Trump did ‘nothing wrong’ to warrant impeachment, Sen. Lindsey Graham contends |
Politics Election

Trump did ‘nothing wrong’ to warrant impeachment, Sen. Lindsey Graham contends

Senate Appropriations subcommittee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., listens to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo testify on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, April 9, 2019, about the FY’20 budget.

WASHINGTON — The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday that President Trump did “nothing wrong” to warrant impeachment and removal from office, pushing back at Democrats who want the House to consider proceedings.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a stalwart Trump defender, had strongly advocated for impeachment of President Clinton in 1998 in the wake of an independent counsel report. The House approved articles of impeachment but the Senate did not convict.

Graham argued on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that unlike Clinton, Trump had fully cooperated with the special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election.

“What President Trump did here was completely cooperate in an investigation, a million documents, let everybody that the special counsel wanted to talk to be interviewed,” he said, although Trump refused to be interviewed by Mueller.

“I believe the president did nothing wrong,” Graham added.

According to the special counsel report, Trump twice directed Donald McGahn, then the White House counsel, to fire Mueller but McGahn ignored the instructions. Trump has disputed McGahn’s account.

Graham appeared to lay out a different Republican strategy for questions about McGahn, essentially saying that Trump’s efforts to fire Mueller did not amount to obstruction of justice because the special counsel kept his job.

“I don’t care what happened” between Trump and McGahn, Graham said. “Here’s what I care about. Did Mueller — was Mueller allowed to do his job? And the answer is yes.”

Crimes often are prosecuted based on intent and behavior, not on whether they ultimately succeed.

A growing chorus of congressional Democrats say Mueller’s report documents obstruction of justice by the president, even if few are ready to call for impeaching him.

“To me it looks like obstruction,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a former prosecutor and presidential hopeful who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

But the Minnesota Democrat said there are “many ways” to hold Trump accountable, including congressional investigations already in progress.

Klobuchar said “the president is already stonewalling” by saying he would fight subpoenas issued by the Democratic-controlled House in connection with several investigations.

The White House offered fresh indications it might seek to block McGahn’s testimony to lawmakers. Senior counselor Kellyanne Conway, interviewed on CNN’s “State of the Union,” said “executive privilege is always an option.”

Legal experts have said invoking executive privilege to stop McGahn from speaking to Congress was undercut when the White House permitted McGahn to speak to Mueller for 30 hours under oath.

Conway argued the opposite — that McGahn’s testimony, as recounted in the report, should be sufficient without him repeating it publicly. “This is just presidential harassment,” she said.

Former acting attorney general Sally Yates, who was fired by Trump early in his tenure, said she has “personally prosecuted obstruction cases on far, far less evidence” than Mueller has collected.

Speaking on “Meet the Press,” Yates said that if Trump were not president, “he would likely be indicted on obstruction.” In his report, Mueller indicated that he had adhered to a Justice Department opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.