PROTECTING ROBERT MUELLER: ALLOWING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO GET TO THE TRUTH

Should President Trump fire special counsel Robert Mueller?  Should Mueller get more time to finish his investigation?  Not a day goes by now without a suggestion that Trump will soon set in motion events leading to the firing of the special counsel.  Since only Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein can actually dismiss Mueller, presumably Trump would start by ordering Rosenstein to fire Mueller.  Should Rosenstein refuse, Trump would fire Rosenstein and replace him with someone who would fire Mueller, raising the specter of the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre. Richard Nixon had to dismiss both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus before finding someone in the Justice Department – Solicitor General Robert Bork -- who would carry out his order to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox.  The Saturday Night Massacre, of course, ultimately led to appointment of another special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, and paved the way for Nixon’s resignation in the face of certain impeachment.

Credible news reports indicate Trump ordered Mueller’s firing in June 2017 and tried again in December 2017.  The first time, Trump backed off because White House counsel Don McGahn threatened resignation if Trump went through with the dismissal.  In December, Trump discovered reports Mueller had subpoenaed some of his bank records weren’t

true and decided not to order Mueller’s dismissal.  These false starts don’t mean Trump won’t succeed in getting the special counsel fired.  Despite claims by Republicans, like departing House Speaker Paul Ryan, that they “don’t think” Trump will have Mueller fired, lots of people in Washington now believe it has become a matter of when, not if.

CONGRESS TO THE RESCUE

So what could stop Trump from successfully having Mueller axed, halting the Russia investigation?  One easy answer in theory that’s very difficult practically lies in congressional action.  Later this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on a bill sponsored by two Republicans – Thom Tillis of North Carolina and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham – and two Democrats -- Chris Coons of Delaware and Cory Booker of New Jersey.  The legislation, identical to a measure introduced in the House by Pennsylvania Republican Charlie Dent and Vermont Democrat Peter Welch, would set specific standards for firing a special counsel and put review of such a firing in the hands of a three-judge federal panel.  Proposing, and maybe passing the bill, is easy.  Then the hard part starts.

First, as Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said recently, Trump would never sign such legislation.  It seems certain, in fact, he would veto that kind of measure.  Congress rarely overrides Presidential vetoes, especially ones of controversial bills like this one.  Veto overrides require a two-thirds vote in both chambers.  Given the current makeup of the House, assuming all 192 Democrats vote to override, passing the bill over Trump’s veto would require 99 Republican votes to get to the necessary two-thirds, 291 votes in the 435 member lower chamber.  In the Senate, assuming all 47 Democrats and the two Independents who caucus with them – Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, support an override, it won’t happen without 18 Republican votes to get to 67 for the two-thirds requirement.

Those numbers don’t even take into consideration the potential constitutional problems with legislation protecting Mueller.  Such a measure would thrust Congress into an executive branch personnel matter that might implicate separation of powers concerns.  Some constitutional scholars think impeachment represents the only way Congress can override such a Presidential action.  Senator Collins, in fact, agreed Congress would “send a message” if it passed such a law, but acknowledged it might not stand if challenged in the courts.

OTHER WAYS

Other things are now in the picture that potentially can keep the investigation going, even if Trump fires Mueller.  If Trump starts with firing Rosenstein, the Senate could require a promise from a new Trump appointee for Deputy Attorney General that he or she would have to appoint a new special counsel (AG Jeff Sessions has recused himself from Russia-related matters).

The recent FBI raid on the offices and residences of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen offers another vehicle for keeping the investigation

going, even if Trump succeeds in having Mueller sacked.  The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, initiated the Cohen raid after a referral from the special counsel’s office.  That part of the investigation, therefore, will continue, Mueller or no Mueller.  It’s been suggested this investigation imperils Trump more than the Mueller probe because it could lead to review of Trump’s real estate and other business practices going back years, not just his possible collusion with the Russians in interfering in the 2016 election.  

Finally, if all else fails, some of Trump’s alleged transgressions related to alleged collusion with the Russians, possible obstruction of justice, and money-related crimes might also have violated state laws.  Prosecutors in New York and other jurisdictions could pick up the investigation, though they might have to limit their probe in ways federal prosecutors do not.

Trump may well fire Mueller. As Trump likes to say, “We’ll have to see what happens.”  One thing that’s not happening is a complete shutdown of the investigation into Trump’s actions.  That will continue.             

INDICTING THE RUSSIANS: IN PRAISE OF ROBERT MUELLER

   Robert Mueller. (photo: James Berglie/TNS)

Friday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced the indictment of 12 Russians, one American, and three organizations on charges of interfering in the 2016 presidential election.  We encourage every American who cares about democracy to read Mueller’s 37 pages.  It’s easy to find  and reads, in the words of one cable news host, like a Tom Clancy novel.  

    

The details grab and terrify.  They are riveting and chilling because they describe a vile attack on the United States.  We will resist the temptation to compare this to Pearl Harbor or September 11 – tragedies involving massive loss of life.  We understand the danger in such comparisons.  We find, however, Mueller’s indictment no less significant because it describes an attack by foreign agents aimed at destroying American democracy.

First things first

A few fundamentals help in understanding the indictment’s importance.  First, President Trump has branded the Mueller investigation a hoax.  His supporters have suggested there’s no underlying crime.  Friday’s indictment destroyed both claims.  Mueller painstakingly demonstrated the criminal violations of American law the Defendants committed. They “conspired to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of [governmental agencies] in administering federal requirements for disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities.”  Translation: it’s against our law for foreigners to interfere in certain American activities, particularly elections, and anyone who participates has committed a crime.

Second, the indictment spelled out, conceptually and in detail, what the Russians did and how they did it.  Broadly speaking, they sought to conduct what they themselves called, “information warfare” against the United States with a goal of “spreading distrust towards candidates and the political system in general.”  The conspirators bought social media ads, organized and staged political rallies, and spent millions of dollars on helping elect Trump.  “They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.”

Target: Black People   

The conspirators aimed some of the “information warfare” at minority voters in a directed, admitted attempt to suppress that vote.  On an Instagram account named “Woke Blacks” they posted, “[A] particular hype and hatred for Trump is misleading the people and forcing Blacks to vote Killary.  We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we’d surely be better off without voting AT ALL.” An Instagram post on an account called “Blacktivist” said, “Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein.  Trust me, it’s not a wasted vote.”

African-American community members didn’t post these statements. Russians who’d set up accounts, sometimes using fake identities designed to look like real Americans or real grassroots organizations, put them out.  The Special Counsel probably knows, but hasn’t yet said, if Trump operatives cooperated with these efforts.  Regardless, the indictment spells out the illegal activities, how they were done, and the real objectives.

                       
 

More to come

Many questions remain in the indictment’s aftermath.  What happens next?  Obviously, we don’t know but many credible legal analysts believe other shoes will drop soon with the Special Counsel indicting people in Trump’s circle for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, or both.  What about the President himself?  Trump claimed exoneration because the Russians started their program before he announced for President, proving he hadn’t colluded with Russia.  Newsweek columnist and NBC/MSNBC analyst Jonathan Alter, author of “The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope”, found Trump’s tepid response to the allegation that Russia “waged war” on American democracy ridiculous.  It was, he said, like Franklin Roosevelt saying after Pearl Harbor “he hadn’t colluded with Japan.”  How should the Commander-in–Chief respond when presented with a discovery that a foreign power attacked America?  Will Trump now impose congressionally approved sanctions on Russia?  Will he ask for new authority to combat the continuing threat?  Just what will he do now to protect America?   

The indictment’s stunning detail and riveting narrative quality lead us to two observations.  First, it represents magnificent intelligence work and brilliant lawyering we believe leaves no room for credibly questioning if Russian interference in our election occurred.  The indictment described the organizational structure of the Russian operation down to the jobs individuals held, the street address in St. Petersburg of the office out of which many of the defendants worked, and the U.S. states Russian operatives visited before they set up the operation.  Intelligence professionals suggested the United States (or an ally) infiltrated the operation because electronic intelligence won’t pick up some kinds of information contained in the indictment.

Second, this indictment could represent a turning point in how the country views the investigation.  Perhaps now, with the details presented so starkly, more Americans will accept that the Russians did attack us in 2016 and realize if we don’t act, it will happen again and again.  Earlier in the week, the nation’s top intelligence officials told Congress the Russians are still at it and will grow bolder in this year’s mid-terms.  Mueller’s work, if nothing else, tells Vladimir Putin some grownups in the United States know what he’s up to and won’t take it lying down.

We previously expressed our frustration that more Americans weren’t outraged about Russia. Does this change your mind?