Bert’s Opinion

The New York Times on May 1st, 2018 released 49 questions to be posed by the Special Counsel to President Trump at an oral examination, presumably under oath. They cover an exhaustive array of subjects calculated to determine whether the President, or his team, obstructed a legal inquiry, or, did he or his team collude with the Russians to interfere with our 2016 election. The questions are open-ended calculated to provoke follow-ups aimed at uncovering his motivation when he fired Michael Flynn, the National Security Advisor, and James B. Comey, the FBI Director. While such things as motivation might appear irrelevant, under the law and decided cases, the President’s intention goes to the heart of impeachable offenses. So, if he malevolently fired either to curtail the investigation, that would constitute a federal crime or an impeachable offense. Similarly, if there is direct evidence that he or his team colluded with the Russians, as shown by the June 16th,2016 meeting with a Russian informant, or directly by hacking, and so tainted the electorate via Facebook and Twitter, as our intelligence services have proved, that is a well-known federal crime.

Now, one might wonder why would Special Counsel give to the President the questions beforehand to be surely answered by legal counsel, given that he offered several times to appear in person to testify? My opinion is that his legal team would never permit him to testify under oath directly and the Mueller team knew and counted on that, since the Mueller team already knew the answers to most or all of the questions. The Special Counsel knows that the President will surely refuse, thus requiring a Grand Jury subpoena which the President’s lawyers will move to quash in Federal Court. That should result in an opinion mandating the interrogation which will similarly be appealed and fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. So those questions will help to persuade the appellate courts of the extra-ordinary constitutional issues presented for their opinion. At that point, we may well learn, as in the Paula Jones/ Bill Clinton case from 1978, that the Supreme Court will probably mandate an in-person interrogation. At that point, my prediction is that the President might well resign rather than face his interrogators. That would be a fitting end to a disastrous Trump presidency