The Daily 202: Five takeaways from Trump’s thwarted effort to fire Mueller

The following article by James Hohmann with Breanne Deppisch and Joanie Greve was posted on the Washington Post website January 26, 2018:

President Trump last June sought to fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III but backed off after White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn threatened to resign. (Bastien Inzaurralde, Melissa Macaya/The Washington Post)

THE BIG IDEA: The revelation that Donald Trump sought to fire Bob Mueller last June, but reluctantly backed off after Don McGahn threatened to resign, is the latest reminder that fear of political fallout has done more to insulate the special counsel from the president than respect for the rule of law.

The showdown, first reported by the New York Times, was confirmed by two people familiar with the episode.

Trump denied the report when asked about it this morning in Davos, Switzerland. “Fake news, folks. Fake news,” the president said, without being more specific.

But other news outlets have now matched the story, as well. “A source close to the White House” confirmed to Fox News that Trump told officials he wanted to fire Mueller but was “talked out of doing so” by McGahn.

Here are five takeaways from the latest bombshell:

With the term whirling around Washington, a former federal prosecutor explains what to know about the criminal charge of obstruction of justice. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

1. Trying to fire Mueller is a data point that could be used to build a larger obstruction case.

“Amid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation,” Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman report on the front page of the Times, citing four sources. “Mr. McGahn disagreed with the president’s case and told senior White House officials that firing Mr. Mueller would have a catastrophic effect on Mr. Trump’s presidency … Mr. McGahn was also concerned that firing the special counsel would incite more questions about whether the White House was trying to obstruct the Russia investigation. … After receiving the president’s order to fire Mr. Mueller, the White House counsel … refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel, saying he would quit instead …

“Another option that Mr. Trump considered in discussions with his advisers was dismissing the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, and elevating the Justice Department’s No. 3 official, Rachel Brand, to oversee Mr. Mueller,” per the Times. “Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.”

“In the jigsaw puzzle of circumstantial evidence of criminal intent, these are more pieces that Mueller certainly would use,” white-collar criminal defense attorney Jacob Frenkel, who previously worked in the Office of Independent Counsel, told one of my colleagues. “You build it around the timing.”

From a writer for the Atlantic:

A prominent Democratic lawyer:

2. The White House’s credibility gap has become a chasm.

Many reporters no longer trust any official statements from the president or his spokespeople. This is the consequence of the White House repeatedly and vehemently denying stories, especially related to the Russia investigation, that are later proven true.

On Dec. 20, for example, White House lawyer Ty Cobb released a statement that said: “For five months or more the White House has persistently and emphatically stated there is no consideration of firing the Special Counsel and the White House willingly affirms yet again, as it has every day this week, there is no consideration being given to the termination of the Special Counsel.”

Derek Hawkins flags some other denials that have now been undercut:

Last August, two months after the events in question, Trump himself was asked whether he had considered firing Mueller. “I haven’t given it any thought,” the president claimed during a news conference.

On ABC that same month, George Stephanopoulos asked White House counselor Kellyanne Conway whether the president would commit to not firing Mueller. “The president has not even discussed that,” she said. “The president is not discussing firing Bob Mueller.”

Also in August, USA Today asked Trump lawyer John Dowd if Trump might try to remove Mueller. “That has never been on the table, never,” Dowd replied. “It’s a manifestation of the media.”

In October, during another news conference, Trump was again asked whether he ever considered firing Mueller. “No, not at all,” the president said.

“As the White House has consistently said for months, there is no consideration of firing the special counsel,” Cobb told CNNon Dec. 16.

“There is no conversation about that whatsoever in the White House,” Marc Short, the White House legislative affairs director, told NBC on Dec. 17.

The host of PBS NewsHour recalled another episode:

3. This news will create fresh momentum for Congress to take up bipartisan bills to protect Mueller, even if GOP leadership continues to pigeonhole them.

Republican Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.) said last night that McGahn “prevented an Archibald Cox moment.”

“I believe now that this revelation has been made public, that there will be increasing pressure to protect Mueller,” Dent told Mike DeBonis.

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) co-sponsored a bill last August with Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to create a judicial check on the executive branch’s ability to remove a special counsel. Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) introduced similar legislation. “It’s long past time congressional leaders allow members to vote on our legislation that checks the president’s ability to remove a special counsel, ensuring that any removal is for legitimate reasons,” Booker said in a statement.

Blumenthal added:

4. McGahn threatening to quit is a reminder that White House staffers do not need to enable Trump.

They may serve at the pleasure of the president, but West Wing employees are still public servants. If Trump’s interests and the national interest come into conflict, the oath they take requires them to put country first.

From a conservative lawyer who contributes to National Review:

A Harvard law professor and Hoover senior fellow who held top legal jobs under George W. Bush:

Hillary Clinton’s former spokesman:

Mueller’s team has now interviewed more than 20 White House officials. Trump lawyer John Dowd put out a one-page memo yesterday to make the case that the administration is cooperating with Mueller: It said the White House has turned over 20,000 pages of documents, and the Trump campaign apparatus turned over an additional 1.4 million pages. Dowd said 17 campaign staffers — along with 11 individuals affiliated with the campaign — have now given interviews to Mueller’s team and/or congressional committees, per Carol D. Leonnig.

5. Managing Trump can be a herculean task for his top aides.

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly has worked to insulate Trump from outside advisers who might encourage his self-destructive instincts. Josh Dawsey, Robert Costa and Philip Rucker have a deep dive this morning on his approach and the ways the president sometimes bristles at it:

“Kelly has slashed security clearances into the West Wing and reduced the number of people on the access list that once allowed relative free roaming within the White House … People such as former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski have seen their access reduced … After Lewandowski had a lengthy meeting at the White House with Kelly this month, he went to say hello to [McGahn] … When Jim Carroll, a White House lawyer, saw Lewandowski sitting in the waiting area without an appointment with McGahn, he told the operative that he had to leave and offered to escort him out …”

“Kelly brings fewer issues to the president than Reince Priebus, his first chief of staff, did, and often will advise Trump of issues after they have been handled. He has curbed the role of the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner, in the White House, aides say, and has at times questioned Ivanka Trump’s work on Capitol Hill.

“While the two men fight and swear at each other at times, Kelly sees Trump more than anyone else, and confidants say the volatility in their relationship is natural.

“Trump has joked to associates that Kelly has cut his phone line, outside advisers said. He has told friends that he can come by ‘only if the general approves.’ And the president has complained that he never sees staff members anymore and occasionally sits in the office alone, aides said. … One reason Trump stays in the personal residence section of the White House so late every morning — sometimes until after 10 a.m. — is because he has access to his phone and has fewer restrictions, associates say. Kelly has told others he is fine with such ‘executive time,’ as it is referred to on his schedule.

“Trump critics have questioned whether Kelly’s style of managing the president is always best. While he has sometimes kept bad information from getting to the president, he has also intervened to block bipartisan deals that Trump wanted to strike on immigration and reinforced some of the president’s most contentious positions. Several of Trump’s most controversial and racially incendiary moments — such as his remarks last summer after riots in Charlottesville and his recent disparaging comments about African nations — also came as Kelly looked on.”

— This story is dominating every social media platform. Here’s a taste of the online conversation:

From a former Republican congressman from Florida:

Another former Florida GOP congressman:

The conservative Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol:

The former director of the Office of Government Ethics:

A former House Republican staffer and CIA officer who ran for president as an independent:

The director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics:

A Democratic congressman from Illinois:

The former acting solicitor general (now a Georgetown law professor) posted a long thread of tweets:

There were lots of jokes, such as this from a National Review columnist:

A writer for Slate:

View the post here.