Margot Cleveland

Opinion contributor

Since Donald Trump fired Jeff Sessions and announced that Matthew Whitaker would assume leadership of the Justice Department as acting attorney general, Whitaker has faced a barrage of unjust criticism from the mainstream media, the left, and the Never-Trump right. The opposition stems not from principle but from ideology, and it is yet another front of the resistance.

The main complaint lodged against the acting attorney general is that Whitaker is a Trump loyalist: During his tenure as Sessions’ chief of staff, Whitaker reportedly served as a “balm” between the Justice Department and the president, acting as the president’s “eyes and ears” within what Trump viewed “an enemy institution.”

The loyalist charge, though, is purposefully vague. And critics are exploiting this ambiguity by portraying Trump’s trust in Whitaker as nefarious. But there is nothing nefarious about the (acting) attorney general loyally serving the president of the United States — that is his job! It is only by suggesting that solidarity with Trump means obstructing justice that “loyalist” becomes a pejorative.

Whitaker's loyalty is a welcome change

The irony here is rich. Whitaker is taken to task for being trustworthy, while critics ignore the real scandal — the disloyalty apparently pervasive in the Justice Department and elsewhere in the administration.

The proof came early: Within two weeks of Trump’s inauguration, acting attorney general and Obama administration holdover Sally Yates directed Justice attorneys not to defend the president’s travel ban, forcing Trump to fire her. Since then, congressional investigations, Freedom of Information Act requests and dedicated work by Sessions have exposed additional efforts by Justice and FBI career employees to undermine the president. And yet even after nearly two years of cleaning house, just two months ago a supposedly senior official in the Trump administration claimed anonymously in the New York Times that “many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda.”

While Trump’s opponents may cheer such insubordination, our country suffers when unelected and unknown bureaucrats seek to thwart the agenda of the man freely chosen by voters to serve as our president. Whitaker’s fidelity to Trump may be striking in contrast to the status quo in the D.C. swamp, but it is most assuredly not a stain on the acting attorney general’s credentials or character.

More:Matthew Whitaker is an excellent choice to lead Justice Department

Christine Blasey Ford's changing Kavanaugh assault story leaves her short on credibility

Trump didn't realize Sessions was helping him. Now he'll pay for that mistake.

Nor does Whitaker’s loyalty to the president require him to recuse from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Here, it is helpful to recall why former Attorney General Sessions recused from overseeing that investigation: It was not because of Sessions’ solidarity with the president, but because during the 2016 campaign Sessions had spoken with Russian Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak. While Sessions was a sitting senator at the time and said there was nothing improper about his conversation, he nonetheless stepped back from the Mueller investigation and turned the reins over to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Critics want Whitaker to leave the matter in Rosenstein’s hands and recuse from any oversight of Mueller. There is no basis to demand this recusal. Unlike the situation with Sessions, there is no connection between Whitaker and Russia involving the 2016 campaign. And the few innocuous public comments Whitaker made concerning Mueller’s investigation are insufficient to justify recusal.

Unjust to say Whitaker will thwart Mueller

Yet Trump’s opponents seek to crucify Whitaker for refusing to step aside, speculating that as acting attorney general he will improperly interfere with the Mueller investigation. While this charge is both unsupported and unjust, it provides a political win-win for the president’s detractors. If the narrative builds and prompts Whitaker to recuse, Rosenstein remains in the oversight role. But the more likely scenario sees Whitaker as Mueller’s superior, in which case the victory comes when nothing comes of the Russia investigation.

If the special counsel concludes that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election — as appears likely given the absence of any substantive charges of collusion in the last two years — Trump’s exoneration will be proof to his detractors that Whitaker interfered in the investigation. The relentless attacks on Whitaker today are merely laying the groundwork for that eventuality. And if Whitaker’s reputation must take a hit in the process, that’s just how Washington operates.

At least that has been how Washington has operated. Trump is changing things by refusing to capitulate and by countering false charges. We saw that in the case of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And in assessing the current attacks aimed at Whitaker, the public would be wise to remember that the charges leveled against Kavanaugh didn’t hold up to scrutiny in the end. They won’t where Whitaker is concerned either.

Margot Cleveland is a lawyer and an adjunct instructor at the University of Notre Dame. Follow her on Twitter: @ProfMJCleveland