Trump would be a fool to talk to Mueller

There’s no evidence at this point that the Trump campaign actively coordinated with the Russian government during the 2016 election cycle. There’s evidence that campaign officials were willing to do so; that isn’t the same as actually doing so. There’s certainly no evidence that President Donald Trump was personally aware of such coordination.

Trump suspects that the Mueller investigation is merely a way to undo his victory. Perhaps that’s true; perhaps it isn’t.

Regardless, Trump would be a fool to make himself available to Mueller’s investigation for an interview on the Russia probe.

Legally speaking, Trump’s real legal jeopardy comes not from charges of collusion, but from potential charges of obstruction of justice or perjury/lying to the FBI.

As UCLA professor of law Eugene Volokh has pointed out, it would probably not be criminal for Hillary Clinton to have gathered opposition informa- tion on Trump via a foreign source, either.

Based on the evidence we’ve seen so far, obstruction of justice is a dicey proposition. For justice to be obstructed, there must be (1) obstruction of a pending judicial proceeding, which we have not seen yet, (2) a “substantial step” toward obstruction of an “official proceeding,” which again lacks evidence, or (3) destruction of evidence.

The firing of FBI Director James Comey isn’t obstruction; the president can fire people who work for him. His tweets aren’t obstruction; again, the FBI investigation has continued.

The only way Trump can be caught in an obstruction charge is if he spills something to special counsel Robert Mueller.

Then there’s the problem of perjury or lying to the FBI. If Trump agrees to be interviewed, his big mouth might lead him to vague, bloviating language that could open that door.