Trump’s empty threats mean he is stalling
If Trump fires Mueller, Democrats will demand impeachment hearings. We’ll have a Saturday Night Massacre followed by massive, peaceful protests, followed by a November Midterm Massacre.
How many times have we heard from President Donald Trump’s legal team or other advisers that there is going to be a new “more aggressive” posture with the special counsel? No more cooperation, a source on background will hiss. The president thinks this has gone too far! With yet another change in the Trump legal squad, we now hear defiant statements that — you guessed it — there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy. The Washington Post reports: “This signals a new phase,” said one senior Trump adviser who was granted anonymity to describe private conversations. “We are looking at all the options now. Nothing’s off the table . . . . But the gloves may be coming off.”
Trump also keeps promising that he is going to do something about that Justice Department run by a bunch of Dem- ... er ... Republican appointees that Trump handpicked. One day he tweets, “At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved!” Another day, he insists he can do “whatever he wants” with the DOJ.
What in the world are these people talking about? Trump’s attorneys aren’t really going to start refusing to produce documents or destroying evidence, I trust. They aren’t, the White House keeps saying, getting ready to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller. So what is this new aggressive posture going to mean exactly, more angry tweets? Frankly, the press should start pressing those hyping a new round of the we’re-really-getting-tough-this-time chest-thumping as to what this means in practice.
Trump seems to think he has some inherent power (“get involved”) to end the investigation. I’d be curious to see how he plans on doing this. He can fire Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, but will he fire everyone who moves to replace them? Fire the entire FBI and the U.S. attorneys of the Southern District of New York as well?
The current wave of bluster, I suspect, boils down to two realistic options — firing people or refusing to testify even when presented with a subpoena.
If he fires Mueller or Rosenstein, it is fair to say that both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. — who have assured the country Trump wouldn’t fire the investigators — will look like, to paraphrase White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, idiots.
There will be extreme pressure to protect the investigative materials, and perhaps even to hire Mueller to continue the investigation under the auspices of either the judiciary or intelligence committees in the Senate. Democrats will demand impeachment hearings. We’ll have a Saturday Night Massacre followed by massive, peaceful protests, followed by a November Midterm Massacre, when the voters toss out everyone with an “R” next to his name. Trump might try this, but it would only highlight the president’s determination to obstruct justice. Ultimately, it would result in large Democratic gains and impeachment proceedings.
The other possibility is that Trump refuses to agree to an interview with Mueller, and then challenges a subpoena. Once again, it is Republicans who will be in the hot seat. Instead of telling voters, “Those darn Democrats are thinking of impeachment,” Republicans will be forced to tell voters why they think this president is above the law, and what they are going to do about his refusal to cooperate.
Sure, Mueller could pass up the chance to put Trump under an oath in front of a grand jury, but why would he ever do something like that — setting the precedent that a president can stiff-arm an investigation and escape without consequences? I see no reason Mueller wouldn’t move to subpoena Trump — not only because of information the president would have about his own actions, but because he potentially has knowledge of others who are facing criminal proceedings, including Paul Manafort.
So we are back to the original question: What does all this new aggression amount to?
Aggression in this context means “stalling.” The task of Trump’s lawyers is to keep the president from being forced to testify for as long as possible. But what then? In all likelihood, Trump hasn’t thought that far ahead.
In the meantime, instead of relaying the White House spin that a new “aggressive” posture is coming, the press might want to explain that Trump is now reduced to stalling. It’s a tactic of a severely weakened player trying to prevent the indignity and inevitably of losing. It’s what one does when cornered, outmaneuvered and outlawyered.