that that there s any problem with the probe. i think that rosenstein who s been working with mueller, overseeing mueller, i think mueller s an adult, i think he understands what the timetable looks like and what the politics are like here in terms of just going forward with his job. i think everybody understands that. and i think, as you said, john, the questions now for barr will just be will you let him finish his job? and i think that will be the commitment that they try to get out of him. and it will be interesting to see if senators, particularly republican senators, demand an answer to that. we re so used to hearing where people, nominees squirm out of answers to specific questions. this is a pretty basic question that william barr should answer. and we can point out where he s been on some of these matters. you pointed out that when robert mueller was poointd at first he was good with that. before bill barr didn t like the mueller probe he did like the mueller probe. so i
senate. his involvement with a company that appears to be under fbi investigation, according to public reports. his involvement today reported in a publicly supported land deal that he appears to have walked away from that left a lot of victims and unhappy people including government agencies that appointed money for it. there is also his public statements about the mueller investigation. all of these things would go into his vetting by the senate if he were up for confirmation, which he is not. on the issue of overseeing the mueller investigation, though, the question of potential conflicts of interest, the question of him prejudging the case, presumably the ethics officials at the justice department would consider those when deciding whether or not he should be recused from overseeing mueller. how does that process work, though? and how much transparency are we allowed to see? how much transparency are we allowed into that process in terms of seeing whether he has been given that adv
on the issue of overseeing the mueller investigation, though, the question of potential conflicts of interest, the question of him prejudging the case, presumably the ethics officials at the justice department would consider those when deciding whether or not he should be recused from overseeing mueller. how does that process work, though? and how much transparency are we allowed to see? how much transparency are we allowed into that process in terms of seeing whether he has been given that advice? so the way the process works is that the attorney general would ask the career ethics folks at doj for their view on whether recusal is required. then he ll receive that advice. but confidentially. it s not made public. then he will make a decision based on that advice as to how to proceed. unlike with a court case where there is a ruling that is public, here that all happens behind the scenes. can congress ask to see it? yeah. i know that democrats have written to the top ethics off
or not it s constitutional. the question mwhether or not its an appointment for purposes of the constitution. as to some of the other views you mentioned, ana, look, matt whitaker has a number of very troubling views. not only the view you mentioned which would be unconstitutional, that we have a religious test for judges, but he doesn t believe that courts should have judicial review of whether or not laws are constitutional. it was recently reported that he believes in nullification, which we did away with in the civil war, the argument that states can do away with federal law. the reason people are so interested in it is, he has extreme views on the mueller probe, saying it s a witch hunt, saying there s no collusion, saying anyone would meet with the russians in the trump tower meeting and now he s overseeing mueller. those are legitimate questions.