I had been searching for the right words to express why I didn’t think President Trump should give an interview to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, but Chris Christie found them. On ABC’s “This Week,” the former New Jersey governor said Trump “should never walk into that room with Robert Mueller.” If he does, Christie suggested, the president’s affinity for the “hyperbolic” could set in, and when dealing with federal agents, “that can send you to jail.” There you have it: an interview could lead to jail.
With the revelation that Trump is not a target but a subject of Mueller’s investigation, the best advice Trump can take is to say less. He will be fine if he freezes the board and keeps everything exactly the way it is. Of course, Trump’s instincts and ego could tell him “I got this” and that he should talk to Mueller. But, as Christie made clear, an interview with the special counsel would be fraught with danger.
Some of Trump’s aides reportedly “fear Mueller could issue a blistering report about the president’s actions.” So what? Trump gets blistered in the media about something every couple of days. Does anyone really think the president would strengthen his position via an interview with Mueller? It is difficult to believe Mueller’s report would be any less blistering if Trump performs like Trump over a few hours on the record with the special counsel. More than anything else, it is likely the president would say the wrong thing or, quite possibly, something that just isn’t true. If that happens, the wheels could really come off.
Trump’s position with Mueller is as good as it is going to get. And, by the way, while it appears Mueller’s probe is running its course, another serious investigation that could entangle Democrats is just getting started. Though it has been largely underreported, the appointment of U.S. Attorney John W. Huber to review matters related to Hillary Clinton is significant. In recent months, as the Post reported, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) “have raised numerous concerns — including the handling of the Clinton email investigation, alleged wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation, the sale of a uranium company to Russia and what some conservatives view as inappropriate surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.” And now, according to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, those issues “fall within the scope of [Huber’s] mandate.” For President Trump, it means Huber’s investigation may supply some of the vindication, and frankly retribution, he has been looking for – all without the appointment of a special counsel.
Making matters worse for Democrats, Huber’s appointment comes in addition to a looming Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on possible malfeasance within the Obama-era FBI and Justice Department. But unlike the Inspector General’s report which will likely be limited to matters only within the Justice Department, Huber’s inquiry will have a much broader reach, with more possible targets and implications.
A Trump interview with Mueller would introduce a new variable at a time when things are actually becoming clearer. This notoriously undisciplined president needs to do all he can to prevent another self-inflicted wound. If he is able to do that, Democrats and their allies in the media would have no choice but to move on from the “fake news” Russian collusion story, and turn some of their attention to the pending inspector general report and the growing Huber investigation. The tables might turn.
Things may be coming to a close for the president, but they just might be getting started for the Democrats. Stay tuned.
