Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should Trump Voluntarily Talk To Mueller?
Townhall.com ^ | August 9, 2018 | Judge Andrew Napolitano

Posted on 08/09/2018 8:29:08 AM PDT by Kaslin

When federal prosecutors are nearing the end of criminal investigations, they often invite the subjects of those investigations to speak with them. The soon-to-be defendants are tempted to give their version of events to prosecutors, and prosecutors are looking to take the legal pulse of the subjects of their work. These invitations should always be declined, but they are not.

Special counsel Robert Mueller -- who is investigating President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice, pre-presidential banking irregularities and conspiracy to solicit or receive campaign aid from foreign nationals (the latter is what the media erroneously call collusion) -- has made it known to former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the head of Trump's legal team, that he wants to speak to the president.

Should Trump voluntarily speak with Mueller? In a word: No. Here is the back story.

Though I have been critical of some judgment calls made by Giuliani in his representation of Trump, I recognize, like anyone who has watched him or worked with or against him, that Giuliani is a smart and experienced lawyer. He has prosecuted directly or indirectly more than 5,000 criminal cases. He knows the criminal justice system, and he understands the power of prosecutors.

Yet the advice of most criminal defense lawyers and legal commentators familiar with the situation in which Giuliani finds himself today is to keep his client far away from the prosecutors. Here's why.

Thanks to Giuliani's numerous television appearances during which he has forcefully defended his client, Giuliani and Mueller have engaged in a very public series of negotiations on the limits, if any, that they might agree to as ground rules for an interview of the president.

Giuliani wants to limit the subject of questions to the alleged conspiracy between Trump's campaign and Russians. After all, he argues, this is the stated purpose given by the Department of Justice for starting the special counsel's investigation. And he wants to limit the number of questions and the time for all questions and answers. He argues that the president's constitutional obligations transcend the needs of Mueller's probe.

Mueller argues that he has an ethical obligation to follow whatever evidence of criminal behavior lawfully comes into his hands, about the president or his colleagues. As such, because he does not know in advance what Trump's answers to his questions will be, he cannot consent to any limitations on his follow-up questions.

If I were Giuliani, I would tell Mueller that the negotiations are terminated and the president will not voluntarily sit for an interview with him. There are paramount and prudential reasons for this.

First, when prosecutors want to talk to a person they are investigating, the talk is intended to help the prosecutors, not the subject of the investigation. So why should Trump engage in a process that could only help those pursuing him?

Second, the prosecutors know their evidence far better than the president or his legal team possibly could know it, and these prosecutors know how to trip up whomever they are interviewing. So why should Trump give prosecutors an opportunity to trap him into uttering a falsehood in an environment where doing so can be a criminal act?

I recognize that Giuliani's client is the most powerful person on earth, someone who is accustomed to having his way followed. And he has said countless times that he wants to talk to Mueller. Yet President Trump does not use an economy of words. Experience teaches that the undisciplined use of words by the subject of a criminal investigation is a prosecutor's dream when it takes place in an official inquiry.

It is Giuliani's job to prevent that dream from becoming reality by convincing his client, perhaps through an aggressive mock question-and-answer session conducted by Giuliani himself, that no good for Trump could come from a Mueller interview. I have seen many criminal cases in which potential defendants who thought they could talk prosecutors out of an indictment tried to do so and made matters worse for themselves.

But there is an elephant in the room.

That elephant is a grand jury subpoena. The Mueller interview is voluntary. If Trump agreed to it, he would not be under oath, and he could consult with counsel during it. Also, he could leave it whenever he wished. A grand jury subpoena compels a person to testify. The testimony is under oath, takes place without counsel present and can go on for as long as prosecutors and the grand jurors want to question the person. And they can ask him any questions they want to ask.

Surely, Trump would challenge a subpoena before a federal district court, and the challenge might land in the Supreme Court. Yet the controlling case, United States v. Nixon, is a unanimous 1974 Supreme Court decision requiring President Richard Nixon to surrender his infamous Oval Office tapes.

Though not directly on the point of compelled presidential personal oral testimony, the language in the Nixon case and the values underlying it all favor enforcement of a subpoena requiring personal testimony by the president. When the Ken Starr grand jury served a subpoena for the president's testimony on Bill Clinton, whose crimes it was investigating, Clinton and his lawyers concluded that he needed to comply with it, which he did.

Surely, Trump would challenge a subpoena before a federal district court, and the challenge might land in the Supreme Court. Yet the controlling case, United States v. Nixon, is a unanimous 1974 Supreme Court decision requiring President Richard Nixon to surrender his infamous Oval Office tapes.

Though not directly on the point of compelled presidential personal oral testimony, the language in the Nixon case and the values underlying it all favor enforcement of a subpoena requiring personal testimony by the president. When the Ken Starr grand jury served a subpoena for the president's testimony on Bill Clinton, whose crimes it was investigating, Clinton and his lawyers concluded that he needed to comply with it, which he did.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: presidenttrump; robertmueller; russia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 last
To: Kaslin

Noooooo!


81 posted on 08/09/2018 4:17:19 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

Now I agree with you completely. It would be stupid to flat out refuse but POTUS should never wind up being interviewed by Muller. The Trump team tactics are well played.


82 posted on 08/09/2018 5:12:38 PM PDT by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt

Thanks. Believe me when you get as old as me, you will be twice as smart as me.


83 posted on 08/09/2018 6:07:22 PM PDT by entropy12 (Trump/Pence 2020)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

That’s very sweet. I’m glad to have that to look forward to. I am 65.


84 posted on 08/09/2018 7:49:15 PM PDT by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

No. No. No. A thousand times: “NO”!


85 posted on 08/09/2018 7:53:07 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam (Have an A-1 day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: minnesota_bound

“Yes and tell him he is fired and that he will be prosecuted for attempting a coup.”

Yep, this is accurate.


86 posted on 08/10/2018 6:46:22 AM PDT by VaeVictis (~Woe to the Conquered~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt

Beat you by 13!


87 posted on 08/10/2018 8:14:49 AM PDT by entropy12 (Trump/Pence 2020)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

trump should not agree to be interviewed by mueller, but rather to sit down and have a “conversation” with him where mueller, too, would be placed under oath. the trump team could draft, in advance, a list of questions that must be answered by mueller. seems only fair to me.


88 posted on 08/10/2018 8:32:16 AM PDT by TheRightGuy (I want MY BAILOUT ... a billion or two should do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

Shucks, I’ll never catch up.
Wear those years proudly & many more.


89 posted on 08/10/2018 8:35:09 AM PDT by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yeah, I would talk to him in two words. F___You!


90 posted on 08/10/2018 8:35:42 AM PDT by dforest (Never let a Muslim cut your hair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: minnesota_bound
Should Trump Voluntarily Talk To Mueller? Yes and tell him he is fired and that he will be prosecuted for attempting a coup.

Best post of the day!

91 posted on 08/10/2018 12:28:38 PM PDT by notaliberal (St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson