Dan Abrams Dukes It Out With Ken Starr Over Trump Ordering Robert Mueller’s Firing

The huge story that’s driven the news cycle the past few days is the New York Times’ bombshell report on President Donald Trump ordering his White House counsel to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller last June. The explosive report has led to discussion over whether or not this represents potential obstruction of justice on the president’s part.

During this morning’s broadcast of ABC’s This Week, Mediaite founder and ABC chief legal analyst Dan Abrams confronted Whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr on the issue revolving around Trump’s desire to terminate Mueller. After Starr told host Martha Raddatz that he saw this as “business tactics” from Trump and not corruption, Abrams jumped into the conversation to push back.

“The question isn’t, does firing Robert Mueller, would firing Robert Mueller be a crime?” Abrams noted. “That’s not the question. The question is, would firing Robert Mueller, does trying to fire Robert Mueller potentially become a piece in an obstruction case?”

The ABC analyst further stated that while one could say that Trump firing Mueller if he desires isn’t necessarily a crime, it also isn’t the “relevant question.”

Starr responded that the president ordering Mueller’s termination was part of a pattern of behavior that Trump doesn’t like the guy and not one of corruption. He then highlighted that he respectfully disagreed with Abrams suggesting that this was criminal behavior.

“It’s the same thing you did when you were the independent counsel, right?” Abrams pointed out. “You created articles of impeachment based on law. I’m not saying that should happen here. Right? We have to wait and see.”

He added, “I think to suggest that the president can fire these people for whatever reason he wants, is not a standard that you yourself would apply.”

Abrams would end with this final thought:

“Yeah, I mean, I just can’t imagine that Mr. Starr doesn’t believe that there is some sort of investigation on a president that if that president wanted to end it, just for that reason, that he wouldn’t say, that’s a potential legal/potential impeachment problem. There has to be a level which it can reach where you say, the president is not allowed to just end investigations into him just because that’s the presidential power.”

Watch the clip above, via ABC News.

[image via screengrab]

—

Follow Justin Baragona on Twitter: @justinbaragona

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com