Lawmakers merge two bills to protect Mueller

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans moved to head off any attempt by President Donald Trump to fire special counsel Robert Mueller as the president continued to attack the Russia investigation and the Justice Department.

Two Republicans and two Democrats have consolidated their separate bills to protect Mueller into a single piece of legislation that would, according to the sponsors, ensure that the special counsel can be fired only for “good cause.” It would also give the person in that role the ability to seek an expedited judicial review of any dismissal.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, plans to put the bill on the panel’s agenda today, according to George Hartmann, a Grassley spokesman, though it could get delayed for a week by an objection from a committee member.

That may force the hand of those Republicans, including members of party leadership, who have insisted that such legislation isn’t needed because Trump won’t go as far as dismissing Mueller, despite Trump’s heated rhetoric and public complaints.

That group includes the No. 2 Senate Republican leader, John Cornyn, who also is a member of the Judiciary Committee. He said Wednesday that he continues to view legislation to protect Mueller as unnecessary. He also questioned whether it would get past Trump’s desk.

“If it did pass, would the president sign it? I don’t think he would,” Cornyn said.

Asked about legislation designed to protect Mueller, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the administration doesn’t yet have a position.

Another potential hurdle is that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has suggested that the measure is unnecessary and hasn’t indicated he’d move forward with a vote if it clears the committee.

The merged legislation is sponsored by Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Chris Coons of Delaware, and Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

“The integrity and independence of special counsel investigations are vital to reaffirming the American people’s confidence in our nation’s rule of law,” Tillis said in a statement.

Coons said the legislation is needed “to ensure not only that special counsel Mueller can complete his work without interference, but that special counsels in future investigations can, too.”

Trump reacted with anger after FBI agents raided the offices of his personal lawyer Monday, calling Mueller’s investigation “disgraceful” and an “attack on our country.” On Wednesday, Trump lashed out at the “never ending and corrupt” investigation and decried the raid as “unthinkable.”

Taking to Twitter before 7 a.m., Trump also took issue with widespread media reports of chaos gripping the White House, asserting that the atmosphere is “very calm and calculated.”

He said that instead he is focused on trade relations with China, an upcoming meeting with North Korea’s leader and “the vicious gas attack in Syria,” referring to a suspected chemical attack over the weekend, blamed for the deaths of at least 49 people in the opposition-held town of Douma.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that Trump has privately discussed firing Mueller, and CNN reported that he’s considered firing Rod Rosenstein, the U.S. deputy attorney general.

Grassley said Tuesday that Trump firing Mueller would be political “suicide” for the president.

In the past several weeks, Grassley has been urging negotiators to move faster toward striking a final agreement on compromise legislation, aides said. He is also planning to offer an amendment to the bill requiring the president to give Congress advance notice of his intention and report the reasons for firing a special counsel, much like the requirements for firing an inspector general.

The amendment would be in addition to the procedures outlined in the compromise bill, and are designed to give Congress a fallback political opportunity to take steps — including and up to impeachment — to protect a special counsel if the courts strike down parts of the bill, presuming it becomes law.

Grassley is one of several Republicans who raised constitutional concerns with the original special counsel bills, because they subjected the president’s authority to hire and fire an executive employee to review by a different branch of government.

Authors of the proposal have pointed to case law to push back on that criticism — including a January decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that declared that a 1988 Supreme Court ruling about the constitutionality of an independent counsel statute was still good law.