Trump counsel ask if he must answer at all
PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM ARGUE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY OUTWEIGHS NEED TO TESTIFY
We don’t know what the law is on the intersection between the obstruction statutes and the president exercising his constitutional power to supervise an investigation in the Justice Department.”
Letter by President Trump’s lawyers
President Donald Trump’s lawyers have for months quietly waged a campaign to keep the special counsel from trying to force him to answer questions in the investigation into whether he obstructed justice, asserting that he cannot be compelled to testify and arguing in a confidential letter that he could not possibly have committed obstruction because he has unfettered authority over all federal investigations.
In a brash assertion of presidential power, the 20-page letter — sent to the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and obtained by The New York Times — contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, “if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.”
Trump’s lawyers fear that if he answers questions, either voluntarily or in front of a grand jury, he risks exposing himself to accusations of lying to investigators, a potential crime or impeachable offence.
Intersecting point
Trump’s broad interpretation of executive authority is novel and likely to be tested if a court battle ensues over whether he could be ordered to field questions. A spokesperson for Mueller did not comment.
“We don’t know what the law is on the intersection between the obstruction statutes and the president exercising his constitutional power to supervise an investigation in the Justice Department,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who oversaw the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration. “It’s an open question.”
Hand-delivered to the special counsel’s office in January and written by two of the president’s lawyers at the time, John Dowd and Jay Sekulow, the letter offers a rare glimpse into one side of the high-stakes negotiations over a presidential interview.
Although it is written as a defence of the president, the letter recalls the tangled drama of early 2017 as the new administration dealt with the Russia investigation. It also serves as a reminder that in weighing an obstruction case, Mueller is reviewing actions and conversations involving senior White House officials, including the president, the vice-president and the White House counsel.
The letter also lays out a series of claims that foreshadow a potential subpoena fight that could unfold in the months leading into November’s midterm elections.