HIGH-PROFILE supporters of Donald Trump are turning on the man investigating Russian interference in the US election and possible collusion with the President’s campaign — with one suggesting Trump was considering “terminating” him.
As special counsel Robert Mueller builds his legal team, Trump’s allies have begun raising questions about the former FBI director’s impartiality, implying he cannot be trusted to lead the probe.
The comments come amid increasing frustration at the White House and among Trump supporters that the investigation will overshadow the President’s agenda for months to come — a prospect that has Democrats salivating.
“Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair. Look who he is hiring,” tweeted former House of Representatives speaker Newt Gingrich, an informal Trump adviser.
Just weeks ago, Gingrich heaped praise on Mueller, hailing him as a “superb choice” for special counsel whose reputation was “impeccable for honesty and integrity”.
But after the evidence of former FBI director James Comey last week, Gingrich said he had changed his mind.
“Time to rethink,” he tweeted on Monday, citing Mueller’s hiring decisions and Comey’s admission that he instructed a friend to share with reporters notes he had taken of his private conversations with Trump in order to force the appointment of special counsel.
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter offered a similar message, tweeting: “Now that we know Trump is not under investigation, Sessions should take it back & fire Mueller.”
Trump’s friend Chris Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax, went even further, suggesting the President was already thinking about “terminating” Mueller.
“I think he’s considering perhaps terminating the special counsel,” Ruddy said in an interview with Judy Woodruff of PBS NewsHour.
“I think he’s weighing that option.”
The talk about dismissing Mueller appeared to be coming from Trump allies – including some close to White House strategist Steve Bannon – who are increasingly frustrated with the prospect of a long and winding probe.
They say Trump did not collude with Russia and see the investigation as a politically-motivated sham that handicaps his ability to execute his agenda, according to one person who advises the White House on how to handle the probe.
Ruddy appeared to be basing his remarks, at least in part, on comments from Jay Sekulow, a member of Trump’s legal team, who told ABC in an interview on Sunday that he was “not going to speculate” on whether Trump might at some point order deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein to sack Mueller.
“Look, the President of the United States, as we all know, is a unitary executive. But the President is going to seek the advice of his counsel and inside the government as well as outside,” Sekulow said.
“And I’m not going to speculate on what he will or will not do.”
Still, he added: “I can’t imagine that that issue is going to arise.”
It was not clear whether Ruddy, who speaks to the President often, was basing his remarks on a specific conversation with him or entirely on Sekulow’s comments.
Ruddy was at the White House on Monday to meet government aides, but did not speak to the President, Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer said.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: “Chris speaks for himself.”
Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller, declined to comment on Ruddy’s remarks.
Under current Justice Department regulations, firing Mueller would have to be done by attorney general Jeff Sessions’s deputy Rosenstein, not the President, though those regulations could theoretically be set aside.
Sessions recused himself from the investigation because of his own conversations with Russian officials during Trump’s transition.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here