this week with the trump legal team and everything went swimmingly. the question for you is, if you go into this meeting with the mueller team, one of these occasional meetings they do have, what s a victory for the trump legal team? what s a good outcome for the trump legal team in terms of a takeaway? the only thing that the trump team can hope to gain is to have a method of giving their opinion, their viewpoint and making it in a persuasive way so that mueller hears and can think about it. on the other hand, by doing that, mueller can start working on what are the answers to those things. i want to go back to your question about cause and good cause for firing. because that was the same rule for firing archie cox. there had to be cause. because there wasn t, the attorney general refused to carry out the president s order, so he was fired. and the deputy attorney general said there is no cause, i will not do it, and so he was fired.
if they did, maybe they would say, hey, we had this meeting this week, with the trump legal team and everything went swimmingly. the question for you is, if you go into this meeting with the mueller team, one of these occasional meetings they do have, what s a victory for the trump legal team. what s a good outcome for the trump legal team in terms of a takeaway. the only thing that the trump team can hope to gain is to have a method of giving their opinion, their viewpoint and making it in a persuasive way so that mueller hears and can think about it. on the other hand, by doing that, mueller can start working on what are the answers to those things. i want to go back to your question about cause and good cause for firing. because that was the same rule for firing arch which i cox. there had to be cause. because there wasn t, the attorney general refused to carry out the president s order, so he was fired. and the deputy attorney general
broadly how frustrated the president is generally about the russia investigation. he always has somebody he s turning his fire on. now it s rod rosenstein. and he issued a statement last night in response to some of the reports that were coming out about the investigation that was a little bit bizarre in the sense that it said don t believe anonymous sources . it seemed designed saying the justice department saying it wasn t pressure from the white hou hou house. so perhaps he knew the president is angry. this one gets bizarre when you think about all this. it made sense he would be the lightning rod for the president s frustration because the president cannot reach over rosenstein to fire mueller without rosenstein s help. he has to be the one to actually sign that piece of paper, whatever the formal procedure is. he just said when he was appearing before a senate appropriations committee sub panel he s not going to do t. based on what he knows he think there is isn t cause. he sa
this wasn t worth it. they wanted to know about health care and clearly didn t get the was in they wanted, though they had to continue paying him for the rest of his contract because they couldn t fire him, there wasn t any cause to fire him. think what you re saying, sarah, is that cohen is saying, look, i know how this guy ticks, i can tell you what he s going to like, what he s not going to like, but was he substantive? did he have substantive conversations about the president with his clients? i.e., did he lobby? one of my sources said not at all, he didn t have substantive caus causes. i wonder how that isn t cause. seems like great cause. depends what you want. novartis is trying to distance themselves. this is $100,000. how are these companies feeling? what are their thoughts on whether he was able to deliver