USA TODAY International Edition
Our view: No obstruction? No collusion? So why not testify?
In a purely legal sense, the disclosure that President Trump repaid his attorney for $130,000 in hush money given to porn actress Stormy Daniels is rather picayune. The crime that Trump would have committed, if in fact there was a crime, is failing to report what could be construed as a campaign contribution from his personal account.
But in a larger sense, the disclosure made by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday night, and confirmed by Trump tweets on Thursday morning, is monumental. A president admitting that he lied as recently as last month, when he denied knowing anything about the payment, further undermines his credibility at a time when special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is reaching a crucial juncture.
Mueller wants to ask the president about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 presidential election. The Daniels disclosure exposes Trump’s willingness to lie publicly about pending legal matters. (Presumably, he is coming clean now because he knows that information seized by authorities from attorney Michael Cohen will reveal the Daniels-related reimbursements.) That only reinforces the urgent need to have him testify under oath in the Russia matter.
If Trump declines to appear voluntarily, he should be subpoenaed. Nothing brings out the truth like testifying under oath before a criminal grand jury.
It was under such circumstances that President Clinton finally admitted to what he called “inappropriate intimate contact” with a former intern after denying it publicly for months.
And it is under such circumstances that Mueller — and by extension the American people — will get to the bottom of the Russia matter.
Arguing that Trump is immune from subpoenas is a non-starter.
In the landmark 1997 case Clinton v. Jones, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that a sitting president has no such immunity in a civil lawsuit brought by a third party pertaining to events before his presidency. The chance that the justices would take the opposite stance in a federal criminal probe is, to put it mildly, remote.
If anything, given the fact that Mueller’s investigation gets at issues vital to Americans’ faith in democratic institutions, the court would be more likely to rule against Trump.
The best that his team could hope for is a ruling shielding Trump from testimony in his firing of FBI Director James Comey and other events that occurred after he took office. That’s cold comfort because much of Mueller’s inquiry involves actions taken before Trump took office.
The Russia probe was not initiated to accommodate Trump’s interests and schedule, and testifying ought to be in the president’s interest.
After all, he repeatedly claims that there was no collusion and no obstruction of justice. If that is the case, Trump could help establish that as fact. Making this claim at campaign-style rallies does not advance his argument one bit.
He also repeatedly urges Mueller to wind up his investigation. That won’t happen before the special counsel interviews the president.
Trump could, of course, invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. But that would undermine his argument that the Russia investigation is a witch hunt. It would also be a pretty good argument that he isn’t faithfully executing his oath of office.
Trump defenders say a presidential testimony would be a legal minefield. The only honest answer to that is: Yes, it would be, and that is the point.