Since the appointment of the special counsel in May 2017, Democrats have been preoccupied with the theory that President Donald Trump is perpetually on the cusp of interfering in the Russia collusion investigation by firing its nominal leader, special counsel Robert Mueller. These fears persist despite Trump’s repeated assurances that he will allow the investigation to run its course.
Now, however, Democrats who have used the prospect of an endangered special counsel to vilify the president will have to find a new conspiracy theory after attorney general nominee William Barr testified that he would resign if Trump asked him to fire Mueller without cause.
“I would resign rather than follow an order to terminate the special counsel without good cause,” Barr wrote in response to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Much ado about nothing
Misgivings regarding the stability of the special counsel are rooted in a series of New York Times articles. Citing current and former Trump advisors, journalists Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt reported that the president twice demanded Mueller’s termination for exceeding the scope of his investigation.
The first time allegedly occurred in June, when Trump was supposedly upset over Mueller’s conflicts-of-interest regarding the Russia probe. The Times wrote that White House general counsel Don McGahn threatened to quit if Trump moved forward with his plans, prompting the president to withdraw his request.
The next alleged demand occurred in December 2017, when Trump learned that FBI agents had crossed the president’s imposed “red line” by investigating his business dealings with Deutsche Bank and raiding his attorney’s offices. But Trump firmly denied the reports in a tweet, calling them “more Fake News.”
If I wanted to fire Robert Mueller in December, as reported by the Failing New York Times, I would have fired him. Just more Fake News from a biased newspaper!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2018
Artificial outrage
If Trump followed through with suggestions from some conservative pundits to fire Mueller in December 2017, he would have had the support of a plurality of voters. A contemporaneous Harvard Center for American Political Studies-Harris survey found that 70 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of voters overall believe that Mueller’s ties to the FBI and his close relationship with James Comey, who was fired earlier in 2017 by Trump, created a conflict of interest.
Despite public dissatisfaction with the special counsel, Trump remained level-headed regarding Mueller’s continued appointment. “No, I’m not,” he told journalists a year ago when asked if he was considering firing the special prosecutor, and insisted that there was “no collusion whatsoever” between his campaign and Russia.
Seeking to rev up their base, Democrats continue to advance the unsubstantiated premise that the special counsel is forever on the brink of termination. They wishfully see in Trump reflections of former President Richard Nixon, who fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973 and disbanded the offices responsible for carrying out the Watergate probe.
By declaring his willingness to resign if Trump decides to fire Mueller without cause, Barr would be following the example set by Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus, who resigned from the Nixon administration after Cox was terminated.
A reputation for fairness
Barr’s testimony should mollify Democrats who are concerned about the June 2018 memorandum he sent to Justice Department officials. The memo criticized the special counsel for pursuing an obstruction of justice investigation against the president for firing disgraced former FBI Director James Comey.
Barr called the obstruction portion of Mueller’s probe a “novel and legally insupportable reading of the law” which could “do lasting damage to the presidency and to the administration of law within the executive branch.”
Barr previously served as the attorney general under former President George H.W. Bush, and even the liberal New Yorker had to praise his “reputation for integrity and straight dealing” in a complimentary profile piece last week.
No matter how hard Democrats attempt to convince their constituents otherwise, Trump has no interest in obstructing the special counsel investigation — though he would probably like to see it wrapped up sometime soon. Over 18 months have passed, and Mueller has so far failed to show any evidence of collusion from Trump or his campaign with Moscow, and mainstream media outlets are beginning to brace themselves for an “anti-climactic” special counsel report.
No comments: