“Hard to obstruct justice … for a crime that never happened”

In another tweet Tuesday, Mr. Trump suggested that the Mueller team’s questions related to obstruction of justice — for example, those related to his reasons for firing former FBI Director James Comey, his contemplation of firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and his reported efforts to get former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn off the hook for his own lies under oath — are invalid if they were not related to an underlying crime.

For starters, it’s simply not true that obstruction of justice has to be related to something that is, itself, a crime. Republicans used to be quite clear on that point, back when President Bill Clinton lied under oath about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, an act that was itself perfectly legal.

It is also perfectly clear at this point that actual crimes were committed. The Mueller team has secured several guilty pleas, some for lying to investigators but others related to fraud and money laundering. Beyond that, the list of questions related to conspiracy with Russia (see above) shows that the door is by no means closed on finding additional criminal conduct by Mr. Trump’s associates, if not the president himself.

Many observers — both those who are on Mr. Trump’s side and those who aren’t — have described Mr. Mueller as seeking to lure President Trump into making false statements under oath. The reasoning is that the president is such a habitual liar, so prone to say whatever comes to mind and so unaccustomed to preparing himself for depositions that he would be all but guaranteed to get himself into trouble. Trump supporter Allan Dershowitz outlined to The Post what he figures is Mr. Mueller’s strategy based on the published questions: “throw him softballs so that he will go on and on with his answers. Instead of sharp questions designed to elicit yes or no, they make him feel very comfortable and let him ramble.”

Let’s pause for a moment and reflect on the accepted wisdom that the current president of the United States can’t be expected to tell the truth. But let’s also acknowledge that many of these questions involve a simple effort to follow up on things the president himself has said — for example, what he meant when he told Russian diplomats in the Oval Office that firing Mr. Comey had relieved a great deal of pressure or when he told NBC News anchor Lester Holt that the firing was because of the “Russia thing.” These are not trick questions. They are not evidence that Mr. Mueller has strayed far afield. They are basic attempts to get to the bottom of what he knew, when he knew it and what he meant by his contradictory explanations for his actions. We should expect a president to be able to answer them.