- The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly in discussions with the White House over an eventual interview with President Donald Trump in the ongoing probe into alleged meddling by the Russian government in the 2016 presidential election. 

Whether President Trump will submit to a face-to-face interview or will submit answers to questions in writing has yet to be determined, negotiated or decided by the Supreme Court - there are legitimate separation of powers issues at play here, after all. 

Regardless of the method of delivery of Trump’s testimony in the Russia probe, one wonders if Mueller will give Trump the same level of deference and advantage his pal James Comey provided Hillary Clinton in his investigation into the former Secretary of State’s use of a non-secure, private email server to store top secret national security documents. 

If there is any justice in the proceedings, we expect Mueller to give Trump the Hillary treatment: 

No recording devices. When investigators for Mueller interview the president there should be no recording devices and the investigators should only take written notes during the interview. Yes, this will make it harder to prove if Trump provides false information to his inquisitors, but this is the Comey/Hillary standard

No sworn oath. Trump should not have to swear an oath to tell the truth. This was the practice with Hillary. We’ve been told that telling a lie to a federal investigator is a crime whether under oath or not, but it’s pretty hard to prove that lie if you’re only going from your notes, but we repeat ourselves.

Have a pro-Trump toady conduct the questioning. If there is a pro-Trump version of partisan hack Peter Strzok he should be the one to serve up softballs to Trump. Strzok was caught texting his girlfriend about how awesome Hillary was, how much he hated Trump and how he needed to work with his pals at Obama’s DOJ to get an “insurance policy” in case Trump was elected. Then, he put down his phone, took a break from his sexy political texts with his gal pal and interviewed Hillary about her emails. It’s doubtful Mueller has hired anyone who would be that blatantly favorable to Trump, but he hired Strzok so anything is possible. 

Have a conclusion exonerating Trump already written months before the interview takes place. I know, it sounds ridiculous and like a bastardization of justice and even the essence of what an investigation is supposed to be in a country that is not a corrupt banana republic. But, again, the Comey/Hillary standard is at play. 

Deliver your conclusions on criminal wrong-doing within days of interviewing Trump. No need to compare his answers against the months of testimony you’ve gathered from those around him. No need to circle back and see if any of the stories don’t corroborate with the facts. No need to see if Trump or his associates have given false or misleading statements. Nope. Interview him so you can check that box off the to-do list and then announce Trump’s innocence. That’s how Comey rolls.

None of these practices would seem kosher in a typical episode of Law & Order let alone a federal investigation into serious issues like a breach of national security, but this is how the American people understand these things go down when The Swamp investigates itself. Comey oversaw the Clinton email investigation and his integrity and practices are unassailable, we are told.

OK. Fine. Now Mueller must follow his lead and apply his methods to Trump. 

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide