Trump Tried to Fire Mueller Again
Hiding the evidence
Donald Trump got away with disappointment investigations of wrongdoing past his campaign and his White House. Without reforms, future criminals could exploit the powers of the presidency to even more than dangerous ends.
Right out of the gate, Donald Trump appeared to pause the police and brazenly acknowledge it to the entire nation — not with remorse simply with pride and conviction. Within four months of beingness sworn in, Trump fired FBI director James Comey, which the White House insisted was a conclusion rooted in Comey'due south mishandling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton'south private electronic mail server. But Trump rebuffed his Department of Justice's line of reasoning in a telly interview with NBC, saying that he was planning on firing Comey considering of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 ballot.
Trump fired and so-FBI managing director James Comey and and then admitted on television that he didn't like Comey'due south investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Yet Trump managed to stay in office for an entire term despite this obstruction of justice. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP/Getty Images
This was simply one of several instances of obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller report — the culmination of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign's involvement in Russia'south election interference. Trump besides obstructed justice when he tried to fire Mueller, when he tried to curtail Mueller, and when he ordered his White House counsel to lie about his attempt to burn down Mueller. But having faced no legal consequences for these and other attempts to undermine the investigation, Trump unsurprisingly went on to commit the same crime over again, and was eventually impeached for obstruction of Congress in a completely different case that involved his efforts to thwart the investigation of a whistle-blower complaint about his corrupt phone call to the president of Ukraine.
As it stands, Trump'south presidency volition only embolden future presidents to abuse their power because he showed impeachment to exist a far less threatening tool than information technology one time was. While Richard Nixon's resignation and the public shaming that came along with it may have served as a warning to his successors of the social and political pitfalls of abuse, Trump'due south shamelessness and resilience in riding out both of his impeachment trials until the Senate acquitted him may be a lesson to his successors to double downward on their wrongdoings because their own party volition protect them.
"Impeachment is not as strong a deterrent every bit it was before Trump."
This is not to say that impeachment has been rendered a completely useless tool; Congress should all the same employ it when a president is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors. Merely impeachment is not equally strong a deterrent equally it was earlier Trump. The solution to preventing presidential abuse of power lies in improving the accountability of the president nether the law, outside the scope of impeachment, which should be Congress'southward last resort. Iv things should be done to accomplish that:
First, Congress should strengthen whistle-blower protections. "1 of the best, most important ways to constrain and prevent this sort of malfeasance is to provide adequate incentives for and protections for folks who blow the whistle on bad behavior," said Matthew Stephenson, a Harvard police professor who focuses on anti-corruption. Business firm Democrats introduced legislation, known every bit the Protecting Our Democracy Human action, which seeks to implement a slew of reforms, including expanding whistle-blower protection to political appointees. The reason this is important is that whistle-blowing is effectively a stimulant for investigations. The Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump's first impeachment, for instance, was the straight upshot of a concerned official raising the alarm.
"Until presidents can be indicted, they will ever be, by definition, higher up the law."
Second, Congress must strengthen its oversight over the presidency in tangible ways. That means being able to more effectively enforce Congress's subpoena power. "You tin't do oversight without ability behind those subpoenas, and you certainly tin can't hold a president and an assistants answerable if yous can't require them to requite information about the conduct of their office and whether they're faithfully executing the laws," Representative Adam Schiff of California said.
Indeed, Trump officials were able to evade subpoenas and effectively run down the clock because court proceedings to enforce congressional subpoenas can take a long time. The House, for example, tried but failed to get Don McGahn, who served every bit White House counsel under Trump, to testify in front end of the Judiciary Committee about Trump's obstruction of justice during the Mueller probe. Although McGahn did cooperate with Mueller, parts of the last written report were redacted by the Justice Department. Congress, in its oversight capacity, should take been able to reconstruct parts of the investigation. Doing so may have prevented the Trump administration from getting away with its efforts to spin the final Mueller report as an exoneration of Trump, which information technology very clearly was not.
Congressional amendment ability is currently too weak to be an constructive check on a corrupt president. Despite efforts by the Business firm of Representatives to demand that Don McGahn, White Business firm counsel nether Trump, bear witness in the Mueller probe, McGahn was able to avoid testifying. Doug Mills / The New York Times
That'southward why reforming subpoena power, a critical step in bolstering Congress as a cheque on the president, ought to include the possibility of fast-tracking court proceedings for congressional subpoenas and issuing fines for those who defy them.
3rd, President Biden should appoint a White House ethics czar, which he has yet to exercise, to ensure that the White House correctly implements and abides past high ethical standards. It's important for the Biden team to codify in clear terms, for instance, the limits of the White Business firm'southward interactions with the Section of Justice in order to guarantee greater independence of the department. And there are already clear signs that the Biden squad needs an ethics czar: Though Biden has released public logs of White Business firm visitors — something the Trump assistants stopped doing — he has chosen not to disembalm virtual meetings. This is a mistake, given that transparency in White Business firm communications is a key tool to protect the Section of Justice's independence. An ethics czar dedicated to getting input from public accountability groups could change such policies and set a new norm.
Lastly, the Department of Justice should revisit its policy, issued by the Role of Legal Counsel, that a sitting president cannot be indicted. This is not the law of the land, and the constitutionality of whether a president can be indicted while in function has even so to be adamant by the courts. Rather, it lies in a tradition that began in 1973. The head of the OLC at the time argued in a memo that "a necessity to defend a criminal trial and to attend court . . . would interfere with the president's unique official duties."
Special counsel Robert Mueller considered himself unable to weigh in on the question of whether the president should be indicted for obstruction of justice because of a Department of Justice policy that advises against indicting sitting presidents. That policy must change. MANDEL NGAN / AFP/Getty Images
Information technology might sound reasonable to say that indicting a sitting president could pose political bug — and potential national security risks — considering a criminal trial would effectively incapacitate a president. But an indictment does not necessarily mean that the president has to sit through a criminal trial. That could always exist postponed until a president leaves function. In that 1973 memo, the rationale for not indicting a sitting president, even if all proceedings are deferred until they are out of office, rests merely on the perceived damage the image of the part of the president might endure. "The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as chief executive boggles the imagination," the memo said.
A greater spectacle, however, is a reckless, authoritarian president who is seen on the earth stage bending the dominion of law to his volition. That's why presidents should exist indicted for crimes that they commit, with their trials postponed to when they get out part. Had Mueller been able to operate under a guideline that allowed for Trump'due south indictment, the one-time president probably would accept faced legal accountability for his early acts of obstruction of justice. That, on its own, could have deterred him from obstructing justice later in his presidency, as he did during his first impeachment inquiry.
So while presidents should non, for logistical reasons, be required to be a function of a criminal trial while in office, they should non be immune from indictments. Because until presidents can be indicted, they will always exist, past definition, to a higher place the police.
Source: https://apps.bostonglobe.com/opinion/graphics/2021/06/future-proofing-the-presidency/part-4-hiding-the-evidence/