Republicans back Robert Mueller, say there's no rush to shield him from Trump
On Sunday, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on TV they would favor passing legislation to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from President Trump but saw no need to do so now, even after reports that Trump sought to fire Mueller last summer and backed down. "It's pretty clear to me that everybody in the White House knows it would be the end of President Trump's presidency if he fired Mr. Mueller," Graham said on ABC's This Week, while Collins told CNN "it would certainly not hurt to put that extra safeguard in place, given the latest stories." House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was more dismissive of the idea. "Right now there's not an issue," he told NBC's Meet the Press. "So why create one when there isn't a place for it?"
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), on the other hand, said it's time to act. "The most important thing Congress can do right now is to ensure that Special Counsel Mueller's investigation continues uninterrupted and unimpeded," he said. Not all Democrats were on board, however. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said it would be "premature for us to go down that road," confusing NBC's Chuck Todd by suggesting that Trump's threats to fire Mueller were just "New York talk" and "New York language." Mueller got a solid vote of confidence from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), though.
Trump "has a fair investigator" in Mueller, Gowdy told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "The last time you and I were together, I told my Republican colleagues, leave him the hell alone, and that's still my advice."
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Peter has worked as a news and culture writer and editor at The Week since the site's launch in 2008. He covers politics, world affairs, religion and cultural currents. His journalism career began as a copy editor at a financial newswire and has included editorial positions at The New York Times Magazine, Facts on File, and Oregon State University.
-
Political cartoons for February 1Cartoons Sunday's political cartoons include Tom Homan's offer, the Fox News filter, and more
-
Will SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic make 2026 the year of mega tech listings?In Depth SpaceX float may come as soon as this year, and would be the largest IPO in history
-
Reforming the House of LordsThe Explainer Keir Starmer’s government regards reform of the House of Lords as ‘long overdue and essential’
-
Trump sues IRS for $10B over tax record leaksSpeed Read The president is claiming ‘reputational and financial harm’ from leaks of his tax information between 2018 and 2020
-
Trump, Senate Democrats reach DHS funding dealSpeed Read The deal will fund most of the government through September and the Department of Homeland Security for two weeks
-
Fed holds rates steady, bucking Trump pressureSpeed Read The Federal Reserve voted to keep its benchmark interest rate unchanged
-
Judge slams ICE violations amid growing backlashSpeed Read ‘ICE is not a law unto itself,’ said a federal judge after the agency violated at least 96 court orders
-
Rep. Ilhan Omar attacked with unknown liquidSpeed Read This ‘small agitator isn’t going to intimidate me from doing my work’
-
Democrats pledge Noem impeachment if not firedSpeed Read Trump is publicly defending the Homeland Security secretary
-
The billionaires’ wealth tax: a catastrophe for California?Talking Point Peter Thiel and Larry Page preparing to change state residency
-
Hegseth moves to demote Sen. Kelly over videospeed read Retired Navy fighter pilot Mark Kelly appeared in a video reminding military service members that they can ‘refuse illegal orders’
