The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Episode: Trump, Robert Mueller, and Obstruction of Justice
Date: January 26, 2018
Host: Dorothy Wickenden
Guest: Jeffrey Toobin
Overview
In this episode, Dorothy Wickenden, executive editor of The New Yorker, is joined by legal analyst and staff writer Jeffrey Toobin to examine the rapidly evolving Russia investigation, specifically focusing on President Trump's attempts to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the legal implications of obstruction of justice, and comparisons to the Watergate scandal. The discussion sheds light on Trump's possible legal vulnerabilities, the current landscape of media coverage, and the shifting public narrative.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Trump’s Attempt to Fire Mueller and Legal Significance
[01:16–03:48]
- Background: Reports surfaced that President Trump ordered the firing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in June 2017, one month after firing FBI Director James Comey. White House Counsel Don McGahn reportedly threatened to resign in response.
- Obstruction of Justice Defined: Toobin clarifies that while a president can legally fire the FBI director or even a special counsel, what makes it potentially criminal is the intent behind the act.
- Evidence of Intent: Toobin highlights the pretextual (and seemingly absurd) reasons the White House gave for wanting to fire Mueller, which include an old golf club dispute, alleged conflicts of interest via Mueller’s former law firm, and the fact Mueller was interviewed for the FBI director role. These collectively suggest a “bad intent” on Trump’s part.
“What makes it criminal, if it is criminal, is intent, is state of mind... The fact that the president seemed on the verge of firing Mueller as he had fired Comey based on these entirely pretextual reasons... really calls into question trump's intent in a way that looks pretty bad.”
— Jeffrey Toobin [03:12]
2. The Challenge of Proving State of Mind
[03:48–04:27]
- Legal Threshold: Wickenden presses on how prosecutors can prove a defendant’s state of mind.
- Toobin’s Analogy: Toobin compares obstruction to fraud, emphasizing the importance of uncovering evidence about what Trump knew and intended at the time.
3. Shifting Focus: Collusion to Obstruction
[06:01–07:57]
- Initial Investigation: Toobin traces the roots from the 2016 FBI investigation into Trump’s potential Russia ties, noting it began as a counterintelligence inquiry.
- Comey’s Firing as a Turning Point: The firing of FBI Director Comey was pivotal—it directly led to Mueller’s appointment and shifted the focus toward possible obstruction of justice by the president.
“It’s not really accurate to say that this investigation, the Mueller investigation, was mostly based on collusion. It was the firing of Comey that led to the appointment of Mueller.”
— Jeffrey Toobin [07:42]
4. White House Denials: Truth or Semantics?
[07:57–09:17]
- Past Denials: Ty Cobb, Trump’s lawyer, told Toobin there was “no consideration” of firing Mueller, which Toobin now views with skepticism.
- Word Games: The discussion contemplates whether White House lawyers were purposefully using carefully crafted language to obscure past internal debate or were simply uninformed.
“Were they using extremely careful language, present tense, not past tense, or were they simply lying?... the White House has been misleading at best about the issue of whether the firing of Mueller has been contemplated by the President.”
— Jeffrey Toobin [08:54]
5. What Mueller Wants to Know from Trump
[09:47–10:52]
- Upcoming Questioning: Mueller is expected to request an interview with Trump, likely focusing on Trump’s motivations (state of mind) rather than facts, which are not in dispute.
- Trump’s Public Strategy: Trump’s public remarks signal a defense based on “fighting back” against what he frames as a conspiracy against him.
“Fight back is obviously the key phrase here, because Trump is now trying to portray his firing of Comey as an attempt to fight back against the conspiracy against him within his own government...”
— Jeffrey Toobin [10:52]
6. Role of Fox News and the Media Environment
[11:42–12:33]
- Propaganda vs. Reporting: Fox News is described as acting as a “journalistic auxiliary” to the Trump White House, actively supporting the narrative that the investigation is a partisan attack.
- Media Echo Chambers: The hosts discuss how Fox’s amplification enables Trump’s narrative that he’s under siege and “fighting back,” as opposed to obstructing justice.
7. Watergate Comparisons
[12:33–13:59]
- Brazen Behaviors: Toobin distinguishes Trump’s actions from Nixon’s, calling Trump’s conduct more open and unabashed. The availability of immediate media coverage and a vocal, partisan media environment (not present during Watergate) are identified as key differences.
“The brazenness of the conduct is different. And also the fact that there is a media chorus that will defend the president no matter what. In 1974, you didn’t have Fox News...”
— Jeffrey Toobin [13:14]
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On Legal Vulnerability:
“The real purpose that Trump had in trying to get rid of Mueller was improper. Just trying to relieve the political pressure and legal pressure on him. And that is, I think, important evidence of guilt on the president's part.”
— Jeffrey Toobin [05:49] -
On Media Influence:
“Fox News has basically turned into a attack machine against Mueller, and that allows Trump to claim that he is simply fighting back rather than initiating a conflict with the prosecutor who's pursuing it.”
— Jeffrey Toobin [12:17] -
On the Evolution of the Scandal:
“We only had to wait for the President to tell Lester Holt the next day that he was firing Comey for improper purposes. The brazenness of the conduct is different.”
— Jeffrey Toobin [13:05]
Timestamps for Important Segments
- [01:16] – Introduction and context: Trump’s order to fire Mueller
- [02:34] – Legal significance of Trump's behavior
- [03:48] – Proving intent in court
- [06:26] – Evolution from collusion to obstruction
- [07:57] – White House legal strategy and possible dishonesty
- [09:47] – Mueller’s likely line of questioning for Trump
- [10:52] – Trump’s anticipated defense: “fight back” narrative
- [11:52] – Fox News’ role in shaping public perception
- [12:47] – Watergate comparisons: What’s different now
Episode Tone
The conversation is analytical, incisive, and direct. Jeffrey Toobin provides clear legal interpretations, while Dorothy Wickenden frames the discussion in accessible, journalistic terms. The tone is urgent yet measured, reflecting the gravity of the political and legal moment.
Summary
This episode offers a deep dive into the legal jeopardy President Trump faces regarding obstruction of justice and the political and media strategies at play. Toobin and Wickenden explain how the focus of the investigation shifted from collusion to obstruction, underline the legal importance of proving intent, and dissect the administration’s attempts to shape the narrative via selective leaks, denials, and supportive media. The Watergate parallel emerges as both a guide and a contrast—highlighting the brazen, real-time spectacle of the Trump era.
Listeners walk away with a clear understanding of why the Mueller investigation’s focus on obstruction is so precarious for Trump, how media coverage both amplifies and distorts the process, and why this period is so unprecedented in American political history.