Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Trump claims no bid to fire Mueller
President says Times story ‘fake news’
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday denied that he had ordered the firing of Robert Mueller, the special counsel in the Russia probe, and called reports of the June incident “fake news.”
The New York Times reported Thursday evening that Trump ordered Don McGahn, his top White House lawyer, to dismiss Mueller just weeks after Mueller took over the Russia investigation. The president relented after McGahn refused to ask the Justice Department to fire Mueller and threatened to quit.
Trump responded to the Times report during a trip to Davos, Switzerland, where he is attending the World Economic Forum, a gathering of world leaders and global business executives.
Upon arrival at the Congress Center in Davos, Trump was greeted by several of the forum’s participants snapping cellphone photos and by a large group of reporters asking why he had ordered Mueller’s firing.
“Fake news, folks,” Trump replied. “Fake news. Typical New York Times fake story.”
The Times report was based on four people who were told of the matter. On Thursday, Ty Cobb, who manages the White House relationship with Mueller’s office, declined to comment.
Some Democrats were angered to learn that the president reportedly had ordered the firing of Mueller last year, even if he eventually backed off.
“I’ve said it before, and I am saying it again: Firing the special counsel is a red line that the president cannot cross,” Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia said Thursday. Warner is the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is one of the congressional panels investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
“Any attempt to remove the special counsel, pardon key witnesses, or otherwise interfere in the investigation would be a gross abuse of power, and all members of Congress, from both parties, have a responsibility to our Constitution and to our country to make that clear immediately,” he said.
Some lawmakers were so concerned over the summer that Trump might move to fire Mueller that they introduced bills to shore up the special counsel’s job and protect it from political interference.
One measure, co-sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., would require a judge’s review to ensure a special counsel is fired for cause and not for political reasons.
Another proposal, introduced by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., would require a Senate-confirmed official at the Justice Department to discipline or fire a special counsel. That measure was introduced at a time when Trump had privately and publicly disparaged his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Some feared Trump would fire top officials at the Justice Department until someone carried out his orders to fire the special counsel.
Trump has since softened his public criticism of Mueller, White House officials say over and over that he has nothing to hide, and his lawyers have signaled they are cooperating, too.
Tillis spokesman Daniel Keylin said that since the legislation was introduced, “the chatter that the administration is considering removing special counsel Mueller has completely come to a halt.”
But the lack of more recent reports did not reassure other lawmakers.
“This remarkable report makes scarily clear that we need this protection right away for the special counsel,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said Friday. “It’s necessary now to send a signal to the president that political interference and firing the special counsel simply is totally unacceptable, and there’s bipartisan unanimity that it would be unconscionable and unacceptable.”
Blumenthal said some Republican senators have told him they support such protections. He did not name them.
Even as some Republicans have tried to discredit the Russia inquiry, some senior Republicans have previously said that they would not support the firing of Mueller.
A spokesman for House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Friday that the speaker’s position has not changed since Ryan said in June that Mueller should be left alone to do his job. And a spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said Cornyn still thinks it would be a “mistake” to fire the special counsel.
Arkansas’ Republican senators also stood behind Mueller.
“We are a nation of laws and Robert Mueller was appointed to carry out an investigation. He should continue moving forward,” U.S. Sen. John Boozman said through a spokesman Friday.
Asked about Mueller, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton replied: “He’s said before he respects the special counsel’s investigation. We don’t have any comment on the specific report from [Thursday.]”
PAST DENIALS
The reported June incident has the potential to emerge as an important part of Mueller’s probe, part of which is looking into whether Trump or anyone in the White House or associated with his campaign obstructed justice by trying to impede investigators looking into the possibility of campaign-related collusion with Russia.
Trump’s reported order to fire Mueller came in the month after the president fired FBI Director James Comey, later citing the Russia probe as a reason for his decision. At the time, Comey was in charge of the FBI’s investigation into collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. The firing of Comey in May directly led to Mueller’s appointment.
Trump’s denial of the reported June incident echoes repeated statements by the president and other White House officials that Trump had never considered firing the special prosecutor.
“I haven’t given it any thought,” Trump told reporters in August. “Well, I’ve been reading about it from you people. You say, oh, I’m going to dismiss him. No, I’m not dismissing anybody.”
John Dowd, the president’s personal lawyer, said that same month that firing Mueller has “never been on the table, never.”
But four people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation, said Trump ordered the firing, citing what he believed were three reasons that Mueller has a conflict of interest that should prevent him from leading the Russia investigation.
Those included claims about a disputed payment of fees by Mueller at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va.; the fact that Mueller worked at the same law firm that represented Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law; and Mueller’s interview with the president to be FBI director before he was appointed to be the special counsel.
Since then, Trump has largely stopped talking about explicitly trying to fire Mueller but has instead shifted to accusing Mueller and his team of being biased and unable to complete a fair investigation.
The latest evidence the president has cited was a string of text messages from a former agent on Mueller’s probe, which show that agent vociferously opposing the president. But Mueller swiftly removed the agent, Peter Strzok, from his investigation after learning about his texts.
Trump told reporters Wednesday evening that he is “disturbed” by allegations of internal FBI opposition to his presidency. He also would not say he has confidence that Mueller will treat him fairly.
EXPERTS WEIGH IN
Some legal experts noted that presidents, like anyone else, can say things they don’t mean when angry. At the same time, they said the alleged Trump order could be seen as part of a pattern of obstruction that could be pressed by Mueller.
Jacob Frenkel, a defense lawyer and former prosecutor, said defense lawyers would argue that the conversation with McGahn “was an expression of frustration and irritation, not an intended personnel action.”
A statement alone, without follow-up action, can be subject to different explanations and allow for reasonable doubt as to the intent, he indicated.
“It may not be the conclusion that people want to reach, but sitting back and looking at it objectively, the fact that there was no firing means there was no obstruction,” Frenkel said.
Andrew Leipold, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, concurred.
“People say all sorts of things that they’re going to do, and then they calm down and they think better of it and they get talked out of it,” he said. “Some of this may just be no more than the president — as all presidents have done — racing their engines about things.”
That said, this latest revelation isn’t the only example of presidential action that could be seen as an attempt to interfere with an investigation of Trump and his campaign. Another is the firing Comey as FBI director last May.
“It is easy to see where this would be an element or component to consider as part of an obstruction mosaic,” Frenkel said.