Senate GOP: Legislation to protect Mueller not needed
© Getty

Senate Republicans on Monday dismissed the need for legislation to protect Robert MuellerRobert Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud choice of Mueller to lead Russia probe MORE, downplaying the chances that President TrumpDonald John TrumpMLK weekend marks longest span without a press briefing in Trump presidency Giuliani says his comments on Trump Tower talks were 'hypothetical' Mueller coverage keeps missing its mark, as BuzzFeed debacle shows MORE will fire him, despite Trump's recent attacks on the special counsel.

"I don't think that's going to happen, so I just think it's not necessary and obviously legislation requires a presidential signature and I don't see ... the necessity of picking that fight right now," said Sen. John CornynJohn CornynGraham angers Dems by digging into Clinton, Obama controversies Trump tells GOP senators he’s sticking to Syria and Afghanistan pullout  Texas governor, top lawmakers tell Trump not to use hurricane relief funds to build border wall MORE (Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, when asked about legislation limiting Trump's ability to fire Mueller.

He added that he believes Trump's public criticism of Mueller is "unhelpful" and agrees with his colleagues who have said firing the special counsel "would be a mistake and produce all sorts of unintended consequences."

Cornyn declined to say what the potential consequences would be. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The latest round of speculation about Mueller's future comes after Trump teed off over the weekend against the probe into Russia's election meddling and potential ties between the Trump campaign and Moscow, saying the probe is made up of "hardened Democrats."

"A total WITCH HUNT with massive conflicts of interest!" Trump tweeted on Monday. 

The White House has stressed that there are no plans to fire Mueller, though The New York Times reported earlier this year that Trump ordered his staff to fire Mueller last year but ultimately backed down when his White House counsel threatened to resign. 

And while this weekend's tweets sparked a new rush from lawmakers to defend Mueller, GOP senators also appeared deeply skeptical on Monday that legislation is needed or that Trump would actually fire the special prosecutor, who is widely respected in Washington. 

"My conversations with the White House have led him me to believe legislation is not necessary at this point because I do not believe the president would take such a foolish action," Sen. Orrin HatchOrrin Grant HatchPhRMA CEO 'hopeful' Trump officials will back down on drug pricing move Live coverage: Trump AG pick grilled on Mueller probe at confirmation hearing Trump praises RNC chairwoman after she criticizes her uncle Mitt Romney MORE (R-Utah) said in a statement.

He added separately to reporters that while the president's attacks against Mueller are "a little uncomfortable" he doesn't ultimately think Trump will "dump him."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellDACA recipient claims Trump is holding ‘immigrant youth hostage’ amid quest for wall Former House Republican: Trump will lose the presidency if he backs away from border security Pence quotes MLK in pitch for Trump's immigration proposal MORE (R-Ky.) hasn't weighed in on the current round of Mueller criticism but downplayed the need to pass legislation earlier this year, saying there was "no effort underway to undermine or remove him." 

"I don't see the need to bring up legislation to protect someone who appears to need no protection," he said.

Senators have introduced two bills to limit Trump's ability to fire Mueller, but those proposals have stalled for months in the Judiciary Committee. 

GOP Sen. Jeff FlakeJeffrey (Jeff) Lane FlakeSchumer recruiting top-notch candidate for McCain Senate seat The Hill's Morning Report — Trump eyes wall money options as shutdown hits 21 days Poll: Sanders most popular senator, Flake least MORE (Ariz.), a perennial Trump critic, questioned on Monday if the legislation is constitutional but argued it would "behoove our leadership to be forceful" before Trump acts and say "this is the line we cannot cross." 

"If you're going to pick a fight, this is the fight to pick. You've got to pick this fight. If you don't pick this fight, we might as well not be here. This is a serious one. ... The best thing would be — is, preemptively to convince the president, 'don't go there,'" he said. 

Sen. Bob CorkerRobert (Bob) Phillips CorkerThe Memo: Romney moves stir worries in Trump World Senate GOP names first female members to Judiciary panel Former US special envoy to anti-ISIS coalition joins Stanford University as lecturer MORE (R-Tenn.), who has also criticized Trump, told CNN, "I can't possibly imagine why Senate leadership wouldn't place a protection" in the omnibus, calling it the "perfect place for them to deal with it." 

Corker later clarified that he wasn't saying he would support such a move — and noted he wasn't voting for the mammoth government funding bill, regardless — but "I just suggested that if I were the Senate Democratic leadership I would be pushing for that. ... I just assumed that Sen. [Charles] Schumer [N.Y.] and ... Leader [Nancy] Pelosi [Calif.] would be pushing for that." 

A second bill, from GOP Sen. Thom TillisThomas (Thom) Roland TillisCentrist efforts to convince Trump to end shutdown falter GOP reasserts NATO support after report on Trump’s wavering Leaders nix recess with no shutdown deal in sight MORE (N.C.) and Democratic Sen. Christopher CoonsChristopher (Chris) Andrew CoonsOvernight Defense: Trump unveils new missile defense plan | Dems express alarm | Shutdown hits Day 27 | Trump cancels Pelosi foreign trip | Senators offer bill to prevent NATO withdrawal Bipartisan senators reintroduce bill to prevent Trump from withdrawing from NATO Sunday shows preview: Washington heads into multi-day shutdown MORE (Del.), would let Mueller or any special counsel challenge their firing in court.

Asked about the legislation, Sen. John KennedyJohn Neely KennedyMORE (R-La.) said on Monday that "I don't think it's necessary ... [and] I've never been convinced that it's constitutional," he said.
 
Even Graham on Monday dismissed the need to pass his own bill, saying he introduced it to "let people know where I stand." 
 
Asked why leadership wasn't speaking out more forcefully about the consequences of firing Mueller, he said, "You spend your capital on issues where you think you get the best return." 
 
"I don't think anybody in our conference believes Mueller is going to be fired," Graham said. "... If he got fired without cause there would probably be an effort to reinstate him."
 
Asked what, if anything, Congress would do if Trump fired Mueller, Kennedy said: "We'll cross that bridge if we come to it."