Donald Trump Should Refuse a Mueller Interview (a show about nothing)

[endicom]

National Review
Andrew C. McCarthy
Jan. 27, 2018

And as president, he shouldn’t even be asked.

Let’s cut to the chase: Donald Trump should not agree to be interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller — and President Trump should not even be asked.

See, there are two Trumps to consider here. There is the very eccentric and volatile man who is the subject of Mueller’s amorphous investigation. And there is the president of the United States, who has responsibilities to that vital public office. Here, the interests of both happen to align.

We’ll first examine Trump the man. No long history lesson is required here; let’s just take the last couple of weeks. Trump told a room full of lawmakers that he’d sign whatever immigration legislation they brought him —everything was negotiable. When senior legislators from both parties brought him the familiar Washington plan of amnesty now, security maybe someday, he said no way, no wall, no deal.

More... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455841/trump-mueller-interview-president-refuse-request

[endicom]

McCarthy goes on to say that there are no criminal charges to be investigated.

[240B]

Trump was a fool to say what he said, that he would gladly meet with Mueller and his band of witch hunters.


Trump said that there was no collusion. There was no obstruction of justice. Mueller has no proof or evidence to the contrary. So why testify? Just to talk?


There is nothing there. There is no reason to testify about nothing.


Nothing good can possibly come from it. However, the possible downside is substantial.

[Concerned]

I suspect that if Trump refuses to answer questions from the Mueller team, he'll likely face a subpoena to go before a grand jury.  That would be worse for the President IMO since he can't have his attorney present.  I won't be surprised if the President ends up repeatedly invoking the 5th Amendment despite his proclamation in the past that ""The mob takes the Fifth Amendment.  If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"

[endicom]

I suspect that if Trump refuses to answer questions from the Mueller team, he'll likely face a subpoena to go before a grand jury. 

On what grounds? I don't think that can be done, anyway.

[Concerned]

On what grounds? I don't think that can be done, anyway.

Prosecutors typically subpoena witnesses to appear before a grand jury because either:
   a prosecutor believes that a witness has information about a crime committed by a third party, and wants to elicit that information to secure an indictment against the third party, or
   a prosecutor regards a witness as a target (a person suspected of crime) and wants to develop evidence against the witness.

Although I'm not an attorney (and nor do I play one on TV), I just don't buy McCarthy's argument that firing the special counsel (or the FBI Director) is automatically not obstruction of justice.  If the President tried to stop or influence a criminal investigation, with corrupt intent, I believe that's obstruction of justice.  Does Mueller have evidence of that corrupt intent?  I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised either way, but if he does, that would be enough, IMO to justify a grand jury subpoena.  I believe the special counsel would prefer to have the President of the United States answer questions voluntary, but if he refuses, I would fully expect a grand jury subpoena (similar to that issued to President Clinton) if he has evidence of that corrupt intent.  JMO (as a non-attorney spokesman for myself). 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/testifying-before-a-grand-jury.html

[endicom]

Although I'm not an attorney (and nor do I play one on TV), I just don't buy McCarthy's argument that firing the special counsel (or the FBI Director) is automatically not obstruction of justice.  If the President tried to stop or influence a criminal investigation, with corrupt intent, I believe that's obstruction of justice.  Does Mueller have evidence of that corrupt intent?  I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised either way, but if he does, that would be enough, IMO to justify a grand jury subpoena.  I believe the special counsel would prefer to have the President of the United States answer questions voluntary, but if he refuses, I would fully expect a grand jury subpoena (similar to that issued to President Clinton) if he has evidence of that corrupt intent.  JMO (as a non-attorney spokesman for myself). 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/testifying-before-a-grand-jury.html

It's not a criminal investigation.

[Concerned]

It's not a criminal investigation.

According to the same author cited in the OP, a grand jury doesn't necessarily require a criminal investigation:

The principal function of a federal grand jury is to investigate a suspected crime with an eye toward returning an indictment — a formal accusation of felony misconduct. In the alternative, a grand jury may file a “no true bill,” a formal finding that the prosecutor failed to show probable cause that the subject of the investigation committed a crime.

Sometimes, however, to vote yea or nay on a proposed indictment is not the grand jury’s only option. In certain situations, federal law authorizes a grand jury to file a report detailing its findings, even if criminal charges are not forthcoming. One such situation involves investigations of public officials. Instead of returning an indictment, a grand jury may issue a report that recommends an official’s removal from office.

These columns have lamented the Justice Department’s assignment of a prosecutor to investigate the president without specifying a crime or the factual basis for a criminal investigation. We’ve also observed that no indictable crime is required to trigger impeachment proceedings. Neither, we now note, is a provable crime a prerequisite for the issuance of a grand-jury report.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450183/muellers-grand-jury-could-be-first-step-impeachment

[endicom]

According to the same author cited in the OP, a grand jury doesn't necessarily require a criminal investigation:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450183/muellers-grand-jury-could-be-first-step-impeachment

What would be the suspected crime?

[Concerned]

What would be the suspected crime?

Did you even read the article I linked to?  It provided a much better description of the answer to your question than I ever could.  A grand jury doesn't require a suspected crime if it involves an elected official and neither does impeachment proceedings.  There are virtually "no limits" to Mueller's "investigative warrant" according to McCarthy, and he laid this out rather plainly I thought:

Mueller was instead assigned to conduct the Russia counterintelligence investigation. Because that was not a criminal investigation, Mueller’s probe was not confined to specified crimes. As a practical matter, there are no limits to his investigative warrant, and thus no limits to what a grand jury might inquire into — and ultimately allege in a report.

Second, as we have also frequently noted (and as I elaborated on in Faithless Execution), the impeachment of a president need not be predicated on indictable criminal offenses.

Again, I disagree with McCarthy on obstruction because I do believe if Mueller has evidence of corrupt intent, that is indeed enough for obstruction of justice.  JMO though.

[Right_in_Virginia]

If the President does talk with Mueller he should insist on the Hillary Clinton model: Mueller goes to the President's home, no oath,  no recording of any kind and the President's attorney is present.

Oh, and the home should be Mar a Lago ....   

[truth_seeker]

I suppose according to the Internet Attorney Group Ltd. we should subject each incoming President to perpetual investigations, based on highly suspect, highly political "quasi-evidence," from "opposition research" bought and paid for by their recently defeated opponents.

It would start a never-ending cycle of election, investigations, etc.

So once again, what precisely is the crime that Trump is supposed to have committed?

--Clinton conspired with the Russians, not Trump.
--Clinton paid the Russians for bogus information, not Trump.
--Many fingers point to corruption at the FBI, DOJ, possibly other agencies towards the end of supporting Clinton, and defeating Trump.