If Trump Fires Mueller, He Just Might Get Away With It

If Trump Fires Mueller, He Just Might Get Away With It

If Trump Fires Mueller, He Just Might Get Away With It

The country has become increasingly polarized on Russiagate—and Republicans have more to fear from their Trump-supporting base than from Democratic challengers.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

From Lindsey Graham on the right to Bernie Sanders on the left, a fair number of elected officials say that if Donald Trump fires Robert Mueller, the Russiagate special counsel, he’ll face impeachment. Don’t count on it.

Despite plans by MoveOn.org and others to organize nationwide protests if Mueller’s investigation is shut down, and despite the outcry from Democrats and the media that would certainly follow, odds are that Trump would survive the aftermath of a Saturday Night Massacre–style removal of the special counsel.

That’s because the country has become increasingly polarized since Mueller took office last May, with more and more Democrats saying they back Mueller’s inquiry—and more and more Republicans saying they don’t. In the House of Representatives, where Republicans face stiff odds of hanging on to power, my guess is that Speaker Paul Ryan and other GOP leaders won’t risk a break with Trump if he fires Mueller, and that they won’t allow an impeachment vote (and even if they did allow a vote and Trump was impeached, it’s highly doubtful that Trump opponents could muster the two-thirds majority needed for conviction in the Senate).

The polls on Mueller are not encouraging. Consider the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which showed a deep Democrat/Republican split on attitudes toward the Mueller investigation. In March 2018, 47 percent of Democrats viewed Mueller positively, against only 9 percent who viewed him negatively. However, among Republicans, the split was dramatically different: 11 percent positive, 33 percent negative. What’s most troubling is that, over time, those numbers have migrated sharply, becoming increasingly polarized. Back in June 2017, just 35 percent of Democrats viewed Mueller in a positive light, against 9 percent who viewed him negatively; among the GOP, the split was almost even, with 15 percent positive and 14 percent negative. (The rest expressed no opinion.) In other words, over time, Democrats have become increasingly supportive of Mueller, while Republicans have massively turned against him.

Similarly, a host of recent polling shows that while Americans are far more likely to believe the FBI over Trump, and that a majority of Americans believes that Mueller’s investigation is fair and impartial, the results are strongly skewed on a partisan basis. In fact, a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in early February found that nearly three-quarters of Republicans believe that “members of the FBI and Department of Justice are working to delegitimize Trump through politically motivated investigations.” Those results follow a months-long campaign by the White House and pro-Trump, right-wing media to attack Mueller, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the US intelligence community.

So, imagine you’re a Republican House member seeking reelection in November. If Trump were to fire Mueller, or otherwise act to shut down or hamstring his inquiry, what would you do? Would you risk alienating the militant, pro-Trump base of your party—a base that has become increasingly powerful in GOP primaries as a result of gerrymandering—by calling for Trump’s impeachment? Or would you issue a mealy-mouthed statement saying you would have preferred that Mueller be allowed to conclude his investigation, at the end of which (you’d argue) he’d probably exonerate the president, and then hope that you can survive what’s looking to be a pro-Democratic election wave in November?

The clearest indication of where House Republicans stand on Russiagate came earlier this month, when the Republican majority on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued its “Final Findings and Recommendations” and then officially shut down the HPSCI’s investigation of Russia’s 2016 election interference. While concluding that Moscow “conducted cyberattacks on U.S. political institutions in 2015-2016,” that “Russian state actors” leaked stolen information, and that “Russian intelligence leveraged social media” during the election, the HPSCI Republicans gave Trump complete absolution, declaring there was no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. They then closed the books. And none of the House GOP leaders, including Speaker Ryan, criticized them for it. It was, indeed, the House equivalent of firing Mueller.

To be sure, it’s a Hobson’s choice for Republican elected officials. Were they to side with Mueller over Trump, they’d risk alienating a vast swath of GOP voters, who are daily worked into a lather by Fox News and talk-radio over what Joe diGenova described in January as a “brazen plot to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton and, if she didn’t win the election, to then frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime.” (DiGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing, were recently hired and then quickly un-hired to be part of Trump’s disintegrating legal team. Trump’s lead attorney for Russiagate, John Dowd, abruptly quit, days after saying that he was praying that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “bring an end to alleged Russia collusion investigation manufactured by…[former FBI Director] James Comey based upon a fraudulent and corrupt dossier.”) For those GOP representatives seeking reelection, their most pragmatic calculation would likely be to stick with Trump and hope to ride out the storm in the general election.

On the other hand, GOP representatives who calculate that they would do better by condemning Trump, calling for his impeachment, and trying to appeal to independents and “Reagan Democrats” for reelection would be committing political suicide. In 2018, Democrats appear to be getting ready for a massive anti-Trump insurgency, and they’re not likely to look with favor on turncoat Republicans who choose, at the last minute, to break with the president. Plus, Republicans who abandon Trump will almost certainly face a pro-Trump Republican primary challenger or write-in opponent in the general election.

Of course, those same choices face Republicans if Mueller is allowed to complete his investigation. If Mueller finishes his work this year, and if he ends up indicting higher-ups in Trump’s circle, perhaps including son-in-law Jared Kushner, and if he finds concrete evidence that members of the Trump campaign, or even the president himself, colluded with the Russian hack-and-leak campaign and the parallel social-media blitz by the Russians, well, the Republicans in Congress will face the same Hobson’s choice: Do they side with Mueller? Or with Trump? They could be faced with this dilemma just months or weeks before Election Day.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x