Uranium One - extent of Mueller led investigation at the time, if any, mentioned - in yesterday's Daily Caller news.

Link. Another report of the FBI raid on allegedly protected whistleblower's home found online, ZeroHedge, the first report encountered, linking to DailyCaller as original source. That prompted a websearch, with mainstream media reporting not appearing in the return list. It is confusing.

UPDATE: Sputniknews link. Further confusion.

FURTHER: It appears Sessions, before resigning, had appointed a Justice Department official to respond to Congressional inquiry. How this raid fits whatever Congressional concerns were is not clear from reporting. This item is a year old, and nothing was done back then. Another websearch, specific to within last week.

FURTHER: FOX. From over a week ago.

FURTHER: Powerline blog picked it up.

FURTHER: 12/1/2018: Repeating the search mentioned in Powerline, "Dennis Nathan Cain whistleblower," with Bing and DuckDuckGo, same dearth of mainstream media attention. Powerline posting indicated that search as a Google, without any mainstream coverage as of the date/time stamp of the item.

The reporting indicates Cain, via his lawyer, stated a belief that earlier he held two documents provided to one believed to be from the FBI inspector general, and that he was led to believe the items were provided to somebody associated with House and Senate Intelligence Committees, likely the chairmen and ranking members; if actually handled in the way Cain's lawyer stated - as Cain's belief. Hopefully, Cain stashed copies with some third person in case this raid was to stifle rather than inform. Just guessing, based upon only the reporting online and suspicion about what could have been actuality.

Other coverage, newsLI.com, inquisitr.com and WND.com

Looking forward to The Intercept deciding whether to run with the story. Most stories posted lead with a photo of Ms. Clinton; not Mr. Clinton, which would not be as good as one of both; and in differentiation, this post ends with a photo showing both, and having had much online exposure previously:

FURTHER: The newsLI report states, mid-item:

The delivered documents also show that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller failed to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct pertaining to Rosatom and to other Russian government entities attached to Uranium One, the document reviewed by TheDCNF alleges. Mueller is now the special counsel investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

[bolded links in original] With some of the FBI raid reporting mentioning Bob Goodlatte wants new congressional inquiry into Uranium One, this websearch yields some mainstream media coverage from a year ago, but nothing from any Goodlatte current activity. goodlatte.house.gov does not post any Uranium One focus news item. This Google search, time restricted to last month, does yield one returned item citing a Fox and Friends session from this month. The indication is Goodlatte is retiring and investigative material may be concentrated in the hands of the Senate, which remains majority Republican. If that last search is changed to a "last year" time frame other hits show up, but there is only the indirect FOX indication, i.e., no reliable mainstream media outlets show up. The dearth of FBI/DOJ (second special prosecutor) interest in Uranium One is confusing. It seems facially strange how U.S. mineral rights end up foreign held, i.e., globalized natural resource policy seems to have some kinks. All for now.

FURTHER: From earlier this year,the question of FISA court secret practices is separate from lifting the Uranium One rock to see all that crawls beneath. The entire circumstantial Uranium One picture, as it stands in press reporting, seems to drip with sleaze. On the FISA situation, see, e.g., here, here and here; where no special prosecutorial outcome ensued. Whitaker, faults and all, now stands in Sessions' shoes, and if he rekindles interest in Uranium One some might agree with the opinion here, that it would be a public service. This latest raid seems to show an intent in the opposite direction by removal of information from hands within the public along with a show of intimidation as a lesson for others.

FURTHER: This item. FOX. Links from earlier this month that were found but not put into earlier text. Posting the links corrects that omission. The FOX item begins:

House Republicans plan to hold a hearing into the Department of Justice’s probe into the Clinton Foundation in December -- a month before Democrats will take control of the chamber.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations, told The Hill he wants to hear testimony on Dec. 5 from the prosecutor appointed to investigate the controversial foundation, which has been dogged by allegations of "pay to play" when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. The foundation has repeatedly denied the allegations.

Meadows said it was time to “circle back” with U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was appointed to investigate the foundation.

“Mr. Huber with the Department of Justice and the FBI has been having an investigation — at least part of his task was to look at the Clinton Foundation and what may or may not have happened as it relates to improper activity with that charitable foundation, so we’ve set a hearing date for December the 5th,” he said.

[links in original] This is an encouraging development, even though time is short before leadership changes. Pop the popcorn and pay attention. Something material may be uncovered, perhaps in a way that Whitaker can use to begin a formal DOJ look at apparent gross Clintonian mischief. Such a development could be prophylactic for the Democratic Party, ridding it of an ongoing liability and allowing it to grow more in progressive directions, however that possibility may be shepherded by House and DNC officials.

FURTHER: Dismissive attitude might be fine, as to not losing sight of the Mueller investigation being top news nor regarding Uranium One questioning as cause to discredit Mueller's current activity, it being separate, yet getting to the bottom of Uranium One misconduct, if such is found, has the benefit of not allowing any party to be above the law. When Cenk's voicing gets to its most Trump-like is when it seems most suspect. Saying it's a smokescreen may have some truth, yet good can come from it, again, because nobody should be allowed to flaunt flout the law in money charged ways. Rule of law being applied to the Clintons really has no argument against it. (Got the verbs mixed up; what appears the case is flaunting of flouting of conduct norms, whether criminal by statute or not).

FURTHER: Having to be fair to Cenk, Uranium Won.

FURTHER: FOX carrying the ball to where something may be shown the public which the public may judge. Republicans and questionable deplorables included. Earlier hearing event on YouTube. Similarly, a Congressman's webpage entry linking to the same video content. Two posts by The Hill, a year apart, here and here.

Whatever may stick to Trump and/or family sticks to them. Whatever may stick to the Clintons sticks to them. Pop the popcorn.

But keep an eye on what the government is doing or dodging while the circus is in town. Go easy on the popcorn.

FURTHER: Related, or independent, here and here; you tell me. Fifteen minutes of fame seems inadequate for such reporting, disappeared as it was, but such a plan would involve sale of fissile material to purchasers, sold by some source, somewhere, and again, related to or independent of Uranium One and growth of the Clinton Foundation fisc?

What exactly is "the swamp" seems a question to address before claiming an intent and acting to "drain" it.

UPDATE: Suggest a cellmate.

UPDATE: Related or independent; you tell me:

Common Dreams: Just Being Anti-Trump 'Not Good Enough': Sanders Urges Democrats in New Congress to Embrace This Detailed Progressive Agenda Moving "with a sense of urgency" in their first 100 days next year, says senator, "Democrats must have the courage to take on powerful special interests and fight for a progressive agenda that addresses the needs of working families." by Jon Queally, staff writer

Look at the opening image of the Common Dreams post and see if you spot any cause to expect the opposite of embracing a sound progressive agenda. A cause to expect foot-dragging and drama instead of improvement.

Ditto, opening image, Wapo, here.

(Hint: see red.)

The Clintons.

A video.

___________UPDATE____________
Another interesting video segment usage.

Ed Walker writing at Empty Wheel - a taxation agenda for Speaker Pelose if she's to earn the gavel.

Link. Not expected, but it sets out fairness. Can Pelosi be fair, and still rake in all that campaign money? And will she?

No. And no.

The main merit of the item is to show how easily a fair agenda can be set, in detail, point-by-point.

The problem is getting the bastards in office to fairly tax the bastards whose money put them there and keeps them there. When phrased that way a dilemma shows itself.

A Matthew Whitaker roundup. From Digby to: Is Pence loyal? Along the way, birds of a feather. A sampling by video, cites, and report quotes. Hint: one flocking bird besides Whitiker is a Minnesota bird that recently was active, kind of, politically, and got his tail feathers clipped in a GOP primary loss. Any guess?

Digby makes a phone appearance on a Steve Seder video clip. Laughter involved.

Besides content which clearly is on point, the video got posted as "Is Trump's Acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker, a Mike Pence Pick?"

Going after Pence at this stage of things can't be all bad, right? Because going after Pence anytime will always ring a bell.

Early in the Seder video the Nov. 9, image and headline from this Salon item by Digby was screened: Breaking bad: Low-grade right-wing hack is now our nation’s leading law enforcement officer -- Diabolical scheme or screw-up? Matt Whitaker is a surprise pick as acting attorney general, and not in a good way; stating in part [links omitted]:

Trump didn't do the normal thing and put the deputy attorney general in charge until a new person could be confirmed by the Senate. Of course he didn't. He named a completely unqualified toady by the name of Matthew Whitaker, who had been serving as Sessions' chief of staff for the past year. Nobody seems to know exactly how he came to have that particular job, but what we know is that Whitaker was a small-time political player from Iowa who once served as a U.S. attorney and ran unsuccessfully for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination in the 2014 midterms. More recently he was a crony of Sam Clovis, the Iowa politico who worked on the Trump campaign, got himself all caught up in the Russia investigation and had to resign his sinecure at the Department of Agriculture.

Whitaker has also worked as a sole practitioner for a right-wing, dark-money-funded organization called the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), where he disseminated "legal opinions" in the media in support of Republican politics. Clovis reportedly advised him to go to New York and become a Trump defender on TV in order to get noticed by the president so he could get a judicial appointment. CNN hired him, naturally.

In other words, Whitaker is a political hack, and not a particularly high-level one. But he apparently impressed Trump with his extreme sycophancy, so he went directly from guest hits on CNN to being the attorney general's chief of staff. And now he is the acting attorney general of the United States.

This shouldn't be too surprising, really. Recall that Trump wanted to make his personal pilot the head of the FAA. He brought in his totally inexperienced son-in-law to run his Middle East policy and much else. His daughter is a senior staffer. He liked the White House physician and tried to appoint him as secretary of Veterans Affairs. That's how things work in Trumpworld.

Going next to Hullabaloo, Nov. 9: Whitaker the Drug Warrior, Nov. 22.

NBC News, Culture warrior? LGBTQ advocates say Matthew Whitaker 'raises alarm bells' - The acting attorney general has a public record spanning more than a decade that concerns a number of LGBTQ advocates., Nov. 15.

Guardian, Nov. 26, Revealed: Matthew Whitaker favors hardline anti-abortion policies.

The Economist, Nov. 20.

CNN, Nov. 25, Schiff: 'We are going to bring Whitaker before the Congress'

Adam Silverman, BalloonJuice, Nov. 9.

San Diego Union-Trib, Nov. 21, Right-leaning nonprofit with hidden donors paid acting Atty. Gen. Matthew Whitaker nearly $1 million before role.

Wikipedia: Matthew Whitaker (attorney) [Redirected from Matthew Whitaker (politician)]

Another, above and beyond others - EmptyWheel [not excerpted, read the item, please] - and with 101 comments and a provocative title not entirely fleshed out, the Empty Wheel post and comment thread, as usual for the site, intrigue:

link

NYT, "Matthew Whitaker: An Attack Dog With Ambition Beyond Protecting Trump," dated Nov. 9, beginning [links omitted in excerpting]:

WASHINGTON — President Trump first noticed Matthew G. Whitaker on CNN in the summer of 2017 and liked what he saw — a partisan defender who insisted there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. So that July, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, interviewed Mr. Whitaker about joining the president’s team as a legal attack dog against the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

At that point, the White House passed, leaving Mr. Whitaker, 49, to continue his media tour, writing on CNN’s website that Mr. Mueller’s investigation — which he had once called “crazy” — had gone too far.

Fifteen months later, the attack dog is in charge.

So, the Whitaker entry was during the McGann tenure; meaning McGann's history is of interest; Wikipedia giving more detail, including McGann's role in judicial nominations. Guardian coverage was unfavorable. Nothing in the Wikipedia entry suggests McGann was responsible for finding and picking Whitaker; but the NYT item suggests he handled vetting.

Later in the NYT item:

The decision to fire Mr. Sessions and replace him with Mr. Whitaker had been in the works since September, when the president began asking friends and associates if they thought it would be a good idea, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The goal was not unlike the first time the White House considered hiring Mr. Whitaker. As attorney general, he could wind down Mr. Mueller’s inquiry like the president wanted.

Mr. McGahn, for one, was a big proponent of the idea. So was Leonard A. Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society who regularly advises Mr. Trump on judges and other legal matters. Mr. Whitaker had also developed a strong rapport with John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff. Nick Ayers, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, was a fan, too.

Note that Ayers, not Pence himself, is alleged to have had an advisory role. Whether Ayers was a deliberate surrogate is an open question.

More NYT:

In an October interview on “Fox & Friends,” Mr. Trump said: “I can tell you Matt Whitaker’s a great guy. I mean, I know Matt Whitaker.”

(On Friday, after reports surfaced that Mr. Whitaker had called courts “the inferior branch” of government and had been on the advisory board of a company that a federal judge shut down and fined nearly $26 million for cheating customers, Mr. Trump made a bizarre comment to reporters that he was not familiar with Mr. Whitaker. [...])

[...] White House officials wanted to wait until after the midterm elections, when any criticism would not affect voting.

The concern was well founded. At 2:44 p.m. Wednesday, hours after the election was over, Mr. Trump posted his decision on Twitter that Mr. Whitaker would “become our new Acting Attorney General of the United States.”

“He will serve our Country well,” the president wrote.

Within minutes, Democrats criticized Mr. Whitaker’s previous comments about the Russia inquiry and demanded that he recuse himself from overseeing it. He also came under fire for serving on the advisory board of World Patent Marketing in Miami, the company that has been accused by the government of bilking millions of dollars from customers.

Mr. Whitaker’s time as executive director of the conservative Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, which accused many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, of legal and ethical violations also came under scrutiny. So did his legal views, including his stated belief that Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review, was a bad ruling.

For now, Mr. Trump is standing by Mr. Whitaker — at least as a temporary solution.

[... Whitaker, as a U.S. Attorney in Iowa] came under criticism for a case his office brought in 2007 against the first openly gay member of the Iowa Legislature, Matt McCoy, a Democrat.

Mr. Whitaker’s office indicted Mr. McCoy on an attempted extortion charge, accusing him of using his authority as a state senator to force a former partner in a home security business to pay him $2,000. The former partner was paid by the F.B.I. to act as an informant and for several months recorded his conversations with Mr. McCoy.

But the evidence was not convincing. After a five-day trial in United States District Court in Des Moines, a jury deliberated for less than two hours before returning a verdict of not guilty.

“It was a horrible case — it was made up — and it was designed to take a high-profile Democrat who was popular, openly gay and listed as one of the top 100 rising stars in the Democratic Party and smear me,” Mr. McCoy said in an interview.

Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, rebutted Mr. McCoy. “The allegations of improper prosecution are ridiculous,” she said. “The Justice Department signed off on the case. The F.B.I. investigated it, and career prosecutors handled the case every step of the way.”

As a federal prosecutor, Mr. Whitaker continued to show political ambition. Matt Strawn, a former chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, said Mr. Whitaker was someone “known inside Republican circles as someone you want on your side in a fight.”

[...] By October of last year, Mr. Whitaker was telling people that he was working as a political commentator on CNN in order to get the attention of Mr. Trump, said John Q. Barrett, a professor at St. John’s University School of Law who met Mr. Whitaker during a television appearance last June.

His plan worked. Mr. Whitaker returned to the Justice Department in October 2017, having once again earned the support of Mr. Trump’s closest advisers inside the West Wing.

That is about all the NYT item stated, with "Mr. Trump's closest advisers inside the West Wing," not spelled out. Whatever role daughter and son-in-law may have had was not stated in the item. Ditto for Mike Pence.

Birds of a feather. The Hill, before the second Obama term, "Pawlenty beefs up Iowa team, makes first SC hire - By Jordan Fabian - 05/17/11 11:07 AM EDT," FLOCKING FLAGGED:A

Likely GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty added two top members to his growing campaign team over the past two days in preparation for making his run official.

[...] And on Tuesday, former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker was named to lead Pawlenty's Iowa steering committee.

Pawlenty, a former Minnesota governor, has traveled around the country looking to raise money and build support for his presidential campaign-to-be.

Late last week, Pawlenty traveled to Iowa, where he is working to make a big splash in the first-in-the-nation caucuses, to meet with potential voters. He returns to his home state of Minnesota on Wednesday to hold a large fundraising event after meeting big GOP donors in various cities over the past few months.

Pawlenty has already hired a full staff in Iowa in addition to naming Whitaker to run his volunteer steering committee. The former governor also has a steering committee formed in New Hampshire, the first-in-the-nation primary state.

Derserving one another, for sure. Mediocrity and sleaze, hand in glove:

Enough to make one puke.

Yes, Whitaker and Pawlenty each are naked opportunists, and yes, aside from that tie years ago there is no other, yet we cannot leave that link without video amusement (all the cliche content is there, except for the slogan: "Make America Great Again.") Whitaker was not one to let the immediately shown Pawlenty unpresidential unpopularity quash his own payday opportunity, and accordingly shifted slithered to the Rick Perry candidacy, raising the question of whether it was Whitaker who preped Perry on the three federal agencies he'd shut down if elected. NEXT -

Is Mike Pence Loyal? The question is not loyal to his ambitions, that is beyond reasonable doubt, but loyal to the Trumpster? And, who would ask? Well, NYT on Nov. 16 led others in reporting it was Trump asking staffers the question; this link; with excerpted dramatic reading interlaced with commentary on YouTube, here.

Beyond the YouTube op-ed item focus, NYT wrote:

But some Trump advisers, primarily outside the White House, have suggested to him that while Mr. Pence remains loyal, he may have used up his utility. These advisers argue that Mr. Trump has forged his own relationship with evangelical voters, and that what he might benefit from more is a running mate who could help him with female voters, who disapprove of him in large numbers.

Others close to the president believe that asking about Mr. Pence’s loyalty is a proxy for asking about whether the vice president’s chief of staff, Nick Ayers, is trustworthy. Mr. Trump has been considering making Mr. Ayers the White House chief of staff to replace John F. Kelly, the retired Marine general — a decision several White House officials say has been with the encouragement of his adult children. But the president has put off making a decision for now.

The conversations were described in interviews with nearly a dozen White House aides and others close to Mr. Trump. [...]

Veterans of previous White Houses described this type of questioning as a frequent occurrence before a re-election campaign begins in earnest.

“The idea of changing a ticket has been discussed by at least some aides in every White House and it almost never happens,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a former communications director for President Barack Obama.

[...] In 2012, Mr. Obama’s aides briefly talked about replacing Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. with Hillary Clinton for the president’s re-election effort.

[...] The two men [Trump and Pence] speak daily, sometimes multiple times. But some of Mr. Trump’s advisers believe that the dynamic between the president and Mr. Pence has changed in the first two years of Mr. Trump’s term, part of a pattern in many of Mr. Trump’s relationships.

Some of Mr. Trump’s outside advisers have mentioned Nikki R. Haley, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, a post she plans to leave at the end of the year, and former governor of South Carolina, as a potential running mate. Ms. Haley is close with Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Mr. Trump gave her an unusually warm send-off in the Oval Office when she announced she was leaving the United Nations job in September.

And Ms. Haley on the ticket might help Mr. Trump win back the support of women, who voted for Democratic candidates in large numbers in the midterm elections.

[...] Some of Mr. Trump’s evangelical supporters feel particularly strongly that making a change would be a mistake.

[...] But some who have studied evangelical voters and their political activity say losing Mr. Pence wouldn’t necessarily be a disaster.

Robert P. Jones, the chief executive of the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, said that the president faced an “at best moderate risk” if he were to drop Mr. Pence from the ticket.

Mr. Jones said that while Mr. Pence may have served as a validating figure for white evangelicals, recent research showed that 7 out of 10 white evangelicals who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party would prefer Mr. Trump over any alternative Republican candidate in 2020.

A third of white evangelicals who support Trump, Mr. Jones said, indicated there was virtually nothing the president could do to shake their trust — which theoretically includes selecting a new running mate.

[links in original omitted] They got their judges etc., so they trust Trump; making Pence as vestigial as the human appendix. Yet, would Nikki Haley do it? She does have self respect. Elsewhere, as to the Ayers/proxy idea, NYT published:

As for the chief of staff role, Mr. Ayers is favored by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and daughter Ivanka Trump, both of whom serve as West Wing advisers. Mr. Trump’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., has told friends he sees Mr. Ayers as “competent,” a stamp the Trump family has not always affixed to people working for their father.

Mr. Ayers did not travel as originally planned with Mr. Pence on his official trip to Asia this week, two White House officials said. And another prospective chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who already leads two agencies and who had been seen as campaigning for the West Wing job, has told aides he is no longer interested.

Several people working in the White House who are not among the Trump family members or their allies have expressed concern to the president about putting Mr. Ayers in that role, and have warned that some staff members might quit because of it.

Mr. Trump hates interpersonal confrontation, and he often lets aides he does not like remain in their positions for uncomfortably long times, meaning changes could still be weeks away, the people close to the president cautioned. And Mr. Ayers’s name has been mentioned as a Kelly successor before, only to disappear as Mr. Kelly has remained in his post.

Further kicking the dump-Pence can down the road; The Atlantic, Business Insider, The Post and Courier, Raw Story, and Newsweek; but compare, Washington Times, and Breitbart.

As to Ayers and Pence and access; here and here. Godly men with earthly ties?

The one Whitaker-related question left begging was whether Pence and/or McGann and Pence had been tasked with responsibility for vetting Whitaker prior to Trump acting on an instinct to advance the career of a clown who went on TV to show he was Trump's owned clown? There seems to have been inadequate vetting, a point made between Sam Seder and Digby in the video cited at the opening of this post.

The bull drops a big load; per an email forwarded to me. Advance "efforts to protect the ACA, Medicare, Social Security, Planned Parenthood, and more," instead of buying that purse which when you get it home does not go with anything. REALLY! And you thought nobody would ever formulate any such linked together madness, right?

A hat tip to a reader for forwarding the item, text:

Ever go shopping on Black Friday or Cyber Monday, looking for gifts for other people, and wind up with a gift for yourself?

For me, it's usually purses. I see one I love. It's a great deal. And then I get it home and realize it just doesn't go with anything. A rare occurrence, since I'm a bit obsessed with purses that are a great buy!

Today, instead of buying a gift for someone (or yourself) that winds up going back, I'm asking you to spend $5 or $10 you know will go to good use -- our efforts to protect the ACA, Medicare, Social Security, Planned Parenthood, and more.

Can you use this link to give $5, $10, or more? https://www.debbiewassermanschultz.com/CyberMonday

I know it probably seems like Election Day was just yesterday. But Trump and Republicans haven't slowed down.

Trump forced out his attorney general. His administration gave bosses more say over whether their female employees can access birth control. And he's attacking the independent judiciary (again).

They're not backing down -- we can't either. Instead of buying another purse you don't need, spend that money on continuing our activism.

Here's that link again: https://www.debbiewassermanschultz.com/CyberMonday

[bolding and actual linking in original omitted] Creative anarchy brought to you by a zipperhead in Congress. IN CONGRESS!

A hundred percent >> probably not. What kind of shyster would do that?

Video. That kind. The man lied about Matt Whitiker. Lying is a pathology with pathological liars.

We got one.

______________UPDATE______________
More. Besides being a great guy according to Trump but one Trump does not know, Whitaker got a shady $1.2 million recently, donors undisclosed; Ms. Amy clucks about it, NYT publishes. That NYT item leads with a photo of Whitaker having his hand over his wallet in a jacket pocket; I think that's what it's showing.

NYT in a separate item also opines about Whitiker, with multiple links to bolster the argument; this excerpt:

Is it O.K. for a president to shut down an investigation of himself? To answer that question yes is to take the position that not only this president, but any president in the future, is free to take the law into his own hands.

The reason Mr. Trump replaced Mr. Sessions with Mr. Whitaker seems clear. When The Daily Caller, a conservative news website, asked Mr. Trump last week for his thoughts about the man now running the Justice Department, the president volunteered, “As far as I’m concerned, this is an investigation that should have never been brought. It should have never been had. It’s something that should have never been brought. It’s an illegal investigation.”

Mr. Whitaker is an avowed antagonist of Mr. Mueller — he has called the investigation a witch hunt, said Mr. Mueller’s team should not investigate Mr. Trump’s finances and suggested that an attorney general could slash the special counsel’s budget.

As if concerns about the Constitution, the law and Mr. Whitaker’s judgment weren’t enough, the broader picture that has emerged about Mr. Whitaker is even more disturbing. He has expressed skepticism toward Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that established the concept of judicial review; he would support the confirmation of federal judges who hold “a biblical view of justice”; he may have prosecuted a political opponent for improper reasons when he was a federal prosecutor in Iowa; and then there’s the fiasco of his business involvement with a company accused of scamming customers that is being investigated by the F.B.I.

Justice Department regulations governing the day-to-day operations of the special counsel’s office allow for Mr. Whitaker to be read in on many of its inner workings, including that the acting attorney general be given “an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step” that Mr. Mueller decides to take. So there is nothing to keep Mr. Whitaker from being the president’s eyes and ears inside the most closely guarded investigation in the history of American politics.

[links omitted] While calling the investigation Muller is conducting "a witch hunt" WaPo days ago published, "In 2016, Whitaker floated the possibility of Trump reopening the Clinton email investigation - By JM Rieger - November 21, 2018 at 1:15 PM."

And that OLC opinion is one tiny fig leaf, no doubt about that.

Perhaps more about Whitaker in subsequent posting. In closing this post, I am with TRUMP in not knowing Matthew Whitiker either, but my guess is while at U.Iowa he played football without a helmet.