DONALD Trump’s former lawyer has said that the Russia investigation team has considered ordering a grand jury subpoena to compel the president to testify.
Lawyer John Dowd alleged that special counsel Robert Mueller’s team broached the subject in March during a meeting with Trump’s legal team while they were negotiating the terms of a possible interview with the president.
The meeting marked the first time the special counsel’s office raised the possibility of compelling Trump to testify as part of the ongoing investigation.
Mueller is examining Russian meddling in the 2016 election, whether Trump’s campaign was involved and if the president obstructed justice after the campaign.
Dowd’s comments come more than a month after he resigned from the legal team, and they provide fresh insight into the nature of the Trump legal team’s interactions with the special counsel, who the president has increasingly tried to undermine through public attacks.
On Tuesday, Trump said it was “disgraceful” that a list of proposed questions drafted by his lawyers, in response to negotiations with Mueller’s team, were “leaked” to the media.
Late on Monday, The New York Times published around four dozen of these questions.
The newspaper report said Trump’s lawyers compiled the questions into a list and that document was “provided to The Times by a person outside Mr Trump’s legal team”.
The questions range from Trump’s motivations for firing FBI director James Comey last year to links between the president’s campaign and Russia.
Although Mueller’s team has indicated to Trump’s lawyers that he is not considered a target, investigators remain interested in whether the president’s actions constitute obstruction of justice and want to interview him about several episodes in office. They have not yet made a decision about an interview.
In one question obtained by the New York Times, Mueller asks what Trump knew about campaign staff, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, reaching out to Moscow.
Mueller has brought several charges against Manafort already, including money laundering and bank fraud.
None of the charges relate to allegations of Russian election interference and possible coordination with Trump associates. Manafort, meanwhile, has denied having any involvement in organising such an effort.
The queries also relate to discussions Trump may have had regarding “any meeting with Mr Putin”, referring to the Russian president, Vladimir.
Another question asks what the president may have known about a possible attempt by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to set up a back channel with Russia before Trump’s inauguration.
Many of the questions obtained by the Times centre on the obstruction issue including his reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from the Russia investigation, a decision Trump has angrily criticised.
Trump’s businesses are also mentioned, including discussions with his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, about a possible Moscow real estate deal.
Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow declined to comment, as did White House lawyer Ty Cobb.
On Twitter, the president said that there were “no questions on Collusion” and, not for the first time, called Mueller’s investigation a “Russian witch hunt”.
He said collusion with the Russians “never existed”.
In a second tweet, Trump added: “It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here