Who is running the White House’s defense against claims of obstruction of justice and others stemming from the ongoing Russia investigation? From the looks of it, it’s Marc Kasowitz, the outside counsel of President Donald Trump.
A recent New York Times article called Kasowitz, who has represented Trump in his real estate dealings for 15 years, the “field marshal for a White House under siege.” The White House press staff directs all questions about the special counsel investigation, headed by former FBI director Robert Mueller, to Kasowitz. And, according to that Times article, Kasowitz has advised aides at the White House about how they should discuss the investigation.
I spoke with lawyers who worked in past Republican White Houses who say that Kasowitz’s elevated role is “unusual,” though not necessarily unethical and certainly not illegal.
“I think it’s a good idea for the president to have his own counsel, but that can’t displace or run around the White House counsel’s office,” says a former senior ethics lawyer in a previous administration. The difference is this: Kasowitz represents Trump as an individual, but the White House counsel represents the office of the president. The legal interests of the presidency—and those who work for the office—don’t always line up with the personal interests of the president.
Why is that important? It’s not simply Trump himself who will be under the microscope of Mueller’s investigation. Trump’s aides—including the White House counsel himself, Don McGahn—could be considered witnesses and face questions from investigators. But if the man leading the White House defense is obligated to protect Trump’s interests first, these aides may find themselves left out to dry.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Kasowitz, did not return a request for comment.
Sessions Back on the Hill
Attorney General Jeff Sessions will appear Tuesday afternoon before the Senate Intelligence committee in an open hearing. This is the same group of senators who heard fired FBI director James Comey’s testimony last week.
At least one result from the closed session with Comey was a revelation that Sessions may have had an additional meeting prior to President Trump’s inauguration with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak that he did not disclose. Senators will no doubt ask about those meetings, and any other interaction with Russian officials.
What Sessions is likely to do, if asked, is invoke executive privilege on questions regarding his conversations with the president. There’s a precedent for this, so doing so would hardly be scandalous. But a good question regardless of whether the White House invokes executive privilege is this: Did the president ever ask Sessions to get Comey or the FBI to back off the investigation into former national security adviser Mike Flynn, or any other part of the FBI’s investigation into Russia?
Quote of the Day
“On behalf of the entire senior staff around you, Mr. President, we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing that you’ve given us to serve your agenda and the American people, and we’re continuing to work very hard every day to accomplish those goals.” — Reince Priebus, White House Chief of Staff.
Another Emoluments Suit
The state of Maryland and the District of Columbia filed a federal suit against the Trump administration Monday morning, accusing the president of violating the Constitution by refusing to divest himself fully from his global business empire.
The lawsuit alleges that Trump’s continued ties to the Trump Organization constitute a violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officers from accepting gifts from foreign states or leaders to shield their office from outside influence. President Trump turned Trump Organization operations over to a trust that includes his sons Donald Jr. and Eric before taking office.
“As Alexander Hamilton wrote, one of the weak sides of republics — among their numerous advantages — is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption,” said D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine at a press conference.
According to Racine, Trump’s continued business involvements don’t just present a potential conflict of interest, but a visible, concrete one:
“The kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose government has important business and policy before the President of the United States, has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at the Trump International Hotel. And that hotel is but one example of how President Trump’s vast global business, that empire he has, is entangled with foreign and state government interests.”
A similar suit filed in a New York federal court in January is already making its way through the courts. The Trump administration has repeatedly called for that suit to be dismissed.
“Paying for a hotel room is not a gift or a present and it has nothing to do with an office,” Sheri Dillion, an attorney for Trump, said prior to his inauguration. “No one would have thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument. Instead, it would have been thought of as a value-for-value exchange.”
During a White House briefing Monday afternoon, press secretary Sean Spicer dismissed the new suit as mere “partisan politics.”
The question of inappropriate ties between the Trump business empire and the federal government has dogged the administration since Trump took office. In April, several U.S. embassies faced backlash over websites that marketed Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club as a “winter White House.”
