In a Trump hunt, beware the perjury trap
Asked if he would agree to be interviewed by Robert Mueller's team, President Donald Trump told the White House press corps, "I would love to do it ... as soon as possible. ... under oath, absolutely."
On hearing this, the special counsel's office must have looked like the Eagles' locker room after the 38-7 rout of the Vikings put them in the Super Bowl.
If the president's legal team lets Trump sit for hours answering Mueller's agents, they should be disbarred for malpractice.
For what Mueller is running here is not, as Trump suggests, a "witch hunt." It is a Trump hunt.
After 18 months investigating Trumpian "collusion" with Putin's Russia in hacking the DNC's and John Podesta's emails, the FBI has hit a stone wall. Failing to get Trump for collusion, the fallback position is to charge him with obstruction of justice. As a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, the tactic is understandable.
Mueller's problem: He has no perjury charge to go with it. And the heart of his obstruction case, Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner.
Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets.
The first draft of Comey's statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17 witnesses, and Hillary, were even interviewed.
Comey's initial draft charged Clinton with "gross negligence," the requirement for indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent drafts to read, "extreme carelessness."
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.