Trump ordered Mueller's firing, then backed off - New York Times

[webfact]

Trump ordered Mueller's firing, then backed off - New York Times

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a working session with mayors at the White House in Washington, U.S., January 24, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump last June ordered Special Counsel Robert Mueller fired but backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than follow his directive, The New York Times reported on Thursday, citing four people told of the matter.

 

White House lawyers and press officials did not immediately reply to Reuters requests for comment.

 

Mueller, who is investigating allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, learned of the incident in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in an inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice, the Times reported.

 

Amid media reports that Mueller was looking into a possible obstruction case, Trump argued that the former Federal Bureau of Investigation director had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the probe, two of the people said, according to the Times report.

 

First, Trump said that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, had led Mueller to resign his membership, the newspaper reported.

 

The president also said Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for a law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Trump also said Mueller had been interviewed to return as the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation the day before he was appointed special counsel in May, the Times reported, citing the two people.

 

White House counsel Donald McGahn said he would quit rather than follow through on the order to fire Mueller, the Times reported, citing the people.

 

McGahn disagreed with the president’s case for dismissing Mueller and told senior White House officials that firing him would have a catastrophic effect on Trump’s presidency and raise questions about whether the White House was trying to obstruct the Russia probe, according to the people cited by the Times.

 

McGahn also told White House officials that Trump would not follow through on the dismissal on his own, and the president then backed off his demand, according to the people, who the Times said spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.

 

Mueller was appointed special counsel in May by the Justice Department after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the agency's Russia investigation. Russia has denied any meddling and Trump has denied any collusion.

 

Comey's firing is central to whether Trump may have committed obstruction of justice.

 

Trump said on Wednesday he would be willing to be interviewed under oath by Mueller, and according to sources with knowledge of the investigation, Trump's attorneys have been talking to Mueller's team about an interview.

 

(Reporting by Eric Walsh; Editing by Leslie Adler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-01-26

[Boon Mee]

It's probably best Trump backed off although you can understand his frustration re this witch hunt that's rapidly coming to a close with the new revelations.  FBI sordid business.

[helpisgood]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

McGahn disagreed with the president’s case for dismissing Mueller and told senior White House officials that firing him would have a catastrophic effect on Trump’s presidency and raise questions about whether the White House was trying to obstruct the Russia probe, according to the people cited by the Times.

 

I am sure that McGahn also recalled how Nixon had Archibald Cox, special prosecutor for the Watergate investigation, fired and how that all worked out for the Nixon presidency (aka, the Saturday Night Massacre). 

[pegman]

Looking very likely that Trump doesn't finish the year let alone his term. 

[DoctorG]

11 minutes ago, pegman said:

Looking very likely that Trump doesn't finish the year let alone his term. 

In your dreams.

[spidermike007]

This could be very damaging for the deflector in chief, if proven. He has tweeted countless times that this did not take place. Everyone on the planet knows he is a pathological liar. But, some of his base could finally abandon him, when confronted with this kind of evidence, and perceived betrayal. He has no shame. He lies for a living. Easier to do that as a immoral, unethical, lying, cheating businessman, than as the president, the huckster is finding out. 

 

Get ready for November. Trump is damaging the republican brand daily. A trouncing is in the works. That is going to be fun to watch. Now, if only the dems have something to offer, once they get back the power. Hopefully, the environment will come back into focus. 

[Berkshire]

45 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

In your dreams.

Doesn't it bother you Trump supporters even a little bit that Trump was trying to stop an investigation of himself?  Common sense says that if you know you are not guilty and have nothing to hide, you'd be in full support of letting this thing play out.  But the man-child has been trying to thwart this thing from the beginning.  Firing Comey was bad enough.  But trying to fire Mueller as well?  Guilty your honor!

 

  

[Silurian]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump also said Mueller had been interviewed to return as the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation the day before he was appointed special counsel in May, the Times reported, citing the two people.

 

I am not sure why this disqualifies Mueller. It is a bit like saying I thought about hiring Mueller so it makes him unable to perform the job. Huh? So Mueller can be director of the FBI but not running a special council. Makes zero sense.

 

 

[Becker]

5 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

But, some of his base could finally abandon him, when confronted with this kind of evidence, and perceived betrayal.

IMO there is nothing the man-child can do to alienate his base, including raping babies on live tv.

When all you care about is MAWA there really is no alternative

[mamypoko]

Trump is a sideshow. This is about Vladdy P.

[farcanell]

???? The release in 2022, or there abouts, of “fake news. Trumps whitehouse” will be nothing if not entertaining?

[dunroaming]

I'm warming to Trump.  I think maybe we have all misjudged him in the UK.  Today he has said that he loves Britain and the British people.  He has even offered to apologise for re-tweeting those far right tweets.  Who would have thought Trump is just a lovable bundle of cuddliness.  He has said that he will be coming to Britain this year on a "working" visit and that many people in the UK like and respect him.

 

Please do come Donald, we are looking forward to welcoming you in a very British way! 

[Redline]

3 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

I'm warming to Trump.  I think maybe we have all misjudged him in the UK.  Today he has said that he loves Britain and the British people.  He has even offered to apologise for re-tweeting those far right tweets.  Who would have thought Trump is just a lovable bundle of cuddliness.  He has said that he will be coming to Britain this year on a "working" visit and that many people in the UK like and respect him.

 

Please do come Donald, we are looking forward to welcoming you in a very British way! 

A solid humiliation is in order!

Edited January 26, 2018 by Redline

[Basil B]

6 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

It's probably best Trump backed off although you can understand his frustration re this witch hunt that's rapidly coming to a close with the new revelations.  FBI sordid business.

Looking forward to the day the Witch Hunt nails the wicked witch...

[boomerangutang]

6 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

It's probably best Trump backed off although you can understand his frustration re this witch hunt that's rapidly coming to a close with the new revelations.  FBI sordid business.

Absolutely, I can understand how a slippery eel like Trump would want to do all he can to thwart the investigation.  He's in a unique position of being able to fire anyone (on the federal gov't payroll) involved in the investigation.  He's already fired federal judges in places like NYC who would adversely affect his businesses, ....and Trump replaced them with judges who pledge undying loyalty to him.  The FBI has never, in its history, been judged harshly by people on the federal payroll (right wing Congresspeople and other Trumpists).  This is a first.  Trump and his cabal are forging new paths to despicable.  Hopefully, America's institutions will withstand these made-up attacks from the hard right.

 

20 minutes ago, irwinfc said:

here lies the problem. where's the proof?

The NY Times is a reputable and respected newspaper.

[Trouble]

8 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Doesn't it bother you Trump supporters even a little bit that Trump was trying to stop an investigation of himself?  Common sense says that if you know you are not guilty and have nothing to hide, you'd be in full support of letting this thing play out.  But the man-child has been trying to thwart this thing from the beginning.  Firing Comey was bad enough.  But trying to fire Mueller as well?  Guilty your honor!

 

  

Firing Comey, head of the FBI or firing Mueller, Special Prosecutor does not stop an investigation of anything and it seems a stretch to say so.  The investigations continue regardless of who is the chief. If the article has any truth to it, Mueller does appear to have possible conflicts of interest and Trump has every right to put his views out there, and even be upset about it.   Maybe he did suggest Mueller should not be on the job for those reasons. Some around Trump discussed it with Trump and told him it was a bad idea and he backed off.  So what's so damning here?  The incredible thing about all the investigations to date is that not one hint of collusion or obstruction has come forth while it looks like many in the upper ranks at the FBI and Mueller investigations had a lot of bias against Trump and neither Comey nor Mueller thought to insure that their staffs investigating the matter were impartial.  Does not say much for either Comey or Mueller in my opinion. In my early life I was an investigator for the Air Force, Department of Defense and the VA.  I know how investigations are supposed to work. I have also seen first hand what biased investigators can do to an investigation. The FBI and Mueller investigations seem to stink to high heaven from what little I read in the news reports because it is apparent that the investigators have an axe to grind and there is much question due to the impartiality issue. I am hoping at the end of this fiasco we will indeed see a fair investigation by Mueller and one that everyone on both sides can accept as definitive. Left the chips fall where they may. 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Trouble

[boomerangutang]

20 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Firing Comey, head of the FBI or firing Mueller, Special Prosecutor does not stop an investigation of anything and it seems a stretch to say so.  The investigations continue regardless of who is the chief. If the article has any truth to it, Mueller does appear to have possible conflicts of interest and Trump has every right to put his views out there, and even be upset about it.   Maybe he did suggest Mueller should not be on the job for those reasons. Some around Trump discussed it with Trump and told him it was a bad idea and he backed off.  So what's so damning here?  The incredible thing about all the investigations to date is that not one hint of collusion or obstruction has come forth while it looks like many in the upper ranks at the FBI and Mueller investigations had a lot of bias against Trump and neither Comey nor Mueller thought to insure that their staffs investigating the matter were impartial.  Does not say much for either Comey or Mueller in my opinion. In my early life I was an investigator for the Air Force, Department of Defense and the VA.  I know how investigations are supposed to work. I have also seen first hand what biased investigators can do to an investigation. The FBI and Mueller investigations seem to stink to high heaven from what little I read in the news reports because it is apparent that the investigators have an axe to grind and there is much question due to the impartiality issue. I am hoping at the end of this fiasco we will indeed see a fair investigation by Mueller and one that everyone on both sides can accept as definitive. Left the chips fall where they may. 

Mr. Trouble, you're embracing the hard right-wing scare tactic propaganda hook line and sinker.  All you wrote above (except the closing two sentences) is hogwash.   I could prove you wrong on every item you mention, but it would take more typing than I care to do, and you wouldn't want to hear actual truth, anyway. 

 

I think we both agree that Trump is the ultimate divider.  Look at how deeply divided the US is now.  70% seek justice for law-breakers (and want to try to keep adversarial countries from interfering with US elections), and 30% are doing everything they can to thwart that process.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by boomerangutang

[dcutman]

The way its looking, the FBI and the Justice Department are headed for a major cleansing.  Mueller's investigation is gonna fade into the sunset. The Democrats are are going to get decimated in the mid terms. 

[Becker]

24 minutes ago, dcutman said:

The way its looking, the FBI and the Justice Department are headed for a major cleansing.  Mueller's investigation is gonna fade into the sunset. The Democrats are are going to get decimated in the mid terms. 

And the man-child is gonna MAWA!

[selftaopath]

14 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Absolutely, I can understand how a slippery eel like Trump would want to do all he can to thwart the investigation.  He's in a unique position of being able to fire anyone (on the federal gov't payroll) involved in the investigation.  He's already fired federal judges in places like NYC who would adversely affect his businesses, ....and Trump replaced them with judges who pledge undying loyalty to him.  The FBI has never, in its history, been judged harshly by people on the federal payroll (right wing Congresspeople and other Trumpists).  This is a first.  Trump and his cabal are forging new paths to despicable.  Hopefully, America's institutions will withstand these made-up attacks from the hard right.

 

The NY Times is a reputable and respected newspaper.

Republicans are not interested in what is best for America. They want to hold onto their power and money. They side with Russia/Putin daily and AGAINST  America's interests.  They will intentionally or unintentionally install Trump as a dictator. He shows his willingness to spit on rule of law daily. I wonder if bigotry/racism mean more to his defenders/Republicans than democracy and rule of law? 

[selftaopath]

9 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Mr. Trouble, you're embracing the hard right-wing scare tactic propaganda hook line and sinker.  All you wrote above (except the closing two sentences) is hogwash.   I could prove you wrong on every item you mention, but it would take more typing than I care to do, and you wouldn't want to hear actual truth, anyway. 

 

I think we both agree that Trump is the ultimate divider.  Look at how deeply divided the US is now.  70% seek justice for law-breakers (and want to try to keep adversarial countries from interfering with US elections), and 30% are doing everything they can to thwart that process.

 

 

Republicans are doing Russia's "bidding."  Neither Trump nor his Republican Congress has done anything to stop Russia's "act of war" and will not even officially admit to Russia's continued behavior.  And this was the party of "family values" "law and order" etc. LOL Now what are they? Sheeple perhaps? 

 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Scott
Offensive graphic edited out

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, dcutman said:

The way its looking, the FBI and the Justice Department are headed for a major cleansing.  Mueller's investigation is gonna fade into the sunset. The Democrats are are going to get decimated in the mid terms. 

You have any facts or just wishful thinking?

[boomerangutang]

                     Trump has long phone sessions with Fox News owner, Aussie Murdoch. It appears the two men concur (compare notes) about how to debilitate the USA.  See below how devious Murdoch's spokespeople twist facts to project their shield-the-president-at-all-costs insanity (rhymes with Hannity). . . . . 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Trump isn't worried about it.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Can anyone on here explain why Trump firing Muller for conflict of interest would actually be a crime? Don't think so.

Wouldn't look good, of course, but that's not what the furore is about. Bad optics does not a crime make.

[SheungWan]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can anyone on here explain why Trump firing Muller for conflict of interest would actually be a crime? Don't think so.

Wouldn't look good, of course, but that's not what the furore is about. Bad optics does not a crime make.

Bottom line is that Trump is not going to fire Mueller now. So that leaves a head-on campaign of discreditation. The WH must be worried that Mueller has got something otherwise why the hoo-haa. Thank you for reading my fake analysis.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Bottom line is that Trump is not going to fire Mueller now. So that leaves a head-on campaign of discreditation. The WH must be worried that Mueller has got something otherwise why the hoo-haa. Thank you for reading my fake analysis.

LOL. Muller helped discredit his own investigation by employing a cabal of biased lawyers, including Strzok that had to be fired because of his blatent Trump hatred.

[Silurian]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can anyone on here explain why Trump firing Muller for conflict of interest would actually be a crime? Don't think so.

Wouldn't look good, of course, but that's not what the furore is about. Bad optics does not a crime make.

 

It could potentially be obstruction of justice and that is a crime. If you fire an official that is investigating a crime against you that could be considered obstruction of justice. There would have to be cause for the firing of Mueller so it doesn't appear that there is a circumventing of justice.

 

How Trump Built an Obstruction of Justice Case Against Himself

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/how-trump-built-an-obstruction-of-justice-case-against-himself/551588/

 

[boomerangutang]

38 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can anyone on here explain why Trump firing Muller for conflict of interest would actually be a crime? Don't think so.

Wouldn't look good, of course, but that's not what the furore is about. Bad optics does not a crime make.

I'll answer your question:  YES, it would be a crime.  Even a 6 year old can tell you that if the Prez fires the man leading a criminal investigation into that same prez, then it's Obstruction of Justice, and that, TBL, IS A CRIME !

In case you're not sure, THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW.   

[boomerangutang]

Not only is the president and his entire cabal obstructing justice, but so are many Republican congresspeople.  Nunes is head of the pack.  I won't be surprised (and will actually celebrate) if Nunes gets hauled off to jail in handcuffs.   He, and his fellow conspirators, are actively trying to debilitate American law-enforcement institutions.  Not cool.