Trump disputes finding that he directed McGahn to seek Mueller’s ouster | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Trump disputes finding that he directed McGahn to seek Mueller’s ouster

The Washington Post
1071618_web1_1071618-10fe2d37156e4270bee00508a894361c
AP
President Donald Trump disputed Wednesday that he had told former White House counsel Donald McGahn to seek the firing of special counsel Robert Mueller in the midst of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

President Donald Trump disputed Wednesday that he had told former White House counsel Donald McGahn to seek the firing of special counsel Robert Mueller in the midst of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The episode, detailed in the report by Mueller that was publicly released last week, is among those being scrutinized by Democrats as they continue to investigate whether Trump sought to obstruct Mueller’s probe. In a morning tweet, Trump sought to blame the media for misreporting what happened.

“I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so,” Trump wrote. “If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didn’t need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself. Nevertheless, Mueller was NOT fired and was respectfully allowed to finish his work on what I, and many others, say was an illegal investigation …:”

McGahn emerged as a key witness in Mueller’s 448-page report, detailing several occasions when Trump ordered him to “do crazy shit,” according to the special counsel’s findings. That included trying to persuade the Justice Department to get rid of Mueller, according to the report.

McGahn didn’t, and almost resigned over the episode. He also refused to issue a public statement denying the reports Trump wanted to fire Mueller were true when the president asked him to, the report says.

Though Trump has claimed “total exoneration” by the Mueller report, he and his aides have continued to attack Mueller and his team and aggressively dispute some of the more damaging details it contains.

The Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena this week ordering McGahn to testify before the panel next month and hand over documents and records pertaining to federal investigations of Trump, his finances, his campaign and charges that he sought to obstruct justice.

The White House is resisting the move, along with other efforts by Democrats to call key figures in the Mueller probe to testify before Congress.

In television interviews Sunday and Monday, Trump legal spokesman Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Trump lawyer John Dowd also sought to cast doubt on McGahn’s recollection of Trump’s order to seek Mueller’s firing.

Both argued that Trump wasn’t as direct as McGahn seemingly believed. Dowd said that Trump was only seeking to have Mueller “vetted,” Dowd said during an appearance on Fox News.

Mueller’s report did not find sufficient evidence to bring charges of criminal conspiracy with Russia against Trump or anyone associated with his campaign. It did not offer a conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice.

Attorney General William P. Barr later concluded that there was not sufficient evidence for obstruction of justice charges, but House Democrats are continuing to aggressively pursue that issue.

Categories: News | Politics Election | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.