008 presidential campaign. In December, Whitakerā€™s organization called for a ā€œfederal probeā€ into whether Clinton had given special treatment to a mining company affiliated with her son-in-law. 

In January 2016, FACT published the questions Whitaker hoped Clinton would have to answer at the debate. They included:

  • Your own emails reveal that you routinely gave preferential treatment to people with which you had financial and family ties, including George Soros, Bill and Melinda Gates and your son-in-law. Average Americans donā€™t get this kind of access to the State Department, so why did you give such access to these individuals?
  • Providing special access to political and other donors is a blatant violation of ethics rules. As a lawyer you understand this. Why did you not comply with these rules?
  • If you were President, would you ever let anyone in your administration use a personal email or private server?

After Trump defeated Clinton, Whitaker was much more generous in his assessment of Trumpā€™s ethical issues. In an August 2017 CNN appearance, he defended Trumpā€™s decision to maintain ownership of his Washington, DC, hotel, saying that ā€œthe ethics laws and the conflicts of interest rules do not apply to the president or the vice president.” 

Whitaker wrote on CNN.com in August 2017 that Muellerā€™s investigation risked becoming a ā€œwitch huntā€ and urged Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to limit the scope of the investigation. ā€œIt does not take a lawyer or even a former federal prosecutor like myself to conclude that investigating Donald Trumpā€™s finances or his familyā€™s finances falls completely outside of the realm of his 2016 campaign,ā€ he wrote. Whitaker retweeted a Philadelphia Inquirer article the same day titled ā€œNote to Trumpā€™s lawyer: Do not cooperate with Mueller lynch mob.ā€ He added, ā€œWorth a read.ā€ Two months later, Whitaker became Sessionsā€™ chief of staff.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

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

Get our award-winning magazine

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

Subscribe

Support our journalism

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

Donate