Inside the Beltway

Some years ago, I had the pleasure of interviewing Michael Brunson, the television journalist and formal political editor of ITN. Michael spent several years as a Washington D.C. correspondent. He told me: “Inside the Beltway – the ring road around Washington – politicians, administrators, lobbyists and journalists all believe they live in the centre of the world and what they do is more important than anything else. Outside the Beltway, nobody cares!”

I suppose the same test could be applied to Westminster, Canberra, Ottawa and other political centres. This is why, so far, I have kept my powder dry about the Mueller investigation into Russian political interference and influences into the 2016 Presidential election. However, there are rumblings in both the American and British press that the President might fire the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller. There are suggestions that Mueller’s investigation is getting too close to the President and members of his family. As a counter, Trump supporters are stating that Mueller is exceeding his brief and venturing beyond his remit. But, at the moment, does anyone outside the Beltway care?

I have checked the terms of Mueller’s appointment, as made by Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General. They are:

            “To conduct the investigation before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on 20^th March, 2017, including:

(i)                 any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii)               any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii)             any other matters within the scope of Section 600.4-10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations. [These detail the powers of the Special Counsel.]

I am not qualified in American law but the appointment letter reads like a blank cheque, permitting Mueller to follow any and every avenue uncovered by his investigation. So, were Trump to fire Mueller, he would have little or no justification in saying that the Special Counsel had exceeded his authority.

There is precedent for firing a special counsel. In 1973, under enormous pressure from Congress, Richard Nixon appointed Archibald Cox, a Harvard educated lawyer and Solicitor General under JFK, as special prosecutor, to look into the Watergate affair. During Senate hearings, Alexander Butterfield, a White House deputy assistant to Nixon, disclosed the existence of an Oval Office taping system. Cox subpoenaed several tapes. Nixon refused to hand them over so Cox went to Court to seek an order that the President produce those tapes. Negotiations ensued between the President’s lawyers and Cox’s team but failed. Needing to head off Cox, Nixon ordered him to be fired.

In what became known as The Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliott Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned. Finally, Nixon ordered the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, as acting head of the Justice Department, to fire Cox. Bork obeyed. The night Cox was fired, his deputy held a news briefing and read the following statement: "Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people."

On November 14, 1973, federal district judge Gerhard Gesell ruled Cox’s dismissal was illegal. Congress was infuriated by what it saw as a gross abuse of presidential power and in short order, the polls showed that, for the first time, a plurality of U.S. citizens supported impeaching Nixon. Cox was replaced by Leon Jaworski, who took the tapes case before the Supreme Court and won 8-0. Soon after, the House of Representatives voted for Bills of Impeachment and Nixon resigned.

Cox was not the only special prosecutor to be replaced. As a result of an exposé in The New York Times, the Justice Department opened an investigation into the failed Whitewater property deal in which President Clinton was implicated. In 1994, at the President’s request, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Robert Fiske as special prosecutor to investigate “the legality of the Whitewater transactions.” Fiske conducted himself too properly for Republicans in Congress and was replaced after a few months on grounds that he had been appointed by a Democrat and that there was a conflict of interest. Republicans pressed for the appointment of  Kenneth Starr by a so-called independent three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation. Eventually, Starr found no impropriety by the President in relation to Whitewater but his enquiry had delved into Mr Clinton’s private life. The President was impeached but found not guilty, when the Senate voted on party lines.

In an episode this week which can best be described as tit for tat, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, coping with a disgruntled President, as well as increased scrutiny over his knowledge of the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia, is reported by the American press to be considering the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate allegations against Hillary Clinton, otherwise known as Crooked Hillary, and other Democrats.

Appointing a second special counsel would be seen as a move to appease a President who has long been critical of his Attorney General. I see this latest twist as a mere deflection, a political inspired manoeuvre to distract the public’s attention from the reality of Mueller’s probe. Bearing in mind FBI chief James Comey’s rigorous investigation of Mrs Clinton’s private e-mail server, if there was anything to be found that implicated Mrs Clinton with the Russians, surely it would have surfaced.

Sessions himself gave evidence to the House Judiciary Committee and was pressed on the need for the appointment of a second special counsel. The exchange between Sessions and Republican Representative, Jim Jordan of Ohio, showed the Attorney General in a combatant light as he dismissed a conspiracy theory:

“We know one fact,” said Jordan. “We know the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the dossier. We know that happened and it sure looks like the FBI was paying the author of that document. And it sure looks like a major political party was working with the federal government to then turn an opposition research document that quoted some National Enquirer story into an intelligence document, take that to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court so that they could then get a warrant to spy on Americans associated with President Trump's campaign. That's what it looks like.”

Sessions's retorted: “I would say 'looks like' is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel.” A left hook for Jordan and a right cross for the President. Once again, a hare has been set running in D.C. without much basis in reality but this does not mean that politics will not rear its head with yet another investigation. It has to be said that Mr Trump would love it if the Justice Department took on ‘Crooked Hillary’, never mind the facts.

History has a habit of imitating itself. Should Mueller’s investigation lead to prosecutions of the Trump inner circle and immediate family, not to mention Trump himself, the President would have to think very carefully about the ramifications of sacking Mueller as his special counsel. Whatever happens will be as much political as it is legal and President Trump does not seem to have a great deal of political capital at the moment.