House Dems ready subpoena for acting Attorney General Whitaker if he refuses to testify

The Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted to authorize a subpoena for Matthew Whitaker if the acting attorney general decides not to appear before the panel for scheduled testimony or declines to answer certain questions.

While Whitaker has already agreed to testify before the committee in public on Friday, Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said the vote on authorizing a subpoena was necessary in order to ensure that the top Justice Department official shows up and does not rely on executive privilege to decline to answer certain questions.

“When we invite officials to testify before this committee, they have to appear. When we ask them questions, they have to provide us with answers, or provide us with a valid and clearly articulated reason to withhold certain information,” Nadler said at a business meeting Thursday morning.


“Without the threat of a subpoena, I believe it may be difficult to hold Mr. Whitaker to this standard.”

Lawmakers, in a party-line vote of 23-13, approved a resolution authorizing a subpoena for Whitaker’s testimony. The subpoena will only be issued if Whitaker does not appear or declines certain inquiries.

Republicans fervently pushed back on the vote, arguing that authorizing the subpoena was unnecessary because Whitaker had already agreed to testify. They cast it as a partisan move by Democrats, who hold newfound oversight power in the House following the November midterm elections.

Rep. Doug CollinsDouglas (Doug) Allen CollinsThe Hill's 12:30 Report: Former Ukraine envoy offers dramatic testimony GOP eager for report on alleged FBI surveillance abuse House to vote on bill to ensure citizenship for children of overseas service members MORE (R-Ga.), the top Republican on the committee, described the move as a “departure from the norms” and said a subpoena “should be used as a last resort” only if a subject refuses to testify.

“This subpoena is nothing short of political theater,” Collins said.

Rep. Jim JordanJames (Jim) Daniel JordanPress: Ukraine's not the only outrage GOP senator calls impeachment 'sabotage' effort, raises questions about witness on eve of testimony Public impeachment hearings enter second week MORE (R-Ohio), a fierce ally of President TrumpDonald John TrumpMost Americans break with Trump on Ukraine, but just 45 percent think he should be removed: poll Judge orders Democrats to give notice if they request Trump's NY tax returns Trump's doctor issues letter addressing 'speculation' about visit to Walter Reed MORE, similarly noted there was no impasse preventing Whitaker’s testimony that would require the threat of a subpoena.

“Where the heck’s the impasse?” Jordan asked. “This is ridiculous — the guy is coming.”

Democrats, however, argued that the subpoena threat is necessary to ensure Whitaker answers lawmakers’ questions. They pointed to what they described as efforts by Whitaker to delay his testimony before the committee. 

“We’re not voting to issue a subpoena,” Nadler said. 

“The subpoena would be issued only if he doesn’t show up” he added, or if Whitaker “refuses to answer questions on a speculative basis of privilege.” 

Nadler has sent letters to Whitaker in recent weeks asking him to consult with the White House on a series of prepared questions to resolve any potential executive privilege issues ahead of the hearing. Nadler said Whitaker has not notified him of any such issues.

Whitaker’s public testimony Friday promises to be explosive. Democrats are expected to grill him on his oversight of special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerSpeier says impeachment inquiry shows 'very strong case of bribery' by Trump Gowdy: I '100 percent' still believe public congressional hearings are 'a circus' Comey: Mueller 'didn't succeed in his mission because there was inadequate transparency' MORE’s Russia investigation and his communications with the White House.

Whitaker has been a flashpoint for controversy since November, when Trump tapped him to serve at the helm of the Justice Department following Attorney General Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsPress: Ukraine's not the only outrage To understand death behind bars, we need more information White House backs Stephen Miller amid white nationalist allegations MORE’s ouster. Whitaker, who had been critical of Mueller’s probe before he joined the administration, is viewed as a political ally of the president.

Democrats and other Trump critics have raised concerns that Whitaker could take steps to thwart Mueller’s probe.

Democrats on Thursday also rejected an effort by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) to offer an amendment that would have added Deputy Attorney General Rod RosensteinRod RosensteinDemocrats ask judge to force McGahn to comply with subpoena Democrats ask court to force DOJ's hand on Mueller grand jury materials Washington celebrates diplomacy — and baseball — at Meridian Ball MORE’s name to the subpoena.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have clamored for Rosenstein’s testimony after the New York Times reported last year that he had discussed secretly recording Trump and invoking the 25th amendment to expel him from office.

Rosenstein had also been overseeing Mueller’s probe for more than a year as a result of Sessions’ recusal. 

Updated: 11:45 a.m.