Matt Whitaker suggested the attorney general might keep Robert Mueller’s conclusions secret forever

Before he joined the Trump Justice Department — and before he became acting attorney general — Matt Whitaker tweeted approval of an NPR article suggesting that the public might never learn what special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation reveals because the attorney general might simply decline to release Mueller’s report.

The article Whitaker tweeted urged Trump foes not to get their hopes up that Mueller would ever shake up the political landscape, and Whitaker (a couple of days after referring to “the Mueller lynch mob”) endorsed that idea.

The article, written by Carrie Johnson, has two elements.

First, much of Mueller’s work is being conducted via grand juries, and grand jury work is normally kept confidential.

Second, and more consequential, it’s possible that Mueller’s formal report on the conclusions of his investigation could simply be bottled up by the attorney general — i.e., by Whitaker himself:

Regulations governing the special counsel say that at the conclusion of his work, he “shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions.” Then, it’s up to the attorney general to determine whether releasing some information would be in the public interest.

This is particularly relevant to the Mueller case because it’s far from clear that any attorney would ever actually charge the president of the United States with a crime.

Rather, a special counsel’s report would potentially contain damning information that led to a political response, including either impeachment proceedings or electoral losses for members of Congress who declined to advance impeachment proceedings. But if the attorney general simply keeps the information in his back pocket, then there is no political impact.

Any such move would, obviously, be a big political story and prompt outrage from Democrats. But the nature of the Trump-era news cycle is that it would inevitably be overtaken by six more outrages within a month or so. And this means of stymying the Mueller investigation would be of lower salience than actually firing him while producing some similar benefits.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via