Special counsel warns he may subpoena president
ROBERT MUELLER, the special counsel investigating whether Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia, has raised the possibility he could subpoena the US president to testify before a grand jury.
Mr Mueller issued the threat during a tense meeting with Mr Trump’s lawyers in March, saying he would carry it out if the president did not agree to be interviewed voluntarily.
It marked an escalation of the Russia probe and raised the extraordinary prospect of a sitting president being forced to give evidence under oath.
Were Mr Trump to refuse a subpoena it could provoke a legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court, potentially leading to a constitutional crisis over the limits of presidential power.
Last night, Mr Trump appeared to signal a confrontational approach amid reports he would hire Emmet Flood, a lawyer who represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment proceedings.
Mr Flood will replace Ty Cobb, whose retirement was announced by the White House moments after he suggested in a television interview that a voluntary interview may take place. The White House said Mr Cobb had informed them of his retirement plan last week.
Meanwhile, Mr Trump lambasted the idea of him being subpoenaed as a “witch hunt”, adding he had the “unfettered power to fire anyone” under the constitution.
John Dowd, Mr Trump’s lead lawyer at the time of the meeting in March but has since resigned, confirmed Mr Mueller had given the subpoena warning.
Mr Dowd said he himself responded to Mr Mueller’s team: “This isn’t some game. You are screwing with the work of the president of the United States.”
Following the meeting, Mr Mueller’s team agreed to provide the president’s lawyers with specific information they wanted to ask him about in an interview.
If Mr Trump were to take the battle against a subpoena to the Supreme Court precedent is not on his side. During Watergate the court ordered Richard Nixon to hand over White House tapes. Mr Nixon resigned weeks later.
In 1998 Bill Clinton fought a subpoena issued in a civil case brought by Paula Jones, but the Supreme Court ruled he had to answer it and testify. (© Daily Telegraph, London)