Would it have been legal for Trump to direct Robert Mueller’s removal?
There’s a good deal of ambiguity in the New York Times’ new story about the president’s effort to “direct” the removal of special counsel Robert Mueller last June. Who did he direct, for starters? And how did White House Counsel Don McGahn respond? On what grounds did McGahn allegedly “disagree[] with the president’s case”? And why didn’t the president himself then proceed to do something to effect Mueller’s removal after McGahn (reportedly) refused to ask DOJ to fire him?
The Times reports that “the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation,” and that “[a]fter receiving the president’s order to fire Mr. Mueller, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel, saying he would quit instead.” For what it’s worth, the Washington Post reports that McGahn did not “say he would quit” to the president himself: “McGahn did not deliver his resignation threat directly to Trump, but was serious about his threat to leave, according to a person familiar with the episode.” This suggests the president backed down based only upon the advice/arguments on the merits that McGahn, and perhaps others, offered him—not because of any White House counsel resignation threat. But who knows? In any event, McGahn’s (alleged) refusal to comply with a presidential “direction” carries with it at least the implied threat to resign.
The Times continues:
Mr. McGahn disagreed with the president’s case and told senior White House officials that firing Mr. Mueller would have a catastrophic effect on Mr. Trump’s presidency. Mr. McGahn also told White House officials that Mr. Trump would not follow through on the dismissal on his own. The president then backed off.
If this story is entirely accurate (never a sure thing, of course—Schmidt and Haberman are very reliable, but their sources may not have been precise or well-informed about precisely what occurred), it appears Trump directed McGahn to “ask” the “Justice Department”—presumably Deputy Attorney General (and acting attorney general for the Russia investigation) Rod Rosenstein—to remove Mueller. The White House counsel has no power to “direct” the attorney general to do so—“asking” is the most he can do. And although the Times story says Trump “order[ed]” McGahn “to fire Mr. Mueller,” of course McGahn has no such authority.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementMcGahn never did so—he didn’t ask Rosenstein to remove Mueller on conflict-of-interest grounds. Why not? At the very least, because McGahn concluded—correctly—that such an effort would, if successful, “have a catastrophic effect on Mr. Trump’s presidency.” Among other things, Mueller’s removal on conflict-of-interest grounds, even if had occurred, would not have ended the investigation—indeed, it probably would have resulted in appointment of a new special counsel. And it likely would have happened only after a series of DOJ resignations akin to the Saturday Night Massacre.
We should probably assume—although the Times does not say—that McGahn told Trump himself that the firing, or even asking DOJ to remove Mueller, would be catastrophic for the presidency. The story does not say, however, (i) whether McGahn also told Trump that DOJ was unlikely to actually fire Mueller, even if asked; and/or (ii) whether McGahn advised Trump about whether it would, or would not, be lawful for Rosenstein to remove Mueller on the grounds that the president invoked.
AdvertisementWould it have been lawful for Rosenstein to remove Mueller on the grounds invoked by Trump? Well, if Rosenstein concluded that Mueller actually did have a conflict of interest, then yes, that would be sufficient grounds for removal—28 CFR 600.7(d) says so expressly. It’s very unlikely, however, that Rosenstein would have agreed that Mueller has a conflict of interest based upon the facts cited by the president, which were the following:
AdvertisementAdvertisement AdvertisementFirst, [Trump] claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the FBI director at the time, to resign his membership. The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Finally, the president said, Mr. Mueller had been interviewed to return as the FBI director the day before he was appointed special counsel in May.
And therefore, if McGahn had “asked” Rosenstein to remove Mueller, Rosenstein probably would have refused to do so. In which case, Mueller would not have been removed.
The Times story leaves the suggestion that, in such a case, the president himself would have been able to remove Mueller. (“Mr. McGahn also told White House officials that Mr. Trump would not follow through on the dismissal on his own.”) As I’ve explained in a pair of posts, however, that’s not correct: As a matter of statutory authority (see the Ex parte Hennen line of cases) and the regulation itself (which is operative by virtue of the terms of Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller), only the appointing officer can remove the special counsel. Therefore, if Rosenstein concluded there were no disqualifying conflicts and refused to fire Mueller, the president could only effect Mueller’s firing if he himself removed Rosenstein (or forced his resignation) and replaced him as deputy attorney general (and as acting attorney general for the Russia investigation), under the Vacancies Reform Act, with another officer already Senate-confirmed to some other office, who would be willing to remove Mueller on such conflict-of-interest grounds.
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementAnd it’s not obvious that there are any such currently sitting officers who would be willing to do so, especially in the wake of the outrage that would follow Rosenstein’s removal or resignation. Perhaps that’s the scenario to which McGahn was referring when he allegedly “told White House officials that Mr. Trump would not follow through on the dismissal on his own”–namely, that the president would not do so because he almost certainly could not do so, at least as a practical matter, absent a series of unlikely (and convulsive) events.
One final thought, for what it’s worth: The substance of the story isn’t very surprising, of course. To my mind, then, the real importance of the story is that someone decided to leak it now. Why? To put McGahn in a good light? (If so, why now?) Because he or she or they sense(s) that it’s soon going to be necessary to distance McGahn from Trump? (And, if so, why?)
More from Just Security:
On Bannon’s Testimony and Executive Privilege
Why It’s Far Worse for Trump to Fire Rosenstein Than to Fire Mueller
(责任编辑:资讯)
- 优化广东优质农产品产销资源对接!“农友圈”又有新动作
- The electric dirt bike that transforms into a scooter
- Torrential rain hits Busan, southern cities
- 总结分析理清思路 创先争优砥砺奋进
- Apple finally sends out payments for MacBook's butterfly keyboard settlement
- Haider all set for Paralympics Ceremony
- 2 firefighters killed as burning pavilion collapses
- 雨城联社 面对面宣传 增进银企感情
- Ron Howard's first Han Solo set photo is utterly Star Wars pun
- Is Mercury retrograde messing with you? Think again.
- 5 fanfiction sites that aren't Archive of Our Own
- Solar dish reactor produces hydrogen and captures waste products
- Why Flyana Boss's "You Wish" should be your song of the summer
-
Best smartphone deal: Google Pixel 8a on sale for $449 at Amazon
SAVE $50:As of August 27, get the Google Pixel 8a for $449, down from $499, at Amazon. That's 10% of ...[详细] -
Facebook launches TheFacebook...no wait, sorry, Facebook Campus
Earlier this year, if you were a college student who wished there was a social media platform just f ...[详细] -
S. Korean, British leaders agree to seek peaceful resolution of NK nukes
NEW YORK -- The leaders of South Korea and Britain agreed Tuesday to work together for a peaceful an ...[详细] -
iPhone update: iOS 14 comes out today
Apple had a big iPhone surprise at its Apple Event on Tuesday.No, not the new iPhone 12. We still ha ...[详细] -
Our galaxy might crash into Andromeda. What would happen to Earth?
Our Milky Way galaxy is a cannibal.It has grown by consuming other galaxies. Yet, it too, may be des ...[详细] -
Post Prime Day deals: Echelon fitness bikes on sale for up to 50% off at Amazon
Prime Day might be over, but that doesn't mean you can't continue saving major dollars on products t ...[详细] -
19岁的赵洪勇(化名)在假期到市区一家餐饮企业做暑期工。餐饮企业相关人员为他指定了住宿床位,可赵洪勇嫌下铺不好,并自行调换到上铺。一天深夜,赵洪勇翻身,不慎从上铺掉到地上摔伤致残……事发后,双方就谁之 ...[详细]
-
S. Korea to review NK aid and its delivery timing this week
South Korea is expected to review its plan for humanitarian assistance to North Korea via UN agencie ...[详细] -
尝“鲜”盛宴,等你来探!2024年清远西牛麻竹笋尝鲜季即将启幕
尝“鲜”盛宴,等你来探!2024年清远西牛麻竹笋尝鲜季即将启幕_南方+_南方plus品西牛麻竹笋,尝天下第一鲜。眼下正值麻竹笋丰产的黄金时期,此时的笋肉质细嫩,水分饱满,味道清甜,成为食客们的尝鲜首选 ...[详细] -
Google Finance will make it easier to follow TSLA rollercoaster with new design
Google Finance is one of those sites that I wouldn't say I actively use, as it never offered a lot i ...[详细]
How to watch 'Kinds of Kindness': When is it streaming?
This tiny battery could change the game for micro robots
- 18 Slightly Submerged Architectural Wonders
- The cherry emoji and 14 other emoji you can use to sext
- 农发行雅安市分行 积极支持小微企业发展
- 岑桂英:农牧业女性要相信自己的能力和价值
- 18 Places for Epic Outdoor Adventure Across Colorado
- 浪花洗礼千年 汉风古韵依然——东汉方形圆环螭龙凤鸟钮“李宜私印”铜印章
- Best appliance deal: TerraFlame S'mores Roaster on sale for $41.99 at Walmart