Now we know why DOJ hid Whitaker’s financial disclosures. Something is VERY rotten in Denmark & we’re going to get to the bottom of it. We’re legally entitled to the versions of these reports that existed on the date we requested them, Nov. 7. See below for our first response. /1
DOJ told us they were “working on” our request but it turns out what they were working on was CHANGING Whitaker’s reports — multiple times. We don’t know what they added, deleted or modified. But we’re going to pursue that information. /2
It gets even weirder still. Whitaker filed his new entrant financial disclosure report OVER A YEAR AGO, but DOJ did not certify (approve) it until now. It’s very strange and not at all normal that this would have taken a year for a top agency official. That raises red flags. /3
As if that were not enough, not a single one of the changes to his reports occurred before CREW requested them. So that begs the questions: What was the hold up for a year, and why the sudden rush to modify those reports after we requested them? /4
Just before entering govt, he earned legal fees from a scam company being investigated by the FBI. He also earned almost a million dollars from a (very profitable) non-profit in the 20 months or so before coming into government — one allegedly focused on accountability. /5
Notes on the reports say an ethics official made the changes. Why was Whitaker unavailable to make them? DOJ has assured us he’s focused on ethics as he evaluates the demands for his recusal. It’s unusual that an ethics official would make multiple changes (vs. a quick fix). /6
An enterprising journalist may want to compare his income to the value of his reported assets. There are many possible legitimate explanations for the apparent disparity. But safe to say, if he went through the nomination process, he would’ve been asked to provide one. /7
More to come . . . /end.
You can follow @waltshaub.