Skip to main content

Believe that journalism can make a difference

If you believe in the work we do at Vox, please support us by becoming a member. Our mission has never been more urgent. But our work isn’t easy. It requires resources, dedication, and independence. And that’s where you come in.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Support Vox

Trump’s latest attack on Jeff Sessions inadvertently confirms one of Mueller’s key findings

Oops.

President Donald Trump stands at a White House podium with one hand on Jeff Sessions’s shoulder.
President Donald Trump stands at a White House podium with one hand on Jeff Sessions’s shoulder.
Trump and Jeff Sessions during happier times in February 2017.
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

President Donald Trump reacted to Jeff Sessions’s so-so primary showing in his quest to regain his old Alabama US Senate seat by taking yet another shot at his former attorney general. But in the process of doing so, Trump confirmed one of the Mueller report’s key findings about his efforts to obstruct justice.

On Wednesday morning, Trump quote-tweeted a post from Politico about Sessions’s second-place finish in Tuesday’s Republican primary — one that will result in a runoff next month between Sessions and first-place finisher Tommy Tuberville — and wrote, “This is what happens to someone who loyally gets appointed Attorney General of the United States & then doesn’t have the wisdom or courage to stare down & end the phony Russia Witch Hunt. Recuses himself on FIRST DAY in office, and the Mueller Scam begins!”

Trump’s tweet is factually incorrect. Sessions actually served as attorney general for about three weeks before he recused himself from the Russia probe on March 2, 2017, on the heels of revelations that he had misled senators during his confirmation hearing about the extent of his communications with Russians in 2016. But more significant than that fib is the broader point Trump communicated: that Sessions should have quickly shut down the investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia instead of recusing himself.

Here’s the thing: The president isn’t supposed to direct the attorney general to end specific investigations, especially ones directly involving his campaign. In fact, the perception that Trump had interfered in the Russia investigation (by firing then-FBI Director James Comey two months after Sessions’s recusal) led to special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment in the first place.

Related

As part of his investigation, Mueller investigated 10 instances where Trump potentially committed obstruction of justice. A number of them involved Trump’s repeated efforts to cajole Sessions into either limiting the investigation or unrecusing himself and ending it.

As Marshall Cohen of CNN noted, the evidence Mueller laid out indicated that Trump’s conduct met all the criteria for an obstruction of justice charge. But Mueller ultimately determined that because of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel’s 2000 opinion that the department can’t indict a sitting president, charging Trump with crimes while he’s still in office wasn’t an option for him.

Wednesday’s tweet is not the first time Trump has basically publicly admitted that he asked Sessions to end the Russia investigation. He posted a tweet that was even more direct about that demand in August 2018, one day after the trial of his former campaign manager Paul Manafort began on a host of charges related to financial crimes and money laundering that stemmed from the Mueller investigation. This was also back when Sessions was still serving as AG (Sessions resigned under pressure three months later and was replaced by William Barr).

In his report that was released almost a year ago now, Mueller concluded “that Sessions was being instructed” by Trump “to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign.”

From the Mueller report (emphasis mine):

The President sought to have Sessions announce that the President “shouldn’t have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel” and that Sessions was going to “meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future election so that nothing can happen in future elections.” The President wanted Sessions to disregard his recusal from the investigation, which had followed from a formal DOJ ethics review, and have Sessions declare that he knew “for a fact” that “there were no Russians involved with the campaign” because he “was there.” The President further directed that Sessions should explain that the President should not be subject to an investigation “because he hadn’t done anything wrong.” Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign, with the Special Counsel being permitted to “move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.”

Trump’s tweet on Wednesday basically confirmed the key passage in bold — that he instructed Sessions to end the investigation and became angry with him when he refused to do it.

Why does any of this matter? Aside from serving as an example of how reckless Trump’s tweeting continues to be — and as an illustration that his long-simmering, one-sided feud with Sessions isn’t over — it’s also worth remembering that while Mueller concluded Trump couldn’t be charged with obstruction of justice while he’s in office, he could still face charges once his presidency ends.

Read in that context, Trump’s tweet reads uncomfortably like an admission.


The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.

More in Politics

Did the Trump prosecutions backfire?Did the Trump prosecutions backfire?
PoliticsMember Exclusive

The Trump prosecutions were supposed to save democracy. They may have imperiled it further.

By Andrew Prokop
The real danger of Trump’s Greenland gambitThe real danger of Trump’s Greenland gambit
World Politics

What happens when you treat the world like a game of Risk.

By Joshua Keating
NYC’s congestion pricing is unpopular — for nowNYC’s congestion pricing is unpopular — for now
Policy

The arc of congestion pricing is long but it bends toward acceptance.

By Abdallah Fayyad
The Supreme Court doesn’t seem likely to save TikTokThe Supreme Court doesn’t seem likely to save TikTok
Supreme Court

If you’re a professional TikTok creator, it’s probably time to get a new job.

By Ian Millhiser
Have the past 10 years of Democratic politics been a disaster?Have the past 10 years of Democratic politics been a disaster?
Politics

A conversation with Matthew Yglesias.

By Eric Levitz
The Supreme Court hands Trump a loss in his bid for legal immunityThe Supreme Court hands Trump a loss in his bid for legal immunity
Supreme Court

The Court’s order is exceedingly narrow, but it is still a loss for Trump.

By Ian Millhiser