Choose the truth instead of taking sides in the Trump-Mueller drama
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 05/29/18 12:00 PM EDT
Last week, former acting attorney general Sally Yates denounced President Trump for his tweet “demanding” an investigation into allegations of spying on his campaign. Yates is correct that the president, again, crossed a long-honored separation between the White House and the Justice Department. Yates, however, is hardly a compelling voice on the maintaining of proper institutional roles in such cases.
Indeed, her controversial record is a case study of how officials, not just presidents, can exceed their authority in the handling of federal cases. Yates was fired for good cause by Trump after ordering the Justice Department not to defend the president’s travel ban at the start of his administration. Ironically, both Trump and Yates assumed that they had far too much inherent authority, yet, where Trump’s harm was rhetorical, Yates’s harm was institutional.
One of the most interesting aspects of Trump’s controversies over presidential power is the line between the rhetorical and the actual. If you take away Trump’s often jarring language, his actions are not that dissimilar from other presidents. Trump has complied with court orders and he has not fired special counsel Robert Mueller or others associated with the Russia investigation, at least following his disastrous decision to fire FBI director James Comey . President Obama advanced even more sweeping claims of executive authority in federal court and took equally sweeping unilateral actions.
That does not excuse Trump’s traumatizing tweets or his failure to respect lines of separation within the executive branch. The latest controversy is a good example: An investigation by the Justice Department is left to the discretion of DOJ officials who must independently determine that there is a legal and ethical basis for the investigation. The president can certainly fire someone like Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , but starting an investigation remains Rosenstein’s decision so long as he holds his office.
Ultimately, however, the controversy over the reported use of an informant to target Trump presidential campaign officials was addressed correctly. Rosenstein referred the matter to Justice Department’s inspector general, who already is looking into possible bias or misconduct by the FBI. Rosenstein took that action because he independently concluded that it was in the interest of justice. He made the same judgment when, over the objections of Trump, he appointed Mueller as special counsel and later expanded his mandate.
In this instance, Rosenstein apparently concluded that the controversy over the informant was a legitimate concern given the overall record of anti-Trump internal emails, alleged false statements by former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe , controversial secret warrants, and the use of a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. It does not mean that the use of an informant was improper but, rather, that the allegations warrant an investigation by career officials.
Yates is the inverse of Trump in that her rhetoric is reassuring but her actions were ruinous for her institution. There was no ethical or legal basis for her actions during her short term as acting attorney general. Yates showed a fundamental misunderstanding of her role in shutting down Justice Department in defiance of Trump. She simply declared that, “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with [my] responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.” In other words, convince me.
Our system does not work that way. In taking her unprecedented action, Yates seemed to confuse her personal and her professional judgment on the defense of this federal policy. Absent a clearly unconstitutional act, she had a duty to defend the policy. This is not a judgment call where reasonable minds could disagree. It must be an act that is so clearly and demonstrably unconstitutional that no good-faith argument can be made in court. That clearly was not the case with the travel ban litigation, in which good arguments were presented on both sides.
The respected Office of Legal Counsel had concluded that the president’s order was lawful. Yates chose to disregard those career Justice Department lawyers. Many legal experts believed the existing precedent favored Trump’s right to take the action despite personal reservations over the policy itself. Ultimately, judges divided on the question, though most courts ruled against the administration. The issue is now pending a decision from the Supreme Court, and is likely to divide the justices.
Former Democratic and Republican Justice Department officials have said Yates did not state a compelling basis for her unprecedented action. She could have resigned but, instead, she elected to obstruct the White House and force her inevitable termination just days before she was planning to leave the Justice Department. It made her an instant hero but her actions will remain a troubling chapter in the agency’s history.
None of this changes the dilemma for citizens trying to make sense out of these controversies. While each side claims the other side is undermining our democratic traditions, the truth is that both parties are doing so in seeking to undermine these investigations. If Trump officials colluded with a foreign government in our election or obstructed justice, that is a serious matter for the integrity of our political system. If the Obama administration improperly used national security powers to investigate the campaign of its opposing party, that is obviously no less a serious matter.
Both sides often manifest a similar purpose to delegitimize or even derail investigations that could prove embarrassing for their party or helpful to their opponents. We are constantly given secondhand information or leaks filtered through a thick screen of partisan advocates. The public would be wise to reject the cyphers on both sides and focus on the factual over the rhetorical. That requires the completion of the investigations of both the Trump campaign and the FBI with a full public disclosure of the unvarnished and unedited facts.
This country is facing a crisis of faith. We have never been more divided or more unsure of our institutions. Washington thrives on getting people to take sides: Pick the red or the blue. There is a third option: No sides. We can instead pick the truth and demand the right to decide for ourselves.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University . You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley .
Tags
Who is online
63 visitors
"The public would be wise to reject the cyphers on both sides and focus on the factual over the rhetorical. That requires the completion of the investigations of both the Trump campaign and the FBI with a full public disclosure of the unvarnished and unedited facts."
Can we all agree with Professor Turley?
Yes, we can!
Absolutely Vic, great advice from Professor Turley. I don't believe, however, that the majority of Trump supporters WANT the investigations to come to their conclusions. I believe they want the investigations stopped because they know damn well that Trump is guilty as hell.
Turley's Op-ed doesn't follow the headline. The vast majority of the piece is Turley dissing Yates. Little to nothing about the Mueller investigation and a whole lot of Trump stroking.
The Trump Mueller Drama does not exist.
There is an investigation authorized by The Justice Department concerning Russian meddling in the US election process. End of story.
If one thinks this is a drama--then one is hiding from the facts. Don't matter, too many people when asked about Russians seem to have a penchant for lying. Wonder why that is?
There are actually two investigations going on and another recently completed
If there was any truth to Trump's side of things rightwingers would be screaming it from mountain tops...
They're not. Instead they're still trying to divert all conversations to Hillary who has been retired for years.
Read this:
bwah ha ha. townhall. no.
Actually it’s a great news source.
It's not the source you should be poo-pooing as it is the content of the article that you should be reading. Remember, even the National Enquirer was right about John Edwards and his affair.
The link isn't a 'news' story, it's an opinion piece.
First of all, the content of the article is from a questionable source.
As I see it, Terry can't decide on what to base his argument, which makes for a pretty freaking weak argument.
Now, what is it that you like so much about the OPINION in the article?
It is but that doesn’t change the fact that TOWN HALL is a news source and a good one. One of our talk radio stations here uses Town Hall News every hour on the top of the hour. The other one uses Fox News.
Anything regarding the Constitutionality of the Mueller Investigation would be an opinion as the courts haven't ruled on it, since no one has taken the case to court on Constitutional grounds. Mueller was not appointed by the President or by Congress, which are the only two Constitutional entities that can appoint a Primary officer, like the 96 US District Attorneys. And, Mueller, in several people's opinions seems to have more power than any of those DAs, he is in fact a Primary officer and should have either been appointed by the President and approved by the Senate or appointed by Congress.
Nothing you said tells me what you like so much about the article.
Terry, the author of the article, talks in circles and his posit is intentionally misleading.
Is a strawman and TOTALLY irrelevant to the Mueller Investigation.
Then there's this:
Scalia's decent was based on separation of powers and the power of the president to prosecute, NOT the 'appointments clause'. So Terry's next statement:
is bullshit.
Secondly, Mueller wasn't appointed as an 'independent counsel', he was appointed as a 'special counsel'. So Terry is being intentionally misleading.
Another totally false statement.
HR 10104 states:
§ 510. Delegation of authority
The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General.
In short, Session properly recused and Rosenstein DELEGATED his responsibility to investigate Russian interference to Mueller.
An argument which would fail miserably.
Terry's whole opinion is based on a strawman and one must be willfully obtuse to put his opinion up as a cogent argument against the validity of the Mueller Investigation.
Choose the truth instead of taking sides?
Come off it, you KNOW that's a unique concept here.
Buzz, do you know anything about what is going on in Washington with the investigation of Trump and his associates? All of your comments on the matter seem to be about how you think too much attention is paid to it, but I don't see you comment on the matter itself.
Sorry, but I'm unable to fight my way through the massive bias and the ceaseless vitriol to get to the truth.
It's much simpler and clearer than you think Buzz. Donald Trump is a total scumbag and lifelong conman who has conned his way into the White House and has proven himself to be even more corrupt than the worst prognostications about him. This is easy, it's not muddled, the FBI is not biased, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with left/right politics. Donald Trump has openly and publicly ADMITTED to obstruction of justice more than once. This administration is OUTRAGEOUSLY corrupt, by any fair minded assessment
LOL. You just helped justify my opinion.
Most of the time, Buzz, things simply are the way they appear to be. Donut?
Johnathan Turley is a good example of that old saying "he knows the words but not the music". If Trump has done something correctly in terms of how he has handled the Justice Dept. protcols, he has stumbled into it.
Turley mumbles something about Trump's "jarring language" as if that is the sum of Trump's atrocities in all this. What does the jarring language pertain to, that is the issue. His jarring language accuses the law enforcement agencies of the nation of being traitors and criminals, with absolutely no evidence. What does the Republican leaning Turley have to say about that? Nothing.
He's not Republican leaning. He says that all the investigations need to proceed. You disagree with that?
I await the truth...can't come fast enough for me! The "sides" rhetoric is tearing at the fabric of nation, further dividing it's citizens.
Truth and leadership are no longer linked unless it benefits a party. When the awaited DOJ IG report comes out, will America believe it? Will all of us see it as truth?
My side is this, let the investigation run its course and see what's there when all is said and done. Trump's problem is that he won;t just shut the fuck up about and let it be. The more he talks about it, and the more he tries or even suggests getting involved, the worse it makes things look for him.
I'll trust mueller with what he finds. Doesn't seem like he really has much at this point in time as long as the entire investigation has been going though.
if there was anything solid they could use to get rid of trump they would have used it by now. Last thing they want is more Trump EOs SCOTUS picks.....etc. imo
who knows though. He could have a tape of trump blowing putin. If there is something huge then I think mueller will have to answer why it took so long to get it out and stop trump.
pS... hello everyone that remembers me from the vine. Finally decided to join everyone here for a trial run
That is what all the Republicans are hoping for. However, no one really knows what Mueller has found as of yet, other than what he has already revealed. An certainly, no one here on this site really knows what Mueller knows, yet, although, to hear they tell it they are all on the Mueller investigation team and know everything there is to know about the investigation. While it is only a figment of their own delusional imagination, they will swear it to be true.
And all their right wing cohorts will swear it to be true as well based upon what the lies their leaders here tell them.
And, it is so very funny to watch them throw out all their false fish bait and watch the cohorts eat it up and then have their false prophets wind up with rotten egg on tier faces. Just tooo funny....
Yea.. I've pretty much given up on believing much with a certainty. The media has thrown out so many twisted half truths and outright falsehoods... it is more of a bias confirmation Easter egg hunt than anything else at this point.
No one knows anything. Gotta give mueller credit. He is keeping a tight ship and there doesn't seem to be any real leaks coming out.
i don't know for a fact what will come out. I could be wrong. It just feels if anything concrete was there it would be out by now. It wasn't long ago there were stories like "BANNON HAS FLIPPED! Trump going down!"
those seemed to have went nowhere. Flynn seems to be the only thing remotely related to trump...and that has been relatively weak. That and some fake Facebook stories.
I look forward to it concluding though ... regardless of the outcome.
Having worked for 4 years with a large criminal law firm in Calif I learned that there are few investigations of the size and scope of the one Mueller has undertaken that can be wrapped up in a matter of a few short months. Especially, with the international level of additional investigation that also comes into play.
The four main things about any investigation is 1) make sure that the investigation is conducted in a manner that does not defame any innocent people who are not directly involved with the case being investigated, 2) make sure that the investigation is thoroughly mapped out to ensure that no important aspects are overlooked, 3) make sure that speed is not the primary goal, which can lead to many mistakes being made, and 4) all information and aspects of the case is kept under wraps until it is time for them to be revealed.
And not all information regarding an investigation will likely not be revealed at the same time. Thus, anyone who thinks that an investigation of the scope and level of information involved can be completed within a matter of a dew months or even perhaps a year or more, is truly whistling in the wind, and have no clue how the legal system in our country works. And wishful thinking does not make it happen any sooner.
So the idea that if there was anything of any real value to be found it should have been found already and the investigation should be over by now really has no idea what they are talking about.
After all, the Republicans have been investigating Benghazi for how many years new...8-9, and they still have not found anything to convict Hillary Clinton on, but, they are still trying.
So why should Mueller not have the time needed to fully investigate the case he has been appointed to investigate? What is it that Trump and the Republicans are so afraid of that they are trying to shut the investigation down ASAP, without due cause?
I'm of the believe that everything we do takes time, doing a good and thorough job takes even more time but doing something more than once takes too much time.
benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi 7... right ?
I'd say take the time to do this ONE correct and do it fully this time and be done with it. It has to be cheaper !
Indeed. Taking the necessary time to do a thorough investigation is the only way to insure that those who are wrong doers are brought to justice, and those who are innocent will be spared.
What makes the whole thing more complicated are those who leak incorrect information, and those who make up lies about the investigation in order to try and debunk the investigation, the people involved, and taint the facts for their own agendas. The Republicans didn't have a problem with the millions + spent on the endless Benghazi investigations at taxpayers expense, but, they are screaming foul at the amount being spent for the Mueller investigation. When millions of taxpayers money are being wasted by many members of Trumps administration and his appointees. But, there is outrage heard from the Republicans about those loses. And it is likely that American taxpayers will be paying the NK leaders hotel bill for him and his large entourage in Singapore for however many days. And there will likely be no outrage heard from the Republicans about that either.
And those who try to rush the closure of the Mueller investigation before all the facts have all been found, are obviously the ones who have the most to lose.
Ehhh. This is a unique situation. I understand these things can take time. However if you were doing the investigation and you found anything that could get Trump out ASAP would you sit on it for a while or use it... if there was anything as solid as true collusion that is. There could be something smaller but we don't know. I am not saying it is a certainty. It is absurd to think you know what's going on 100% as if nothing is there. Just as it is absurd to keep saying he will go to jail or get impeached etc.
As far as politicians wanting to hurry up and wrap it up I think it could be purely political. Elections going on and midterms soon. They would want it cleared up before so that isn't hanging over them during the elections.
Welcome here!
I was there once too. I was Cornhusker4Palin over there.
Hey hustler. I remember you! I'm not even sure how long it has been since the vine shut down. I have just been doing other stuff and saw this page saved in my browser so I thought I'd give it a try for a little. Kind of a pain to navigate though. Any way to see replies without going to your comments in the seeds and seeing if anyone replies?
You can use the tracker or set up your private notes to send you a message when you receive a reply. That's how I do it
<waves at Silent Hysteria>
Hope every one is well behaved on here like they were on the vine lol.
thanks for the tips. I'll set it up.
If you can believe it....I'm worse. LOL!