Staff Had to Talk Trump Out of Firing Mueller — NY Times

  • Staff Had to Talk Trump Out of Firing Mueller — NY Times

Staff Had to Talk Trump Out of Firing Mueller — NY Times

Since Comey's testimony last week made it clear that President Trump may very well have obstructed justice by firing the former Federal Bureau of Investigation director, it has been Defcon 1 in Trump world.

The sound of sharpening knives echoed everywhere Monday.

A source close to the president said Trump is being counseled to steer clear of such a dramatic move such as firing the special counsel. "I think he's considering perhaps terminating the special counsel".

Others sounded more enthusiastic about dropping the axe.

Mr. Trump was especially outraged by Mr. Comey's admission last week that he had leaked a memo with details of his interactions with the president in hopes of spurring the appointment of a special counsel... Look who he is hiring.check fec reports.

But while the president is deeply suspicious of Mr. Mueller, his anger is reserved for Mr. Sessions for recusing himself from the Russian Federation inquiry, and especially for Mr. Comey. And all of his answers seemed intended as a signal that to fire Mueller without an extremely good reason, Trump would have to fire him too. There have been so many things that people such as me and Ruddy told him he couldn't or shouldn't do, only to have Trump do them and then win the GOP nomination. and then the presidency. and then keep the Republican Party nearly completely united behind his presidency.

"I did not talk to the president about the issue", Ruddy said.

Rosenstein said that, under the special counsel regulations, he is the only department official with the authority to get rid of Mueller.

Many conservative legal experts and Trump allies - including Ruddy - are warning Trump strongly against removing Mueller, saying it would backfire spectacularly and lead to charges of obstruction. Two called the friendship with Comey improper, but manageable; two called it serious; one called it a non-issue. Have you seen the story headlined on the Drudge Report that Mueller is staffing his investigation with Democratic donors?

The NSA said in a statement that the "NSA will fully cooperate with the special counsel".

"I'd be insincere if I said it wasn't a concern that the president would try to do it anyway", the aide added. This on top of her infamous meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton.

The act was widely criticized after Kenneth Starr's lengthy investigation into Clinton, and in 1999, Congress allowed the independent counsel provisions of the law to lapse. Policy-makers created new limits on the investigator's power and placed it under the accountability of the government.

"It makes sense to point out any level of bias, to highlight any biases inherent in Mueller and this probe in order to force him to be transparent", Gingrich said.

Trump would either have to order deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein to fire Mueller, or alternatively, repeal a set of 18-year-old regulations protecting the special counsel.

Ruddy noted Tuesday morning in an email to Politico that Spicer "doesn't deny my claim the President is considering firing Mueller" and that Ruddy never claimed to have spoken with Trump about Mueller. Trump decided he had to fire Flynn on February 13, saying even as he did so that Flynn had done nothing wrong and shouldn't be punished.

What Comey's admitting to under oath can not be overlooked here or understated.

What is happening, instead, is an effort to cast doubt on Mueller's conclusions, whatever they ultimately may be, and to turn as many swamp creatures against the investigation as possible.

The hearing will bring contentious questioning for Sessions and likely some uncomfortable moments for the Trump administration. Could Rosenstein's job also be in jeopardy? In fact, Trump has already argued that all these controversies are hampering his ability to fix relations with Russian Federation.

Such an action, though, would be politically perilous.

One of Trump's lawyers refused to rule out a firing.

A poll last month by Harvard-Harris suggested 75 per cent of Americans wanted a special prosecutor. The Constitution vests the president with broad powers to fire just about any appointee in the executive branch, all of whom serve at his pleasure. But is there such a thing as an "infinite dare"?