General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSeth Abramson's take on the breaking NYTimes story
Link to tweet
"
1/ First, here's the NYT story. The upshot is that last June Donald Trump *ordered* White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Special Counsel Bob Mueller. McGahn refused and threatened to quit if Trump went forward with the firing. Ultimately, Trump relented.
2/ Some will wonder why McGahn had enough sway with Trump to stop this from happening. That's a very good question to ask. First, note that McGahn was the attorney from Trump's winning presidential campaign, so the two have known each other and worked together for some time now.
10 replies 138 retweets 579 likes
Seth Abramson
?Verified account @SethAbramson
3h3 hours ago
3/ Next, we have to remember that McGahn is a potential witnessand, importantly, a potential witness *against Trump*in the Trump-Russia investigation. McGahn was present at nearly all the key moments in the Obstruction fact-pattern that Mueller is considering referring to DOJ.
9 replies 154 retweets 643 likes
Seth Abramson
?Verified account @SethAbramson
3h3 hours ago
4/ If Mueller refers an Obstruction indictment to DOJ, DOJ will likely refer it to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration for articles of impeachmentand whether or not such articles come out of that committee, America already knows Obstruction is an impeachable offense.
8 replies 167 retweets 665 likes
Seth Abramson
?Verified account @SethAbramson
3h3 hours ago
5/ It's an impeachable offense because it already was for Bill Clintonper the Republican Party and its votes on impeachment in the House. So while Trump may only have had an inkling of this last June, he likely knew enough to see that McGahn was someone whose loyalty he needed.
11 replies 149 retweets 597 likes
Seth Abramson
?Verified account @SethAbramson
3h3 hours ago
6/ McGahn is protected from ever testifying against Donald Trump on some issuesbut *not* if the conduct he is to be questioned about involves criminal conduct by the president. Remember that Don McGahn does *not* represent Donald Trump, he represents the Office of the President.
11 replies 266 retweets 862 likes
Seth Abramson
?Verified account @SethAbramson
3h3 hours ago
7/ Definitionally and legally, criminal conduct is not considered within the recognized duties of a president, which means McGahn's role as an attorney for the Office of the President diverges from Trump's own legal interests as and when the president has acted illegallyas here.
10 replies 146 retweets 594 likes
Seth Abramson
?Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago
8/ McGahn was present before and after the Comey firing, as Trump concocted pretexts for that illegal action and thenafterwarda coverup for what was a *Russia-based* decision to dump Comey. That decision was illegal for the previously cited reason about the office of president.
2h2 hours ago
9/ No constitutional provision or U.S. statute ever hasor ever couldauthorize POTUS to commit a crime. This means that while Trump *is* allowed to fire Comey because, say, he doesn't like Comey's dress sense, he's *not* allowed to fire him to obstruct a criminal investigation.
10/ So McGahn can rather readily be used as an Obstruction witness against Trump, not just because of the Comey firing but much elsefor instance attempts to pressure Congressional investigators to drop their probes or attempts to pressure Jeff Sessions into not recusing himself.
11/ Trump was represented by Marc Kasowitz last June, and either Trump or Kasowitz would have sussed out that if Don McGahn quit the White House because he believed Trump was about to commit a *crime*and make no mistake, that'd pretty much be the basisit would be a catastrophe.
12/ The firing itself would be a catastrophe politically, but if it occurred concurrent to McGahn quitting, the chances that McGahn would be drawn even further into the investigation as a witness against Trump would be *extremely* high. And we don't know what *else* McGahn knows.
13/ Here's the problem: Trump didn't back off from firing Mueller because he decided it was wrong or outside his authority orbetter stilla federal crime.
This is a *critical* point: the NYT establishes Trump *only* relented to keep McGahn from quitting as White House Counsel.
14/ Indeed, there wouldn't have been any story for the NYT to reportthis would likely never have leakedif Trump had simply gone to McGahn for legal advice about firing Mueller, and McGahn had advised him not to do so, and Trump immediately relented in the face of such advice.
15/ Rather, the NYT says thateither on his own counsel or someone else'sDonald Trump *ordered* McGahn to do something. He did *not* ask for his advice, he *ordered* him to fire Mueller. (It may have been Kasowitz's doing, as Kasowitz was urging Trump to go to war with Mueller.)
16/ So what we know now is Trump had the criminal intentmens reato Obstruct by firing his *second* person who was then investigating him, but no crime occurred because there was no actus reus (no act). The only reason there was no act was a key witness threatening to jump ship.
17/ So Trump thinks he has the *authority* to fire Mueller, that doing so is *appropriate* and *warranted*, and he has the *willingness* to do so. Also (lest we forget) he has the willingness to *lie* about wanting to fire Muelleras he's now been lying about it for seven months.
18/ When many many analysts, me included, were saying after Mueller's appointment that he needed to be protected ASAP from Trump firing himbecause we said that that attempt *would* be madesuch concerns were dismissed as conspiracy theory and the bill to protect Mueller stalled.
19/ One effect of this breaking news therefore must be immediate passage of the bill to protect Mueller that was *only* not passed previously because the GOP told Americaand they were dead wrongthat this president never had and would never have any intention of firing Mueller.
20/ But it's more than that: Trump was willing to fire Mueller when his level of legal jeopardy was unclear, and Mueller had brought *no* indictments and secured *no* cooperation deals with top Trump national security aides. So what is Trump's temperature on firing Mueller *now*?
CONCLUSION/ This is the last moment for Republicans to jump off the Trump ship in the eyes of history. Trump is the Titanic and the iceberg is *dead ahead*. He *will* try to fire Muellera crime and impeachable as Obstruction. Congress must get on the right side of history *now*.
NOTE/ There are other ancillary effects to this story: for instance, Bill Burck *must* now see that he needs to get the hell off two of the three cases he's currently working as attorney: Bannon, McGahn, and Priebus. Representing all three is no longer (really never was) tenable."
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)The one on KAC screeching about trumbo NEVER EVER discussing firing mueller with stephanoligolopoulos
Fab!!!
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)That's the real news of the day, despite the kerfuffle around this story which is significant but not earthshaking like the Dutch story.
Sironichow
(12 posts)The Dutch story provides further evidence confirming what we already knew, while the NYT piece essentially proves intent to obstruct of justice. In our eyes, Trump may be guilty of treason, but the obstruction case will bring him down. Trump's "if you fight, they call it obstruction" comments look even worse in this light. However, the Dutch piece helps undermine their false narrative, which will be crucial during impeachment proceedings.
Cha
(297,655 posts)I wrote that question right after I read Seth's tweet.
Oh good.. explanations!
9/ No constitutional provision or U.S. statute ever hasor ever couldauthorize POTUS to commit a crime. This means that while Trump *is* allowed to fire Comey because, say, he doesn't like Comey's dress sense, he's *not* allowed to fire him to obstruct a criminal investigation.
Mahalo for all your work on this, triron and Seth Abramson's!
herding cats
(19,567 posts)He can fire him for having bigger hands than he does or even more hair, but he cant fire him to protect himself from a criminal investigation. Thats still a crime, even if the seated Republicans choose to ignore it the repercussions would be tremendous.
My take on this is McGahn was trying to save Trump from making a huge criminal mistake, and by extension save the Republicans the blowback from of his actions.
I realize mine isnt the most popular opinion circulating at this moment, but Im standing by it all the same. McGahn isnt a hero in all of this to my eyes. Hes playing a long game and trying to manage Trump in the short term for the better interest of the GOP.
Cha
(297,655 posts)like most of you all. So I appreciate your perspective.
But, this that Seth wrote was very clear and easy for me to catch up on a few important highlights in history.
But, now it seems McGahn is the one who leaked trump wanted him to fire Mueller and he threatened to quit if he did. So it seems he's thrown trump a bit to wolves, no?
MFM008
(19,818 posts)So much breaking news ...what's breaking in AM isn't the same as PM.
oasis
(49,407 posts)woodsprite
(11,924 posts)To Davos.