Mueller’s Questions for Trump Show the Folly of Special-Counsel Appointments

National Review ^ | May 2, 2018 | ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

[reaganaut1]

I am assuming the authenticity of the questions that Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly wants to ask President Trump. The questions indicate that, after a year of his own investigation and two years of FBI investigation, the prosecutor lacks evidence of a crime. Yet he seeks to probe the chief executive’s motives and thought processes regarding exercises of presidential power that were lawful, regardless of one’s view of their wisdom.

If Bob Mueller wants that kind of control over the executive branch, he should run for president. Otherwise, he is an inferior executive official who has been given a limited license — ultimately, by the chief executive — to investigate crime. If he doesn’t have an obvious crime, he has no business inventing one, much less probing his superior’s judgment. He should stand down.

The questions, reported by the New York Times, underscore that the special counsel is a pernicious institution. Trump should decline the interview. More to the point, the Justice Department should not permit Mueller to seek to interrogate the president on so paltry and presumptuous a showing.

When should a president be subject to criminal investigation? It is a bedrock principle that no one is above the law. The Framers made clear that this includes the president. But, like everything else, bedrock principles do not exist in a vacuum. They vie with other principles.

Two competing considerations are especially significant here. First, our law-enforcement system is based on prosecutorial discretion. Under this principle, the desirability of prosecuting even a palpable violation of law must be balanced against other societal needs and desires. We trust prosecutors to perform this cost-benefit analysis with modesty about their mission and sensitivity to the disruption their investigations cause.

[Signalman]

I’m surprised the Slimes would publish this.

[originalbuckeye]

Trump is brilliant. IF he goes before Mueller, if I were he, I would demand that the circumstances had to be the same as the circumstances of Hillary’s interview with the FIB.

[pepsi_junkie]

Trump ought to just outright refuse to answer such "what were you thinking" questions. Any judge who says "you must answer" should be told that separation of powers is a thing and he has no right to compel the president to do anything other than follow the law, which he did. Stick to objective facts only.

It's time to draw a line in the sand and refute this idea that unelected judges are the ultimate power in this country. This could be the test case. A lot of Americans would agree with Trump that some random low level judge shouldn't have the power to force the President to come and justify all his actions to him.

[Signalman]

Oh, the link is to NR, not the Slimes.

[Steely Tom]

Two competing considerations are especially significant here. First, our law-enforcement system is based on prosecutorial discretion. Under this principle, the desirability of prosecuting even a palpable violation of law must be balanced against other societal needs and desires.

The Democrat-MSM believes that the ultimate societal need and desire is that they be in power; as a result, the removal of PDJT is an overriding priority and imperative.

[Rapscallion]

It is all a conspiracy to “Get Trump”.
Conceived by CIA leaders, Justice Department “law enforcers”, and State creatures at the direction of Obama and Clapper.

[reaganaut1]

Sorry, I goofed. I reported the error to the moderator.

[pfflier]

It is obvious that the swamp is trying to create a crime where no crime existed. They have nothing and have to try to legally trip up the president to get something. Of course the court is in public opinion anyway so this is all theater for the midterms.

The only real surprise now is that Mrs Smith's third grade class from Peoria hasn't requested the local DA file criminal charges in a federal court, as a publicity stunt.

[Boogieman]

Let a judge try to order Trump around or hold him in contempt. Who is going to arrest Trump? The US Marshals who are under his command? The FBI who is under his command?

Obama had no problem protecting his subordinates from Congress or the courts by using his executive power. The least Trump can do is protect himself.

[Cheerio]

The GOP - including Speaker Paul Rino - are on board with this coup.

Republican leaders warn Trump against firing Mueller, Rosenstein

"House Speaker Paul Ryan said special counsel Robert Mueller "should be left to do his job."

[odawg]

The question has to be addressed: Is Special Counselor Mueller the Supreme Authority in the government?

Which government employee has the authority to clothe Mueller with that kind of authority if he does not have it himself?

Rosenstein’s latest comments about going toe-to-toe with Congress suggest he might think that he in fact has that authority.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Rosen needs to be slapped down.
Hard.

[pepsi_junkie]

Let a judge try to order Trump around or hold him in contempt. Who is going to arrest Trump?

Side note: contempt of court is a pet peeve of mine. Would we accept it if a President announced in a meeting that the didn't think the person he was meeting with was properly deferential and had him tossed in jail until he apologized? No, we would call that President a tyrant. Yet judges do that all across America all the time and we just shrug. That bothers me.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Trump should forthwith call Mueller to the Whitehouse, gather all the the Whitehouse Media folks, then bring Mueller into the assembled media room and face to face tell Mueller, “Sir, as of this very moment, you are fired...your services are no longer required”. “I hear the DNC is most eager to hire your sorry egomaniac butt, good luck, we wish you well, goodbye and, please do not let the door hit you as you walk out the door in total disgrace and disloyalty to your country”!!!

[chiller]

Andy's assumption for the sake of discussion is spot on. I doubt seriously that Mueller would have exposed his attorneys to such ridicule for the exposing the nature of those questions. If proven, it demonstrates the bias in spades.

More likely ---says the speculation - that Trump's attorney (Sekula ) prepared a list of subjects that he would be probed if he were to submit to the interview.

The questions, indeed the goal, is the same, but to admit it for all to see is not likely. Again, I'd love to be proven wrong.

[Fantasywriter]

‘More to the point, the Justice Department should not permit Mueller to seek to interrogate the president on so paltry and presumptuous a showing.’

Hahaha. McCarthy needs to open his eyes —it’s the DOJ that is cheering Mueller on.

[PGR88]

I would demand that the circumstances had to be the same as the circumstances of Hillary’s interview with the FIB.

You assume Mueller will behave by any "standards" - he will not. This is a political hit job - use those conditions only to judge what Mueller is up to. Whatever Trump tells him will either be eventually leaked, or it will simply be used as a ricochet to lead to some other investigation, charge or headline-creating narrative.

[McGavin999]

Its not a question of separation of powers. The DOaj is part of the executive branch. President Trump is the head of the executive branch and the one the Constitution States is responsible for enforcing the law. Mueller should be told he is to list out the crime and, in writing, explain why he needs input from POTUS.

Mueller and his merry band of thieves are getting fat on the taxpayer dime. They have NO incentive to bring this to a conclusion

[Terry Mross]

Trump should tweet “Mueller wants to know what I was thinking when I fired Comey. I was thinking ‘I’m the president. The constitution grants me the power to fire anyone who works for me.

And right now I’m thinking “And that includes Mueller’”.