Donald Trump has stated emphatically that he is willing to speak under oath to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
President Trump said on Wednesday that he was willing and eager to be interviewed by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, insisting that he has done nothing wrong.
Not just willing, but eager. “Looking forward to it,” said Trump. But that was before his flock of lawyers tackled him, dragged him back into his office, and admitted to the big potential problem with Trump talking to anyone, at any time, on any subject: Donald Trump cannot stop lying his ass off.
In recent days, some of the president’s allies have floated the idea that Mueller’s interview could be a “perjury trap.” The president’s lawyer, Ty Cobb, said last week that he hoped the process would be fair and not simply a perjury trap.
A “perjury trap” would be a special legal term just created for people whose acquaintance with the truth can’t even be described as “nodding.” Everyone, from Trump’s pals to his attorneys, is concerned that Mueller might do something extremely tricky. Like ask Trump questions and write down his answers. That’s why they’re now desperately looking for a way that Trump can testify, without actually testifying in the sense of what happens with every other human being.
Mr. Trump’s legal team is weighing options that include providing written answers to Mr. Mueller’s questions and having the president give limited face-to-face testimony, another person familiar with the matter said. “Everything is on the table,” this person said.
Everything. Except telling the truth.
Trump’s team is concerned that Mueller has an unfair advantage in that … he knows things. In fact, he already knows so much, that there’s no real reason to talk to Trump.
Mr. Mueller’s office, the member of the legal team said, “has all of the notes and memos of the thoughts and actions of this president on all subjects he requested in real time without reservation or qualification, including testimony from his most intimate staff and eight lawyers from the White House Counsel’s Office. Any question for the president is answered in these materials and testimony.”
But while it might be accurately argued that talking to Trump on any subject is likely to result in the listener knowing less at the end of the conversation than they did at the beginning, Mueller is extremely unlikely to be satisfied with “you have some notes, now go away.” Neither is he likely to accept a list of pre-digested responses, a pledge that Trump “has done nothing wrong,” or a face-to-face interview so limited that it consists of checking to see if Trump can memorize a short set of talking points.
But a member of Trump’s legal team has a compelling argument about why Donald Trump should not have to speak to the special counsel in a case investigating whether Trump engaged in a conspiracy with a hostile foreign power and followed up with an ongoing effort to obstruct justice.
This person added that, “It would be a travesty to waste his (Mr. Trump’s) time and to set a precedent which would cripple a future president.”
Yes. It would be a shame if presidents had to sit down and testify before a special counsel.
In extraordinary sessions at the White House, President Clinton and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, provided sworn testimony on Sunday to the special prosecutor about the death of a White House lawyer and Administration discussions of the Whitewater affair, the White House said today.
That was in 1994, before Robert Fiske turned over a result of “nothing wrong here,” which Republicans accepted graciously … by vilifying Fiske and demanding a new independent counsel. But surely Clinton provided a written response, or only answered a few pre-vetted questions.
The Clintons, who had pledged to assist in the investigation, spent a total of two and a half hours under oath as the questioning was led by the special prosecutor, Robert B. Fiske Jr.
But they were there together, so they could help each other. And Fiske had to come to Clinton’s office, so he was on familiar ground.
The President and Mrs. Clinton were questioned separately in the White House Treaty Room, which lies on the opposite end of the mansion from the West Wing where the Clintons maintain their official offices.
So, yes, Trump legal team member, it sure would be a shame if a precedent was set that presidents had to be interviewed by special counsel looking into their actions. But that precedent has already been set. So deal with it.
Should Mr. Trump face a subpoena, he could try to quash it, setting in motion a lengthy legal proceeding that could deprive Mr. Mueller of an interview any time soon.
That move also has a precedent.
Cox secured a subpoena against the administration that would force it to release the tapes. But Nixon refused to comply. … The case was appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
Drumroll please …
On October 12, the court of appeals upheld the subpoena, effectively ordering Nixon to hand over the tapes.
Trump can pretend that his situation is unique. But it’s not.
"President Clinton believed from the start that this was nothing but a political witch hunt," Gormley says.
It’s really, really not.
Lawrence Walsh was appointed to investigate the Iran-Contra Affairs in December 1986. He was the first Independent Counsel to draw significant criticism in the public realm. That criticism came largely from the Right. The investigation, which lasted six years and cost more than $30 million dollars, was chided as a witch-hunt.
The legal precedents on the issue are clear. Mueller can issue a subpoena, and Trump is obligated to respond. If he wants to avoid testimony, he has open to him the same route available to every other American—he can claim protection against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Otherwise, he must testify.
And if he lies, that’s perjury. No trap required.