Why Did Special Counsel Mueller Decide Not to Interview President Trump?
When Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller made the decision not to interview President Donald Trump during his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, it was a strategic move informed by several factors, primarily centered around the legal and ethical implications of conducting such an interview. This article delves into the rationale behind this decision, examining legal advice, the potential for perjury, and the practical considerations of the investigation.
Legal Advice and Perjury Concerns
A key consideration for Mueller and his team was the potential for President Trump to perjure himself during the interview. John Dowd, Trump's personal attorney, was certain that Trump would perjure himself if compelled to testify. In Bob Woodward's book Fear: Trump in the White House, Dowd argues that Trump would not testify because he would lie under oath.
The fear of perjury is a serious concern in legal proceedings. The legal profession is bound by the rule of professional ethics, which emphasizes the importance of honesty and truthfulness. As John Dowd stated, when the police or a prosecutor wants to interview someone suspected of a crime, a lawyer's advice to their client is to avoid self-incrimination. This is a fundamental principle in the legal system to protect individuals from the possibility of being convicted based on untruthful statements made under pressure or coercion.
Congressional Testimony and Practical Considerations
Another reason behind the decision not to interview Trump was the practical time constraints and the likelihood of a protracted legal battle. During the Congressional hearings, Trump's refusal to testify was attributed to these factors. He stated that the reasons for not testifying were time constraints, as he would have faced potential legal challenges from the White House.
When Special Counsel Mueller issued a subpoena for Trump's testimony, the White House responded by invoking the President's privilege to withhold documents and testimony. This raised the prospect of an extended legal battle, which would have delayed the investigation and potentially undermined its effectiveness.
Compulsive Lying and Legal Protection
Trump's history of compulsive lying, as documented in numerous media and political reports, also played a role in the decision. His lawyers, aware of his tendency to speak without thinking and to lie frequently, correctly forbade him from participating in an interview where his statements might be inconsistent with his known behavior. Instead, Trump was provided with written questions, which he often refused to answer.
Trump's willingness to lie has been well-documented, and his inability to speak the truth has been a recurring theme throughout his political career. This behavior is not just a matter of personal misconduct but can have significant legal implications, especially when it comes to providing truthful information to a legal investigation. Protecting a client from the potential consequences of perjury is a crucial role of legal counsel.
Conclusion
The decision of Special Counsel Mueller not to interview President Trump was rooted in a careful consideration of legal principles, practical constraints, and the ethical implications of allowing a president to lie under oath. While Trump's refusal to testify was attributed to time constraints and obstructionist tactics, it also reflects a recognition of the risks associated with a potential perjurious statement from a compulsive liar.
Understanding these factors provides insight into the complex nature of legal investigations and the critical role that legal counsel plays in protecting their clients from self-harm. As the Mueller investigation and related legal battles continue, it will be essential to monitor these aspects to gain a comprehensive understanding of the process and its outcomes.