Instead, Mr. Rosenstein mounted a step-by-step defense of Mr. Mueller’s conduct. He noted that department rules prevented Mr. Mueller from taking political affiliation into consideration when hiring for career positions, and he distinguished between officials holding political views and making investigative decisions out of bias. He said Mr. Mueller would be careful not to allow the latter.

“We recognize we have employees with political opinions. And it’s our responsibility to make sure those opinions do not influence their actions,” Mr. Rosenstein said after Representative Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio, read out the names of members of Mr. Mueller’s team and political contributions they had made to Democratic causes.

“I believe that Director Mueller understands that, and he is running that office appropriately,” Mr. Rosenstein added.

Asked by Representative Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who chairs the committee, why he remained satisfied with Mr. Mueller, Mr. Rosenstein replied:

“Based upon what I know, I believe Director Mueller is appropriately remaining in his scope and conducting himself appropriately, and in the event there is any credible allegation of misconduct by anybody on his staff, that he is taking appropriate action.”

Mr. Rosenstein’s stance signaled that despite the mounting assault on Mr. Mueller by Mr. Trump’s supporters, the fundamental dynamic surrounding the special counsel had not changed: If Mr. Trump were to try to fire Mr. Mueller based on any developments so far, the president would likely first have to fire or force the resignation of Mr. Rosenstein and then hunt for a replacement willing to carry out his orders, echoing Richard Nixon’s so-called Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal.

Republicans repeatedly pressed Mr. Rosenstein to appoint a second special counsel to investigate political partisanship in the department in its handling of the Trump-Russia investigation or in last year’s decision not to charge Mrs. Clinton with a crime over her use of a private email server while secretary of state — an idea that has been promoted heavily by commentators on Fox News and elsewhere in recent days.

Mr. Rosenstein said he could not appoint another special counsel without a credible allegation of a potential crime to investigate.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The campaign against the special counsel, at the very least, provides a rallying cry for the president’s supporters to counter the drumbeat of news about Russian interference in the election and possible links to the Trump campaign. And a move by the Justice Department to show reporters the text messages that are the subject of an ongoing inspector general’s inquiry served to fuel the Republican campaign against Mr. Mueller.

Mr. Rosenstein confirmed that in addition to sending the messages to Congress the night before his testimony, the Justice Department had invited reporters to view the messages it was giving to lawmakers. That was a rare step, although officials in previous administrations have sometimes done so to avoid selective or misleading leaks from Capitol Hill.

On Wednesday, the deputy attorney general was pressed by Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York, about who authorized the messages’ release. Mr. Rosenstein said that he had approved the step after consulting with the department’s independent inspector general, Michael Horowitz. His answers left ambiguous any distinction between merely providing them to lawmakers — who would essentially be free to leak them — and making them directly available to the news media.

“Our goal, congressman, is to make sure that it is clear to you and the American people that we are not concealing anything that’s embarrassing to the F.B.I.,” he said.

Ian Prior, a Justice Department spokesman, said that the texts were released in response to requests from lawmakers and after a review that determined that doing so would be lawful and ethical.

“The department ensures that its release of information from the department to members of Congress or to the media is consistent with law, including the Privacy Act,” he said in a statement.

Mr. Mueller, a registered Republican appointed by President George W. Bush to direct the F.B.I., has long had critics in the most pro-Trump corners of the House and the conservative news media. But in recent weeks, as his investigation has delivered a series of indictments to high-profile associates of the president and evidence that at least two of them are cooperating with the inquiry, those critics have grown louder and in numbers.

Moreover, the voices of doubt are no longer confined to the party’s far-right wing. They include Republican mainstays like Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa.

“I was the lone voice in the wilderness, and now I have a robust chorus behind me,” said Representative Matt Gaetz, a first-term Florida Republican who has emerged as one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal defenders on Capitol Hill.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The president’s own legal team also appears to be part of the campaign. Jay Sekulow, one of Mr. Trump’s outside lawyers for matters related to the Russia investigation, told Axios that mounting evidence warranted the appointment of a second special counsel to look at conflicts of interest in the Justice Department.

In an interview, Mr. Sekulow cited a Fox News report that Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice Department official, had been demoted for not disclosing meetings with officials from Fusion GPS, the investigative firm behind a controversial dossier of opposition research on the Trump campaign. Republicans have repeatedly charged that the F.B.I. may have relied on the dossier to obtain a warrant to secretly monitor Americans.

Republicans see further evidence of bias in an email sent by Andrew Weissmann, one of Mr. Mueller’s top deputies, in January telling the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, that he was “so proud and in awe” of her decision not to defend Mr. Trump’s travel ban in court.

Democrats say the pattern is becoming clear: As Mr. Mueller moves closer to Mr. Trump’s inner circle, Republicans try to discredit federal law enforcement and undercut the eventual findings of the special counsel. The Republican effort may also be intended to blunt the political repercussions should Mr. Mueller be fired, Democrats say.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, the Judiciary Committee’s senior Democrat, called the new Republican demands “wildly dangerous” to American institutions.

“I understand the instinct to want to give cover to the president,” he said. “I am fearful that the majority’s effort to turn the tables on the special counsel will get louder and more frantic as the walls continue to close in around the president.”

Perhaps more portentous is the restive Senate, a less partisan body where Mr. Mueller’s appointment in May was greeted with relief. Skepticism about the special counsel’s investigation is starting to take root there, too.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“He’s got a tough job to do, but it seems he’s running far afield,” said Senator Richard C. Shelby, a long-serving Republican from Alabama. “Maybe it’s part of what he can do, but I thought he was going to investigate the Russian influence in the election, and it seems like he is going after a lot of other places, too.”

Mr. Graham, who a year ago was a leading Republican voice for a thorough investigation of Russian campaign interference, seems to have shifted his focus as well.

“I will be challenging Rs and Ds on Senate Judiciary Committee to support a Special Counsel to investigate ALL THINGS 2016 — not just Trump and Russia,” he wrote on Twitter.

Continue reading the main story

The looming loss of the Republican seat in the Senate from Alabama adds to the pressure that party members in Congress face to ensure that their tax overhaul faces no last-minute hiccups that push the bill into next year. On Wednesday, they will look to keep the momentum going in the face of Democrats who are feeling newly emboldened.

The conference committee met and Democrats expressed displeasure

The conference committee that was created to merge the House and Senate tax bills began its one public meeting on Wednesday afternoon and Democrats immediately denounced the gathering as an exercise in trying to make the tax overhaul look transparent.

“Let’s understand what’s happening today is a sham,” said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. “Nobody ought to mistake this conference for real debate.”

Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, said the “so-called conference committee,” as he put it, “is a farce.”

Members of the committee assembled for their public session in a basement meeting room in the Capitol, and the partisan skirmishing began right at the outset.

Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, asked that the conference committee postpone its work until Doug Jones, the winner of Tuesday’s special election for Senate in Alabama, is sworn into office.

The lawmaker presiding over the meeting, Representative Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the motion was not allowed.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas, quickly clashed with Mr. Brady over his handling of the meeting, reminding him that the session was not being conducted under “Putin rules.”

Democrats also denounced the substance of the tax overhaul.

“The American people are witnessing a master class in how one political party, relying on secrecy, distortion and brute force, can muscle an unpopular, deficit exploding corporate giveaway to passage,” Mr. Wyden said. “This is the ultimate betrayal of the middle class.”

The gathering will be one of the final times that Democrats will be able to publicly criticize the tax legislation while being face-to-face with the Republicans who are crafting it. Thus far, they have largely assailed the partisan process and argued that the bill benefits the rich and corporations and doesn’t do enough to help the middle class.

For Republicans, the public meeting is largely for show, as the final negotiations happened behind closed doors and the major details have already been agreed upon. Republicans are planning to pass the bill along party lines and have so far rebuffed Democrats’ requests to change the bill.

Alabama’s election is unlikely to derail the tax bill

The odds remain strong that congressional Republicans will send a consensus tax bill to Mr. Trump, despite Democrats’ upset Senate victory in Alabama on Tuesday.

The news that Doug Jones, a Democrat, had defeated Roy Moore, a Republican, in the election immediately sent many liberal activists dreaming of another improbable win: blocking the tax bill.

Math and momentum fueled that activist optimism. Once Mr. Jones is seated in the Senate, Republicans’ majority in the chamber will narrow to a single seat. The tax bill passed the Senate on a 51-49 vote, with one Republican, Bob Corker of Tennessee, defecting. The hope among liberals was that Mr. Jones’ victory would give other Republicans pause and delay the process of reconciling the bills.

That seems unlikely to happen, however. Lawmakers have agreed on the contours of a final deal and an influential Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, said she saw no reason to wait for Mr. Jones to be seated before voting on the tax bill.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

However, Republicans still need to tread carefully and ensure they have enough support to get the bills over the finish line. If another Republican senator were then to defect — for example, Ms. Collins, who extracted concessions from party leadership in order to vote yes on the bill initially, but has watched some of those concessions go as yet unfulfilled — then the bill could stall.

Those scenarios still appear highly unlikely. Republican leaders are prepared to hold votes early next week on the measure, well before the Alabama results are expected to be certified, making Mr. Jones eligible to be seated. Party leaders remain confident Mr. Trump will sign the bill before Christmas — most likely before Mr. Jones enters the Senate.

The one wrinkle from Tuesday night, for Republicans and the bill, is that the results empower individual senators to demand even more from the leadership for their votes. Ms. Collins and Marco Rubio of Florida have both raised concerns this week about the compromise bill as it is shaping up. Party leaders may be forced to address their concerns or apply more pressure to keep them, and possibly others, in line.

But even if Republicans were to defect en masse in the Senate, the tax bill could still sail to Mr. Trump — if House Republicans were to approve the version that passed the Senate. That version included some apparent drafting errors that have upset business interests, most notably the rate of the corporate alternative minimum tax. But in a worst-case scenario, party leaders could decide that bill is better than no bill at all, and promise to return to fix the provisions later — an echo of how Democrats proceeded to pass the Affordable Care Act after they lost a similarly stunning Senate special election, in Massachusetts, in 2010.

Democrats tell Republicans to hit pause on tax bill

Democrats are mounting a concerted, though likely fruitless, effort to get Republican leadership in the Senate to delay the tax bill vote until Mr. Jones is seated as a senator from Alabama.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, called on Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, to “hit pause on his tax bill” after the Democratic candidate won the special election for Senate in Alabama on Tuesday.

“It would be wrong for Senate Republicans to jam through this tax bill without giving the newly elected senator from Alabama the opportunity to cast his vote,” Mr. Schumer said at a news conference at the Capitol on Wednesday morning.

Mr. Schumer drew a parallel with the election of Scott Brown, a Republican, in a special election in Massachusetts in 2010 as Democrats were trying to enact their health care overhaul.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon similarly said the bill should be delayed until Mr. Jones arrives, saying in a tweet “The people of Alabama have spoken.”

Trump dines with Republican lawmakers

Mr. Trump hosted Republican lawmakers working on tax legislation for lunch at the White House. Flanked by Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, Mr. Trump gave brief remarks on the tax plan.

“We’re very close to getting it done, we’re very close to voting,” he said.

The White House on Wednesday released a name of those dining with Mr. Trump, including Vice President Mike Pence, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, eight Republican senators and Representative Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas and chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

Democrats make a last-ditch effort to pressure Republicans

Ahead of the Conference Committee meeting, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee will be joined by House Democratic leaders for a noon “forum” on the Republican tax legislation.

House Democrats have invited economists including Mark Zandi, of Moody’s Analytics, and Jason Furman, former chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, to participate.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who has come under attack from Democrats for using “fake math” to defend the Republican tax plan, was also invited. He is not expected to attend.

Progressive groups hold protests in the Capitol

Liberal activists are planning to fan across the Capitol on Wednesday to try to flip Republican members of Congress who they think could be persuaded to change their minds on the tax bill.

Members of Housing Works, the Center for Popular Democracy, Women’s March, Hedge Clippers, People for Bernie, Strong Economy for All Coalition are planning to stage sit-ins at the offices of Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona.

Ady Barkan, a progressive activist with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who confronted Mr. Flake on an airplane last week, is headlining the rally. According to one of its organizers, he is also hoping to have a meeting with Ms. Collins.

Continue reading the main story

One of the truisms of the “Star Wars” series is that its battle between good and bad has always uneasily and sometimes openly mirrored the attendant struggle between good and bad filmmaking. Mr. Lucas’s 1977 foundational movie mostly transcends its flaws with slick looks, hooky effects, old-school heroics and loads of marketable material that helped turn fan love into an ecumenical cult. The second trilogy, entirely directed by Mr. Lucas, began in 1999 with “The Phantom Menace” (infamous for the minor scandal called Jar Jar Binks) and is pretty much a drag outside of some fleet light-saber duels and the arresting black-and-red patterning that distinguishes one villain.

Part of what has already made the new trilogy more successful is that its directors, J.J. Abrams (“The Force Awakens”) and Mr. Johnson, are technically adept, commercially savvy “Star Wars” true believers who came of age in the post-Lucas blockbuster era. Each has had to navigate the intricacies of Mr. Lucas’s sprawling fiction while handling the deep imprint created by Darth Vader’s heavy-breathing menace, R2-D2’s amusing beeps, Mr. Ford’s insouciance, Mr. Hamill’s earnestness, and Ms. Fisher’s smarts and latter-day screwball charm. Unlike Mr. Lucas, though, Mr. Abrams and Mr. Johnson don’t feel burdened by that legacy; they’re into it, charged up, despite the pressures of such an industrial enterprise. They’re resolving their cinematic father issues with a sense of fun.

Mr. Johnson can make you forget about those issues as well as the franchise’s insistent obligations; it also seems like he had a good time at work. He brings lightness to his banter, visual flair (not simply bleeding-edge special effects) to the design, and narrative savvy to Rey and Kylo Ren’s relationship. Mr. Johnson’s use of deep red is characteristic of how he turns ideas into images, most vividly with a set that looks like something Vincente Minnelli might have dreamed up for a Flash Gordon musical with Gene Kelly. When that set becomes the backdrop to a viscerally exciting fight, all the red abruptly evokes the spilled blood that this otherwise squeaky clean series insistently elides.

Like “The Force Awakens,” “The Last Jedi” engages with the first “Star Wars” movie less as a fetish than as a necessary point of departure. And, like Alec Guinness’s Obi-Wan Kenobi once did, Luke comes off as a brooding monastic loner. With a hooded robe, beard and inexplicable moodiness, he has retreated to an eerily lovely, isolated island where imaginatively designed critters roam and trill. The cutest (right in time for Christmas tie-ins) are Porgs, saucer-eyed mewling creatures with plump, puffin-like bodies that are mainly on hand for easy laughs. The creature design throughout is so inventive — there are less-fuzzy whatsits on the island, too — that you wish more had been added.

You feel Mr. Johnson periodically reining himself in, yet the movie cuts loose when he does, as when he embraces the galaxy’s strangeness, its non-humanoid beings as well as its magic and mystery. There’s a trippy scene in which a character floats into a resurrection, an ethereal drift that borders on the surreal. It’s a fleeting bliss-out in a series that knows how to bring the weird but has too often neglected to do so amid its blaster zapping, machinations and Oedipal stressing and storming. This is, after all, a franchise in which the most indelible character remains Yoda, the wee, far-out philosophizer with the tufted pate and syntactically distinct truth telling: “Wars not make one great.”

Wars do, however, make warehouses of money as this franchise has been affirming for decades. It’s instructive how normalized its permanent war has become, with its high body count, bloodlessness and fascist chic (the black uniforms evoking the Nazi SS). Given this, it’s notable, too, that while Mr. Johnson manages the big-canvas battles well enough, he’s better with smaller-scaled fights, in which the sweat, vulnerabilities and personal costs of violence are foregrounded. With Mr. Driver — who delivers a startlingly raw performance — Mr. Johnson delivers a potent portrait of villainy that suggests evil isn’t hard-wired, an inheritance or even enigmatic. Here, it is a choice — an act of self-creation in the service of annihilation.

Mr. Johnson has picked up the baton — notably the myth of a female Jedi — that was handed to Mr. Abrams when he signed on to revive the series with “The Force Awakens.” Mr. Johnson doesn’t have to make the important introductions; for the most part, the principals were in place, as was an overarching mythology that during some arid periods has seemed more sustained by fan faith than anything else. Even so, he has to convince you that these searching, burgeoning heroes and villains fit together emotionally, not simply on a Lucasfilm whiteboard, and that they have the requisite lightness and heaviness, the ineffable spirit and grandeur to reinvigorate a pop-cultural juggernaut. That he’s made a good movie in doing so isn’t icing; it’s the whole cake.

Continue reading the main story