It has been widely stated that were Trump to fire Muller, it would be the “end of his presidency”
If Rosenstein is Mueller’s boss, why would firing Rosenstein be any less “offensive” than firing Mueller?
The President *can’t *fire a special prosecutor directly. He can only pressure the AG, or acting AG like Rosenstein is in this case, to do it. He’d fire Rosenstein only for refusal to fire Mueller, and pressure the next guy down the ladder, and so on.
Neither is ok, and both are likely obstruction of justice.
However Trump can’t fire Mueller directly (maybe he can if he passes an EO allowing himself to).
One way to interpret the question is: How on-the-nose does Trump’s Nixon impression need to get, before even a sizable chunk of Congressional Republicans would support impeachment?
Back when Mueller was first nominated to the job and receiving bipartisan praise, I thought firing him would be the limit. Now that we have Congressmen like Nunes actively working to discredit the investigation before it’s even presented its findings, I’m not so sure. (Although in fairness, Nunes was always a Trump shill – I’m more concerned by the fact that his colleagues seem to be going along with it.)
It won’t be the end of his presidency. At this point the Republican party has been wholly taken over by Trump. They would no more impeach him than sprout wings and fly to the moon. And if the Dems win the house in the fall and decide to impeach him, there is no chance at all of getting a conviction in the senate. This is all theater.
As is the op-ed piece in today’s Times calling on congress to pass (and presumably with at least 2/3 margin) a bill to make Mueller fireable only for malfeasance. First place congress won’t pass such a law and, it they did, he could fire him for malfeasance (being prejudiced against Trump). I don’t know why they waste the ink of such pieces.
It would take a major shakeup sufficient to convince the Republican leadership that the Orange Oaf is too great a liability (perhaps if this week’s bloodletting on Wall Street proves to be a harbinger of a major Trump Slump).
Is the non-firing of Rosenstein a major news story? Or political rumor mongering? Should the non-firing of Mueller be a major news story? Who decided that these non-firings should be a major Democrat talking point, or a major news media story? Stop The Presses! Mueller was not fired once again! Rosenstein survives one more day! Is there no end to this imaginary terrorism?
According to your linked article -
“We know that he didn’t fire Mr. Mueller”, Graham told ABC News on Sunday.”
The non-firing stories are major news stories when 1) a story emerges that the president ordered Mueller fired and only backed down when the White House counsel refused to communicate that order to the DOJ and threatened to resign, and 2) the PR groundwork for firing Rosenstein is being laid in sloppy, slow-motion through the Nunes memo. Numerous Trumpist right-wing pundits, including on Trump’s favored Fox News, have called for Rosenstein to be fired so that someone who is “on the team” can be put in place to either dramatically reign Mueller in or outright fire Mueller and shut down the investigation.
Given how impulsive and self-sabotaging Trump can be, the non-firing stories are both amazement that Trump hasn’t pulled the trigger and gone through with any of the firings yet and also foreshadowing stories that a firing could be imminent.
He is playing his Presidency like an episode of “The Apprentice”, why this is not being discussed more is beyond me. Every week, someone gets the ax - who will it be this week? Stay tuned!
:dubious: Is that your learned opinion as a psychohistorian?
It’s not being discussed more because this is what everybody expected to happen.
Two things though - 1) On “The Apprentice,” Trump didn’t pick the starting contestants, he was just given a handful of people picked by the producers to try and generate drama and ratings. 2) Half or more of the people who have left “resigned.” And Trump has said good things or at least not bad things about even the ones who were fired, like Scaramuchi, (Bannon excepted after his “Fire and Fury” quotes came out).
The way 'The Apprentice" show was set up, Trump would fire people from the losing team of two or more small teams competing against each other on a project. This made him (theoretically) seem decisive, results-oriented, and unsentimental. Here, while there are certain power circles within his administration that sometimes clash for influence, he has instead seemed greatly indecisive, not concerned with results having no real policy goals beyond the vaguest of platitudes and cobbled together Republican talking points, and worst of all, Trump has shown himself to be overly sentimental. Making his family members top advisors to his campaign and later to his administration, his obsession with Obama and vendettas in general, and his buffoonish, emotional responses and petty, unimaginative name-calling for people in power who dare criticize him. It’s more like “The Appentice” in reverse.
Note that on The Apprentice, Trump only acted out the firing - the producers decided who was to go. Basically lending his name while not actually doing anything significant, much like his ‘business’.