Rich Lowry: Sorry, you can’t protect Mueller

Mitch McConnell just did our constitutional order an enormous favor by burying the so-called Robert Mueller protection bill, hopefully never to rise again.

There’s been much harumphing about how Republicans are in the tank for President Trump by not getting on board the bipartisan bill, but it is a singularly misbegotten piece of legislation.

Plan A, i.e., passing the thing, would have been hard enough. But its supporters apparently didn’t think through a need for a Plan B or C: Trump would have vetoed the bill if it passed Congress, and if it somehow passed Congress with a veto-proof majority, the Supreme Court likely would have struck it down.

The push for the bill again shows how, to this point, Trump’s main threat to our constitutional system has been catalyzing a hysterical opposition. That opposition is willing to throw overboard legal and constitutional niceties to thwart Trump.

Hence, much of the #resistance judging regarding Trump measures. And hence the astonishing spectacle of U.S. senators, sworn to uphold the Constitution, advancing a blatantly unconstitutional bill.

The president is the chief executive, and like it or not, Trump is president. “I conceive that if any power whatsoever is in its nature executive,” James Madison declared, “it is the power of appointing, overseeing and controlling those who execute the laws.”

If the president can fire the attorney general (the ill-used Jeff Sessions attests that he can), he certainly can fire Mueller. The attorney general is a much more important position than the special counsel.

In compelling Senate testimony, Yale law professor Akhil Amar explained the constitutional problems with the Mueller protection bill. One is that to be constitutional, the special counsel must be an inferior officer. Otherwise, he has to be confirmed by the Senate, which Mueller wasn’t. And if he’s an inferior officer, he can be fired.

Mueller can’t be an inferior officer in some respects and a hypersuperior officer in others, enjoying protections from his ouster that even Cabinet officials don’t enjoy.

The Mueller protection bill would really represent a return to the constitutional anomaly of the old independent counsel statute. There is a Supreme Court decision that hasn’t been directly overruled, Morrison v. Olson, upholding that law. As Amar notes, though, the decision’s credibility is in tatters. Commentators on both the left and right believe that Antonin Scalia’s lonely dissent in that case was prescient and sound. The problem with the protection bill in terms of constitutional architecture also gets at the problem with the special counsel.

Yes, there’s lots of criminal action in the Mueller probe — the Paul Manafort trial, the various plea deals — but current Justice Department guidance says that the president himself can’t be indicted. That means that all Mueller can do regarding the president directly is produce a report that may well instigate congressional action, up to and including an impeachment probe. This preliminary investigative work should be the work of Congress alone, without the help of someone nominally working for the president he’s targeting.

Indeed, if you want investigations of the president that the president can’t stop or have influence over, you have to run them out of Congress. With the Democratic takeover of the House, such congressional probes are on their way.

This is a normal working of our system that doesn’t require any extra constitutional exertions. Insofar as Mueller has been “protected” to this point, it has been via just this sort of basic political accountability.

Trump has huffed and puffed about Mueller, yet cooperated — in some instances, quite fulsomely — with his investigation. That could change at any time. But firing Mueller would lead to dire political consequences, and now fail to achieve its end of truly shutting him down. If cashiered, Mueller would presumably show up in January as the first witness before Rep. Jerry Nadler’s Judiciary Committee and spill all he knows.

That’s probably all the protection Mueller needs, and certainly all the protection he can legitimately be afforded.

Rich Lowry can be reached via email at comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.


• By RICH LOWRY


More in Opinion

The Safeway supermarket in Juneau, seen here Oct. 4, 2023, is among those in Alaska scheduled to be sold if its parent company, Albertsons Companies Inc., merges with Kroger Co., the parent company of Fred Meyer. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Alaska’s attorney general flunks math test

One supermarket owner is less competitive than two, and more competition is good for shoppers

AKPIRG logo. Photo courtesy of AKPIRG
Opinion: With the right regulations, the SAVE Act can unlock energy prosperity in Alaska

Since 2010, only homeowners have been able to invest in and earn monthly bill savings from rooftop solar

Jenny Carroll (Courtesy)
Opinion: Homer Harbor plays critical role in community, economy

This gateway to Cook Inlet fuels everything from recreation and food security to commercial enterprises

Voters fill out their ballots at the Challenger Learning Center in Kenai, Alaska on Election Day, Nov. 8, 2022. (Jake Dye/Peninsula Clarion)
Voter tidbit: Get prepared for the Oct. 1 municipal election

Check your voting status or register to vote online

Cindy Harris. (Courtesy)
Support funding for Adult Day services

These services offer a safe place for Alaskans to bring their loved ones

Library of Congress image
A painting of George Washington at Valley Forge, circa 1911 by Edward Percy Moran.
Opinion: Washington’s selfless example is lost on too many public servants

Biden isn’t the only national politician who struggled emotionally against the currents of aging.

Voters fill out their ballots at the Challenger Learning Center in Kenai, Alaska on Election Day, Nov. 8, 2022. (Jake Dye/Peninsula Clarion)
Voter tidbit: 2 election stories highlight voting challenges in rural Alaska

The state needs to make voting in rural areas more accommodating

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Permanent Fund troubles make for sad music

Alaskans are fiddling while the Permanent Fund burns

Signage marks the entrance to Nikiski Middle/High School on Monday, May 16, 2022, in Nikiski, Alaska. (Ashlyn O’Hara/Peninsula Clarion)
Opinion: How our schools have lost touch with Alaskans

Off-road vehicles are a way of life for Nikiski residents

tease
Point of View: There is nothing to like about Project 2025

Project 2025 - Presidential Transition Project’s intent is radical

A voting booth for the Kenai Peninsula Borough and City of Homer elections is placed at the Cowles Council Chambers on Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2022 in Homer, Alaska. (Photo by Charlie Menke/Homer News)
Opinion: Safeguarding our children’s future

Alaska stands at a pivotal moment ahead of the 2024 election

Voters fill out their ballots at the Challenger Learning Center in Kenai, Alaska on Election Day, Nov. 8, 2022. (Jake Dye/Peninsula Clarion)
Voter tidbit: What is your voting story?

Voting is crucial for democracy to work