The Defense of Mueller

It’s been going so long that repeated headlines updating its status now drift idly through the mind and are swiftly forgotten in favor of fresher stories, but the Mueller investigation on Trump finally appears to be reaching something of a climax. Robert Mueller, the special counsel currently leading the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 US Presidential Election, has signaled his readiness to finally interview President Trump on the matter after months of speaking to affiliates of the Commander in Chief.

What comes out of this meeting, if indeed it happens, could have massive ramification across Washington, and while that majority of Republicans in D.C. have continued to work with President Trump despite the ongoing investigation and various other controversies, it now seems that the breaking point in Trump’s allegiance with his party has finally been identified. A few days ago, the New York Times posted that Trump had considered firing Mueller over the summer, but was deterred when the White House counsel threatened to quit rather than carry out the directive.

Naturally, Trump has thrown up his “fake news” shield to defend himself against these latest allegations, and due to the hazy nature of authenticity surrounding news coming out of the White House, it may be difficult to discern the validity of these claims, but what this has triggered is an interesting collection of responses from within the GOP. Throughout the first year of the Trump Presidency, he has criticized crucial allies, attacked a number of different demographics within American society, threatened nuclear war with a foreign country repeatedly, and of course, rambled on a daily basis on his now infamous Twitter account, yet the Republican Party has been largely complacent with these occurrences. Here, however, one can see the some of the first truly momentous echoes of dissent that Trump has received from within his own organization.

“Leave him the hell alone,” were the words of Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Oversight Committee during a Fox News interview. Meanwhile, Senator Susan Collins compared the potential event to the acts that occurred during the Nixon administration, and said that the action “obviously would be a terrible mistake.” Senator Lindsay Graham, who has at times positioned himself an ally of the President, said “It’s pretty clear to me that everybody in the White House knows it would be the end of President Trump’s presidency if he fired Mr. Mueller.” These remarks are quite a bit above the usual level of backlash the President receives for his actions, and it will be interesting to see what these same people, and other party members, have to see if Trump indeed sits down with Mueller.

But what this ultimately illustrates is the limits of party politics. Trump may be the current head of the GOP, and it’s true that the Republican Party lately seems to slavishly go along with his eccentricities for fear of turning the balance of power against them, but this does all show that the President’s power does have its limits, and shines a positive light on the advantages of having broad views within a single political group. And while the GOP will likely continue to stand by Trump unless Mueller turns up something truly dramatic, hopefully this can at least serve as a healthy ego check that can reel Trump’s uses of power into more realistic territory.

8 Responses to "The Defense of Mueller"

James Hulbert says:

January 29, 2018 at 12:33 pm

David,

Thank you for your post. I also am so eager to watch this interview between Mueller and Trump take place. It is going on under oath and on the record so this could be the final step in this investigation. Full disclosure. If this does prove to be a situation that would humble President Trump, I think America would be in a better place. The events that you have pointed out including “criticizing crucial allies, attacking a number of different demographics within American society, threatening nuclear war with a foreign country repeatedly, and of course, rambling on a daily basis on his now infamous Twitter account” show that he is too comfortable in his position and needs to stop acting so barbaric. So much of congress and America are worried about the power that he holds over congress so this could be a crucial turning point in relinquishing over some of his control.
Sophia Harrison says:

January 29, 2018 at 1:32 pm

David,
I found this post really intriguing. I think after many Republican’s silence following President Trump’s firing of FBI director Mr.Comey, they now realize the implications if Trump were to also fire Mueller. I agree that the President’s party members were trying to protect his actions by not outwardly stating that the firing came at a very controversial time. However, firing Mueller would almost solidify Trump’s engagement with Russia and that is no secret to the Republican Party, which is why they are starting to speak out.
Elizabeth Curland says:

January 30, 2018 at 3:29 pm

David,
I really enjoyed your post. These past few weeks the latest on Mueller’s investigation has been flooding the media. However, I’ve noticed that many news articles have failed to mention the legitimacy of Mueller’s control on this matter. Mueller, being a Department of Justice employee, cannot officially indict president Trump. Our Constitution provides us detailed instructions on how Congress could (if needed) remove a president who has committed unlawful acts. However, it does not specify that the president can be criminally prosecuted in the meantime. The Department of Justice has an abiding opinion that the president is exempt from prosecution while in office, all of which was reaffirmed during the Nixon and Clinton presidencies.
Therefore, as a Department of Justice employee, Mueller must obey these rules. However, Mueller can, and most likely will, file an investigative report to Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. This would place the decision in Rosenstein’s hands on whether or not to release the report to the public. Though Rosenstein was appointed by Trump himself, and though he advocated firing Comey back in May, many Trump supporters fear he will stand by the rule of law and indict Trump.
Gwynna Ryan says:

January 30, 2018 at 8:55 pm

David,

This is a really interesting post. President Trumps words and actions throughout the first year of his presidency have continued to alienate whole segments of the population as well as key members of the Republican party. In the coming weeks and following the Mueller interview, it will be interesting to see how congressional Republicans react. Will they continue to support President Trump or will they speak out against his offensive rhetoric with more conviction? You mentioned the GOP’s complacency so it certainly would be interesting to consider what is more important in today’s political climate: a unified political party, as has been the trend since Trump’s nomination, or individual integrity?
Paige Jordan says:

January 30, 2018 at 10:02 pm

While the recent headlines have greatly involved Mueller’s investigation, it is true that until the interview with Trump, they are in fact mere headlines. Social media, specifically Trump’s Twitter account, has had a profound impact on the public’s view on his presidency. Trump utilizes Twitter in that it is a way for him to communicate with the public without the filter of a reporter or newscaster. It is this filter that has caused the definition of the term “fake news,” as well as our president’s dependency on tweeting to speak directly to his audience. While widely criticized for the nature of his tweets, Trump is actively exercising the rights he has protected under the first amendment of the US Constitution. While simultaneously studying the Constitution within our readings in the textbook, I can draw a parallel between how Trump so clearly voices his opinions as he represents a country in which this principle is so cherished. However, after all, Trump is the president and although he can and does exercise his freedom of speech, he should definitely remember his position and the nation of people he represents. Similar to a statement in another blog post, the role of the government is founded in the responsibility of protecting its people, and if the first amendment is abused by an authority figure, it may infringe upon this justice.
Abigail Belcher says:

January 31, 2018 at 8:11 pm

David,
It will be more than interesting to see how that conversation goes between Mueller and Trump should it happen. The idea of Russia having meddled to win Trump the presidency has been a large concern of the public’s and, to be honest, a bit of a concern of mine. While I do not approve of a lot of the tweets the president has posted (and I read them almost daily, although I often find myself skimming them) I do think it is one of the only ways he can directly address all of the American people without having to take to the television every time he wants the public to know something that he is thinking about or every time he wants to denounce something negative someone has said about him. That being said, I do think he is a bit dramatic in the way he chooses to react to negative comments about his presidency. This is a democracy, so of course there will be people who disagree with his ideas, stances, and generally what he is doing. Disappointment by some of the American people is a given, so why does Trump constantly feel the need to put down those people who are disagreeing and try to constantly set the record straight as he sees it? Overall, I think he needs a bit of a thicker skin.
Chloe Blond says:

January 31, 2018 at 9:41 pm

David,

Thank you for this interesting post. I really appreciated how you highlighted that even the president’s power has limits. After reading your post, I was encouraged to dig a little bit more into the case. I became curious about what could possibly end up happening to President Trump? What could President Trump’s next step be?

The Constitution allows the president broad powers to pardon people for offenses that are against the United States. However, there are a few pardons that the Constitution prohibits. First, the President is not allowed to pardon people if it is an effort to obstruct justice. In this context, if it is an effort to prevent Mueller and others from learning about the President’s own behavior. Secondly, the president is not allowed to pardon offenses relating to their impeachment. Finally, the President only has the power to pardon federal offenses.

There has been talk that Trump has been asking about the reach of his pardoning powers. Furthermore, Trump has looked into the possibility of a self pardon. Because there has been no precedent for a sitting president pardoning people that are tied to his campaign and himself, I am excited to see what Trump’s next move is. What would this mean for American democracy?

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-pardon-powers-limit-mueller-indictment-695780
Sara Milano says:

January 31, 2018 at 11:28 pm

David,

This is a very timely post. Certainly the issue has been dragged out over quite some time now, but it seems as if things are heating up and resolution may be achieved. I agree that the GOP has been largely complacent with Donald Trump’s antics, policies, and discrepancies. However, it is obvious that Donald Trump does not represent the traditional values of the republican parties. Some have spoken out against him, however GOP members seem to be cognizant of the fact that defying the President may weaken the party. Trump’s voter base represents the average disenfranchised middle class population, and he based his campaign on this.

Trump has been symbolic of crazy and nontraditional politics. It remains to be seen whether the next President elected will be more of a statesmanly figure (a traditional politician) or someone who falls under the same nontraditional role. Whether opening up the Presidency to people without experience is beneficial or not also remains to be seen. In this instance, Trump’s lack of regard for convention may not serve him well, as with a Mueller investigation may bring articles of impeachment.

Comments are closed.