What Would Bill Clinton Do?
As Robert Mueller’s “investigation into Trump/Russia collusion” drags on interminably, America is forced to witness a parade of pathetic attempts by Mr. Mueller to justify his multimillion dollar budget (5 million in the first FIVE months according to Greg Price, Newsweek, December 1, 2017, and now is likely well over 15 million). While his indictments of Paul Manafort and George Popadopoulus have been hailed by liberals as “victories”, it must be pointed out that the actual charges rendered against both men have NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIAN COLLUSION. Likewise, more recently, Attorney Alex van der Zwaan was indicted on false testimony charges (NOT any type of “collusion”) and has been sentenced to 1 month in jail. This type of prosecution is not carried out for a crime, per se, but rather “false statements” during an investigation, and the purported “falsity” of the statements often hinges on dubious interpretations of prior communications or documents. This technique is a prosecutorial strategy pioneered by none other than James (“lordy!”) Comey against that notorious criminal Martha Stewart (see my previous post: The Martha Stewart Treatment, 2/9/18) and has been termed “vindictive” by the New York Times and “prosecutorial misconduct” by a number of respected legal authorities. Dubious as this strategy is, however, it has since been employed a number of times by the Obama era “weaponized” DOJ. Similar tactics were also used by Mueller against Trump campaign aid Rick Gates, but in Gate’s case, Mueller has since dropped charges of tax evasion in return for Gates’ cooperation with the collusion investigation.
In addition to these “trumped up” (pun NOT intended) prosecutions, other peculiar goings on continue. Most recently, Mueller made it known through his assistants that President Trump was not considered a “target” of the investigation. The implication is, of course, that Trump has nothing to fear from Mueller and, therefore, has no reason to avoid an “interview”. This is designed, obviously, to put more pressure on Trump to testify. Professor Alan Dershowitz has called the “not a target” term a “magic code word” that’s good news for the President. I disagree with the respected Harvard professor, however. I believe it is a TRAP. Even if it IS true that Mr. TRUMP isn’t a “target” at the present time (an unlikely proposition at best, since attacking Mr. Trump is the raison d’être for the whole investigation; Mueller doesn’t give a HOOT what Russia has or has not done, but as a close friend of fired James Comey, would surely love to bury Trump by any method available), Mr. Trump could BECOME a “target” at any time. If Mueller really believed that President Trump was not a target and would not become a target, he could, at any point, offer Mr. Trump full immunity for his testimony. This he has not done.
Given the lack of any evidence for Trump/Russia collusion from over a YEAR of INTENSE investigation by an extremely motivated and partisan anti-Trump investigative team, it would appear that Mueller’s only hope for any kind of success would be some type of obstruction of justice charge. This could be cobbled together from James Comey’s ambiguous comments regarding his conversations with Mr. Trump, taken together with Mr. Trump’s own contradictory tweets on the matter. The whole thing will NOT hinge on the legality of Comey’s firing (it IS legally within the purview of the President to hire or fire an FBI Director at his discretion) but rather on Trump’s own MOTIVATION for doing so. When questioned about Comey’s firing, the correct response from Mr. Trump SHOULD have been: “Why did I fire Director Comey? I fired him because Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reccomended his dismissal and I acted on his advice.” NOT, as Trump tweeted: “I would have fired him anyway.” Because of these ill advised and contradictory responses on the part of Mr. Trump, Mueller MAY have a “path” to an obstruction of justice charge, and is, in all likelihood, pursing just that at present. Accordingly, in an interview with President Trump, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Mueller can trick him into supporting the narrative that James Comey was fired by Mr. Trump IN ORDER TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, which MAY be construed, by some, as a crime.
So, my feeling is that there is NOTHING Mr. Trump can say during a Mueller “interview” to help his cause, but there IS a lot he can say to make himself more vulnerable. So, Mr. Trump should ask himself, in deference to a master prevaricator of yesteryear:…. “What would Bill Clinton do?” Although Bill Clinton was, ultimately, impeached over his Monica Lewinsky testimony (“I did not have sex with that woman.”), he was able to deflect approximately a dozen other charges and scandals during his tenure (remember his nicknames “Slick Willie” and “Teflon Bill”) mostly by IGNORING them. So, Trump’s strategy, at this point, should be “mum’s the word.” And then, after declining Mueller’s gracious request for a tête-à-tête, he should invite Stormy Daniels over for dinner. (It’d be much SAFER).