Mediaboss Marketing

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller at the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco in 2016.

The appointment of ex-FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel overseeing an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential Russian connections to President Trump and his allies is another surprising development after a week full of them. Consider: Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who was investigating the potential Russia-Trump ties, only to now have Comeys predecessor at the FBI take over the investigation. And Trumps deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, who was being mocked by Democrats for his role in Comeys firing, has now made an appointment that is being praised by Eric Holder, Barack Obamas attorney general. The president, whose aides were advocating that the Russia investigation end soon, must now watch as Mueller quits his law firm job to devote himself full time to this assignment.

So what does this all mean? We wont ultimately know for some time. But the Mueller appointment and the surrounding controversy around Trump and Russia remains as much a political issue as a legal one. So lets look at how this affects the relevant political players.

Although the simple case is that Muellers appointment is not welcome news for Trump the White House was surprised by the announcement it does have some plausible benefits for the president, especially in the near term. The Russia investigation had been dogging the Trump administration, and his firing of Comey had turned into a debacle.

Trump can now say there is an independent investigation going on, by someone he did not personally appoint and who is not beholden to his party. And Mueller has very strong credentials. The president and his team, in theory, can turn the focus to governing, while deferring questions about the investigation. And maybe Comey, who appears to have notes of every conversation he has had with the president, will share them with Mueller and not The New York Times. (That said, as of late Wednesday, Trump had not yet reacted to Muellers appointment a poorly worded Twitter rant could mitigate any short-term benefit for Trump.)

Its also possible Mueller will interpret his mandate as limited to Russia and the election. Its not clear Mueller would be investigating, for example, the details of Comeys firing. That would be to Trumps benefit.

Most importantly, Mueller can exonerate the president. If this is a high-risk development for Trump, it also comes with a big reward if Trump hasnt done anything seriously wrong.

Muellers appointment ensures that the Russia controversy wont just go away at least not anytime soon. And he could gravely threaten Trumps presidency if he finds clear, improper connections between the presidents campaign and Russian officials. There was a reason that Republicans on Capitol Hill and the Trump administration were trying to stop the appointment of a special counsel. Prosecutors with broad authority to investigate can cause major problems. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Trump could in theory order Rosenstein to fire Mueller. But that would be exactly what Richard Nixon did, ordering his Justice Department to dump the special prosecutor investigating the president.

Republican members were being repeatedly asked about the Trump investigation. Like Trump, they can now defer to Muellers probe. This will make them very happy. And in the long run, Mueller helps them avoid the awkward circumstance of investigating their own president. A damning report will make it easier to call for Trumps resignation, if strong evidence emerges. Alternatively, a report that absolves Trump could take the Russia issue off the table without Republicans looking like theyd engaged in a partisan cover-up.

More importantly, Republicans now have more room to get back to their policy goals, such as tax reform and Obamacare repeal. Muellers investigation is likely to take months. While that unfolds, Trump can sign into law bills passed by Republicans in the House and the Senate.

Were not going to do fake balance here. This may or may not end up as good news for Trump but its almost certainly good news for congressional Republicans.

The one problem? Mueller is only investigating the Russia issue. Its likely Trump will do something else controversial in the past two weeks alone, he allegedly shared highly classified intelligence with the Russians, and he fired Comey in a clumsy way that created all kinds of political problems. Republicans will still have to answer for Trumps other controversial moves.

Just reread the bad news for Trump paragraph from above. An investigation of the 2016 election, Trump and his allies could turn up damaging information. A report written by Mueller will have credibility. Its far more likely that Mueller, as opposed to GOP-led congressional committees, will release information damaging to the president. And the timing of the investigation could be good for Democrats, keeping Russia in the news through the midterm year, even if it results in a slowdown in headlines now.

But we should not ignore real-world impacts or lose sight of the big picture. Democrats strongly disagree with Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan on policy, including on sweeping issues currently on the congressional docket such as health care and taxes. In the eyes of many Democrats, Trump and the potential laws he might sign could damage the country for years to come. A process that could (in the long run) lead to Trumps removal from office is a major step for liberals.

In the short term, they may have lost an issue. Polls showed an overwhelming majority of Americans (78 percent, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey) wanted some kind of investigation of Trumps alleged ties to Russia from outside of Congress. Democrats could have pounded Trump and Republicans on their lack of accountability every day till next years midterms.

Mueller has a reputation for independence, like Comey. How he approaches this investigation is unpredictable, and that has risks for Democrats. (Ask Hillary Clinton.) And because Democrats have effusively praised Muellers appointment, theyll have trouble criticizing him later on or re-litigating the Russia issue if he exonerates Trump.

What would have been more predictable? A House Judiciary Committee investigation in 2019 led by Democratic Chairman John Conyers, being cheered on by Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Make no mistake: If Democrats had won control of Congress next year and Trump had blocked a special counsel up until then, impeachment would have been on the table. Now, Democrats have to wait and see what Mueller concludes.

By all accounts, Mueller seems to be respected by all sides.

Continued here:
Why The Special Counsel May Be Good News For Republicans And Bad News For Trump - FiveThirtyEight

New York Times

A Few Brave Republicans New York Times Well into 1974, most Republicans stayed loyal to Richard Nixon, after plenty of evidence of abuse of power and obstruction of justice, as the political scientist Jonathan Bernstein pointed out on Twitter. A majority of Republicans on the House ...

The rest is here:
A Few Brave Republicans - New York Times

Updated on May 15, 2017 at 7:45 p.m.

After a report surfaced on Monday that President Trump shared classified information with Russian officials during an Oval Office meeting last week, some Senate Republicans initially rushed to defend the president, while other GOP lawmakers, as well as congressional Democrats, expressed alarm.

Its no longer classified the minute he utters it, Republican Senator Jim Risch said, according to Talking Points Memos Alice Ollstein. Risch reportedly noted that the president has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process. Republican Senator John McCain initially took a similar tack. We certainly dont want any president to leak classified information, but the president does have the right to do that, he said, according to the Associated Presss Erica Werner. On Twitter, however, McCain shared the report later in the evening and wrote: If true, deeply disturbing.

In the House, a spokesman for Republican Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters: We have no way to know what was said, but protecting our nations secrets is paramount. The speaker hopes for a full explanation of the facts from the administration.

The incident marks the second time in less than a week that congressional Republicans have had to scramble to respond to an immediately controversial move by the president. Last Tuesday, the administration sent shockwaves through official Washington with the news that the president had abruptly fired FBI Director James Comey.

A report in The Washington Post on Monday stated that President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trumps disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

Administration officials quickly pushed back on the allegations. The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said in a carefully worded statement that did not wade deeply into the substance of the allegations. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, he said. At no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed, and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.

However, The New York Times and BuzzFeed posted stories Monday evening that appeared to confirm the Posts reporting that the president shared highly classified information with Russian officials.

In stark contrast to the immediate reactions of some of his colleagues, Republican Senator Bob Corker reportedly expressed concern over the report.

The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order. Its going to happen, Corker said, per Bloombergs Sahil Kapur. Obviously theyre in a downward spiral right now and theyve got to figure out a way to come to grips w[ith] all thats happening.

On Monday, congressional Democrats harshly criticized the Post report, with some arguing that if the allegations prove to be true, the president put national security at risk.

If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community, tweeted Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is currently investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, including potential ties between Trump associates and Russia. Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians.

Senator Bernie Sanders, who remains an Independent but is a member of Senate Democratic leadership, called Trumps reported actions reckless and dangerous. In a statement, the senator said: Protecting our national security is one of the most important tasks a president has, and Trump is failing at it.

Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of California said on Twitter that if true, this is a serious threat to national security.

House Democrats Elijah Cummings, the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, and John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a joint statement arguing that Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives need a briefing from the national security adviser and the directors of our nations intelligence agencies to get to the bottom of these allegations. The congressmen added that if audio recordings exist of the meeting, Congress needs to obtain them immediately.

Some Republican lawmakers appeared unprepared to respond. I havent seen the story, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said, according to Politicos Burgess Everett. Sometimes this stuff is breaking faster than our ability to check online.

Go here to see the original:
Republicans Display a Mix of Defense and Alarm on Trump Allegations - The Atlantic

Senate Republicans love John Cornyn. But not all of them are sold on him being the next FBI director.

Its nothing personal toward the affable Senate majority whip from Texas, who has built up loyalty during his years in the Senate, particularly as a two-term chairman of the GOPs campaign arm and a high-ranking member of leadership. But with Trump's sacking of James Comey still reverberating on Capitol Hill, some Republicans want to make sure that the next FBI director is highly credentialed, unimpeachable and completely apolitical.

Story Continued Below

Other GOP lawmakers are confident Cornyn would leave his partisan biases at the Senate exit if he's offered the job and accepts.

The debate over the No. 2 Senate Republican potentially succeeding Comey he is reportedly high on the list of contenders for the post has divided the GOP conference in a way that didnt occur earlier this year, when former colleagues were elevated to other high-ranking national security roles.

In this particular case, theyve got to go beyond expectations and appoint someone who, coming in would know absolutely with every cell of their body this person was going to be someone who ran the FBI in a nonpartisan way, said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who stressed that he was talking about no particular candidate.

Corker said the nominee "absolutely" must have bipartisan support, owing to the traditions of near consensus support for new directors.

To have an FBI director at this point who doesnt get Democratic votes would be a huge, huge mistake," Corker added.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) called Cornyn an excellent choice to lead the FBI, but added that whether to install someone with a history of partisan politics in that role is the question of the day for many folks.

Frankly, I think theres a case to be made that you want the most qualified person who can handle the issues and lead us in the direction we need to go, Scott said Monday. That doesnt eliminate partisan folks but theres no question that the country seems to be, I think would find more confidence and credibility in someone whos probably not involved in partisan politics right now.

Thats a question that may soon face Senate Republicans if Trump does select the 65-year-old former state attorney general to take over for Comey. The White Houses rationale for firing Comey shifted during the course of last week, with Trump calling the former FBI chief a showboat and referencing Comeys investigations into his campaigns potential collusion with Moscow as he defended sacking him.

Cornyn was among the slate of candidates who interviewed for the job at the Justice Department on Saturday. On Monday, the normally chatty Texas Republican was mum on the possible new gig.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that "under normal circumstances," Cornyn would make a great FBI chief. But these are not normal circumstances," Graham said.

Asked about those comments, Cornyn responded: Im probably not going to weigh in on that right now.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) stressed that she thought very highly of Cornyn but preferred former Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, an ex-FBI agent who previously led the House Intelligence Committee. And Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who had previously floated former Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) to take over for Comey, also tossed out Fran Townsend, the former homeland security adviser for President George W. Bush.

John Cornyn is highly qualified. Id also put in a plug for Fran Townsend," McCain said. Cornyn is fine, hes a great leader. But I think it might be kind of interesting and very important to have the first woman director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

But plenty of Cornyns other colleagues closed ranks behind him on Monday.

I dont have any concern, said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who sits on the Judiciary Committee and will help vet the new FBI director candidate. If you eliminate a lot of the highly qualified people who are politicians, I think thats a disservice to the administration.

Added Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): I think politicians are capable and John Cornyns particularly capable.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune of South Dakota, whod be the early favorite for majority whip should Cornyn exit the Senate, said he was a big fan of Cornyn and called him supremely qualified, obviously, from a law enforcement standpoint.

But on whether he had concerns about a politician taking over the traditionally nonpartisan role, Thune responded: Not my decision to make. Ultimately, its the presidents decision.

Cornyn and the rest of the GOP leadership team is term-limited after next year, so if he were to leave it would instigate a massive shake-up 18 months early. Further complicating Cornyns decision-making process, the Texan is also the favorite to succeed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as GOP leader, though McConnell doesn't appear to be going anywhere any time soon.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said: "The only thing is, I'd hate to lose him out of the Senate."

Ive heard that argument, I understand it. I think they could bring someone in out of law enforcement, that would be fine," Hoeven said of the worry about a partisan in the FBI role. "I just wouldnt rule out others who could be strong performers."

Sign up for POLITICO Huddle. A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Meanwhile, another elected official took himself out of the running for the FBI director job on Monday: Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the former chief inquisitor into the Benghazi scandal and ex-prosecutor. The four-term congressman said he spoke with Attorney General Jeff Sessions about the position, but told him of my firm conviction that I would not be the right person.

Democrats, who are increasingly behind the idea of withholding support for a new FBI chief until a special prosecutor to oversee the federal Russia probe is selected, criticized the idea of installing Cornyn in that role.

This is exactly the wrong moment, it would send exactly the wrong signal to nominate someone who has stood for election, Republican or Democrat, said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). Cornyn is just obviously out of bounds. Sen. Cornyn, although a former attorney general of Texas, has spent far more of his life as a partisan elected official than as a federal prosecutor.

"It should not be a politician," added Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. "I love Cornyn, but not in this job."

Austin Wright contributed to this story.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the article here:
Republicans wary of Cornyn as FBI chief - Politico

Its the question of the hour, every hour now: What has to happen to make Republicans, even a few of them, put country before party and do what needs to be done about Donald Trump?

That something serious needs to be done is clear. Trump has arguably been impeachable since the day he took office, over his clear flouting of the emoluments clause and anti-nepotism laws. But I get that those werent big enough deals to light up public opinion. And maybe the Comey firing isnt either, even after it came out Monday evening that Trump had shared our friends best, biggest and most secret secrets with the Russians right afterward. The recent rash of polls, before this latest news, on the matter tend to show pluralities disapproving of the firing, but the usual Trump die-hard group of about 30 percent supporting, with a frustratingly high dont know enough to have an opinion.

But it has enraged informed opinion, and its no mystery why. If you are a Republican or conservative who has concocted in your brain some justification for what Trump did, consider this hypothetical. Imagine Hillary Clinton had won. She became the president. James Comey was investigating her campaign. And she fired him. After asking him to dinner and trying to exact a pledge of loyalty from him.

You wouldnt be able to see straight. The House Judiciary Committee would without any doubt have already started drawing up articles of impeachment. Fox News would have started running a Hillary Clinton days remaining in office chyron.

And your outrage would be justified. It would have been intolerable for a President Clinton to have done that (and I would not have defended it, but Im also certain she never would have done such a thing). And its intolerable for President Trump to do it.

Republicans know this. They know that a special prosecutor is not only justified but necessary, even though only two of them that Im aware of (House members Walter Jones and Justin Amash) have joined the call for one. Those two, at least, seefinallyhow dangerous Trump is. They understand that they cant control him the way they once thought.

Yet the overwhelmingly majority of them, led by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, persist in obsequiousness. As I wrote Friday, If they can pass their tax cuts for the rich, end Obamacare, and put conservative judges on the Supreme Court and the federal circuit courts, theyll let Trump do what he wants.

So, back to the question: What has to happen? One of two things.

First, there does exist a chance, however slim, that something substantive that Trump says or doesvolunteering our allies secrets to the Russians, for instance!or some substantive revelation, will be too much even for Republicans. Hard to know what this would be. It would have to be something with dead-obvious constitutional ramifications. In other words, this eliminates a lot of things. They impeached Bill Clinton over lying about blow jobs. But a woman or ten could come forward with explosive sexual allegations and the tapes to prove it, and if it didnt involved Trumps comportment as president I dont think the GOP would budge.

But lets say, for example, that Trump did reinstitute taping in the Oval Office, and did have tapes of his chats with Comeybut destroyed them. Those tapes would be, would have been, the property not of the president but of the government of the United States. The Presidential Records Act requires that any tapes be preserved.

If that were to happen, that just might do it. Were probably about to watch some version of this play out before us. It seems pretty clear, from the way Trump and Sean Spicer have talked, that he was indeed taping. Will Republicans demand the tapes? Lindsey Graham has, although he also gave Trump the out of saying that he (Graham) doubts they really exist. But if they do exist, and if they would prove (as everyone assumes) that Trump is lying, then who could put it past him destroying them?

But were still only at might, which brings us to the second thing that may flip Republicans. And its really the only thing. Self-preservation. Lets say my destroyed tapes scenario turns out to be true. Then there will be multiple calls for impeachment and/or resignation, from nearly every Democrat, from most important newspapers, and even from a few Republicans.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

Then Trumps polling numbers go down below 30. And 30 percent is a crucial benchmark because thats about the percentage of Americans who are loyal partisan Republicans. If hes down to 25, that will mean hes losing even Republicans in fairly large numbers. That, in turn, will mean hell start to be a liability to Republican House members in swing districts. And if gets down into the low 20s, that will mean Republicans are really jumping ship.

The Cook Report currently rates six Republican-held House seats as toss-ups, 18 as leaning Republican, and 19 as likely Republican. If Trumps ratings tumble, Cook will start shifting some likelys to leaning, and it will come clear to Ryan that his majority is seriously at risk.

In other wordsand this is the hard political pointit doesnt have to be that the GOP House members in the deepest-reddest districts feel that Trump threatens their hold on their seats. That wont happen until Trump gets down to the single digits. But if the 43 Republicans Cook rates as representing potentially vulnerable districts sense that Trump is going to bring them down, then essentially the whole party will abandon Trump if the leaders decide its what they have to do to keep the House majority. The House majority is more important to them than Trump for a host of reasons. Trumps just useful to them, for now.

Now that I think about it, the scenario above wont really count as putting country ahead of party, will it? It will merely constitute putting the congressional Republican Party ahead of the presidential Republican Party. So the real answer to the question that opened this column, about when Republicans will put country ahead of party, is never.

But you knew that already.

View post:
The Republicans' Trump ProblemAnd Ours - Daily Beast