Loading ...This doesn’t mean they’re afraid the president will not be truthful when interviewed, but only that his recollection of an event or a conversation will differ from that of others whom Mueller has interviewed, or even differ from documentation in Mueller’s possession…
The special counsel has threatened that he will subpoena Trump, and one of the president’s lawyers has said he would defy a subpoena. This would set off a legal and constitutional controversy that could go on for a considerable period, eventually reach the Supreme Court, and still not resolve any of the questions about Russia collusion or obstruction of justice. It’s a dream scenario for the resistance…
It’s true that a prosecutor, as the saying goes, can “get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich,” but this case is different. If Mueller has substantial evidence against the president he will proceed with an indictment in any event, and there is nothing the president might tell him in an interview that will change that. But if, as many suspect, Mueller has nothing that has not already been made public, indicting a sitting president on that basis would be a huge and career-ending embarrassment for him and his team.
From the president’s perspective, a “fish-or-cut bait” challenge to Mueller would have one major benefit. It would bring pressure on Mueller, after more than a year of investigation, to make a choice: either to seek an indictment or issue a report that clears the president of criminally culpable activity.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/13/the_president_can_end_the_standoff_with_mueller_137032.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sponsored&utm_campaign=RCPCC