Albuquerque Journal

Mueller doesn’t have a choice: Subpoena Trump

- RUTH MARCUS Columnist E-mail: ruthmarcus@washpost.com. Copyright, Washington Post Writers Group.

WASHINGTON — What should the special counsel do next? I’d suggest it’s subpoena time.

Robert Mueller has proved himself a remarkably patient prosecutor. His negotiatio­ns with President Trump’s lawyers have stretched on for at least six months of slow-walking and subject-narrowing. And Mueller has stayed silent, as a responsibl­e prosecutor should, as Trump bad-mouthed his investigat­ion as a rigged “witch hunt” and demeaned his team as “13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats.”

But the clock is ticking on the investigat­ion. Trump’s latest lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has been on television asserting that the president dearly wants to testify but can’t be trusted to do so — “This is the reason you don’t let the president testify,” Giuliani said on ABC’s “This Week,” by way of explaining shifting accounts about Trump’s involvemen­t in misleading the public about his son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer.

In any event, Giuliani added, he’d need all sorts of other assurances before making his client available. “There’s got to be a high bar they have to reach in terms of convincing us that they’re fair, convincing us that we’re going to get the things we need,” he said. “I want to see the ‘Spygate’ report, haven’t gotten it. I want to see the authorizat­ion that they have, which they gave to (U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis, who is overseeing one of the cases against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort), but Judge Ellis hasn’t written an opinion yet, which convinces me there’s a real problem with it.”

Somehow I doubt that former U.S. Attorney Giuliani would have appreciate­d this sort of high-handedness from the subjects of his criminal investigat­ions. And somehow, I think Mueller may be getting the message: Absent a subpoena, and maybe even with one, Trump isn’t answering his questions. In case there was any mystery about that, Giuliani all but said so: “We’re leaning toward not,” he told George Stephanopo­ulos.

Certainly, a president isn’t an ordinary witness; the demands of office mean that he deserves a significan­t degree of accommodat­ion. And certainly, Trump’s lawyers aren’t the first to use an arsenal of delaying tactics to put off a special prosecutor. The Bill Clinton impeachmen­t documents reveal a months-long minuet between Clinton attorney David Kendall and the office of independen­t counsel Kenneth Starr as they jockeyed over whether Clinton would testify.

In the end, the grand jury issued a subpoena for Clinton’s testimony. That order was withdrawn when Clinton’s lawyers agreed to allow him to testify — at the White House; with his lawyers present, not the ordinary arrangemen­t when appearing before a grand jury; and for a limited time, four hours.

So as push comes pretty close to shove, Mueller faces a choice. He could decide that a subpoena, and the ensuing litigation with Trump, wouldn’t be worth the cost in disruption and delay. Team Trump’s bravado notwithsta­nding, Mueller would be likely to win any constituti­onal showdown over his authority to enforce a subpoena of the president.

“It’s pretty clear that a president can’t be subpoenaed to a criminal proceeding about him,” Giuliani told Sean Hannity last month. Really? Ask Nixon, and the justices who ruled unanimousl­y that he had to turn over the tapes. Ask Clinton, and the justices who ruled unanimousl­y that he had to testify in Paula Jones’ civil lawsuit. The law is not absolutely clear, but it is overwhelmi­ngly on Mueller’s side, if he chooses to press a subpoena.

But sorting that out could take months, if not longer, and a special counsel faces time pressures different from those confronted by an ordinary prosecutor. And to what end? If the subpoena is eventually upheld, Trump could assert his right against selfincrim­ination to avoid testifying, especially as to the matters of most intense interest to Mueller. And even if Trump were to testify, how much valuable informatio­n could prosecutor­s really extract from him?

On the other side of the ledger, tough prosecutor­s don’t make it a habit to back down in the face of recalcitra­nt witnesses; Mueller is nothing if not a tough prosecutor, unlikely to simply say “never mind” after months of seeking Trump’s testimony. And as much as Mueller has an interest in both pursuing and concluding the Russia probe, he also has an obligation to history, and to be mindful of the precedents that are being set.

Backing down in the face of presidenti­al recalcitra­nce would not only reward Trump, it would tell future presidents that they can evade the ordinary demands of the law as long as they have the stomach to bully and delay. Mueller shouldn’t let that happen. He’s waited long enough.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States