Here's the bizarre and wacky email the acting attorney general's wife just sent to a reporter out of the blue
Ever since President Donald Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and installed his chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, in his place, reporters have been uncovering disturbing facts about the Justice Department's temporary chief — that he believes judges should enforce the Bible, that he allegedly ran a politically motivated prosecution of Iowa's first openly gay lawmaker, that he sat on the board of an invention company shuttered as a scam by the Federal Trade Commission, that he opposes the Mueller investigation, that he shopped for DOJ officials to overrule ethics advice to recuse himself from that investigation, and that his appointment may have been unconstitutional.
All of this is apparently too much for Marci Whitaker, the acting attorney general's wife. On Thursday, Slate's Mark Joseph Stern revealed that she had sent him an angry email in response to an article he and Dahlia Lithwick wrote on Monday about permanent attorney general nominee William Barr's lack of fitness for office, which had also mentioned Whitaker's scandals.
"I understand the message that Slate wants to send its readers. You hate Trump — noted," she wrote. "I also understand that I cannot stop people from writing what they want, if they toss in a few words like "allegedly" or "likely". But I cannot understand the zeal in trying to destroy an individual who has done nothing to deserve this tearing down. Someone who has never had an ethics complaint. Someone who supported his family though a variety of enterprises, some more successful than others, but never sinister or shady. Are you hoping that all future appointees' qualifications are to have sat at a desk and pushed paper around for 30 years? Is life experience, both good and bad, somehow disqualifying? Matt is a really good person and is only serving his country."
If World Patent Marketing was indeed a scam, she insisted, her husband knew nothing about it. And the threatening email he sent to a dissatisfied client warning he was a former U.S. attorney? That was apparently no big deal!
"To imply that Matt had visibility and knowledge of $25 million dollars of wrongdoing is preposterous," she wrote. "Would you characterize a sternly worded letter as threatening? [note: obviously, yes, you did, but really?] It was well-documented that Matt is a capable and affable person."
And as for Whitaker's animus for the Mueller investigation: "Why would a person need to recuse oneself for that mild statement? If abundance of caution is the standard, anyone who ever spent 5 minutes contemplating the topic would need to do so. And by all means, assume that a person who speculated on a hypothetical scenario would then put some dark plan into motion, when by all accounts, the investigation is wrapping up and they [sic] eyes of the nation are upon them. Yeah, that’s pretty realistic."
"Oh, and I guess you missed that the Supreme Court decided not to take up the temporary appointment challenge," she added. "Most organizations had given up on that angle of attack quite a while ago. Kudos to your perseverance, misguided though it may be."
She added, as a postscript, not to publish her contact information because "I like my job and I need to continue to earn a living, particularly in light of this shutdown" — which presumably means that Whitaker himself is working without pay at the moment.