Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Giuliani: Mueller can interview Trump if he can prove the president committed a crime

Trump’s lawyers keep stalling — and are waging their PR battle against Mueller in the meantime.

President Trump Holds Rally In Great Falls, Montana
President Trump Holds Rally In Great Falls, Montana
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Jen Kirby
Jen Kirby is a senior foreign and national security reporter at Vox, where she covers global instability.

Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, is again playing hardball with special counsel Robert Mueller — and it’s looking even less likely that the president will sit down for an interview with Mueller’s team.

The New York Times’s Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman reported that Giuliani is setting new terms for the interview: Mueller must show evidence that Donald Trump committed a crime and that an interview is necessary, or forget it. Trump’s legal team is also insisting Mueller prove that he exhausted all other avenues and that he has no choice but to interview the president.

“If they can come to us and show us the basis and that it’s legitimate and that they have uncovered something, we can go from there and assess their objectivity,” Giuliani told the Times.

The prospect of sitting for an interview with Robert Mueller has gotten increasingly fraught since the president shook up his legal team months ago, bringing on former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Emmet T. Flood, who represented Bill Clinton in his impeachment. Both embarked on a more combative, aggressive approach toward the Russia investigation compared to the more cooperative stance favored by his former attorneys.

Giuliani has shifted the terms (and deadline) of a Trump-Mueller interview more than once since joining Trump’s legal team. Giuliani had said in May that he was working with the special counsel to narrow the scope of the investigation, and that no decisions would be made until after Trump’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The summit came and went, and the deadline was pushed to July 4.

The delays on the Mueller interview are part of Team Trump’s attempts to sway public opinion

As the back-and-forth over the Trump interview continues, Giuliani is waging a PR campaign against Mueller and the investigation that’s been echoed in his boss’s Twitter feed. According to the latest Times report, this seems to be the crux of the strategy — delay until the midterms and damage the investigation’s credibility. (It may also force Mueller to subpoena Trump — which will set off a protracted, likely messy, court battle.)

Trump’s lawyers have suggested Mueller will abide by Department of Justice guidance that says a sitting president can’t be indicted — which would mean Mueller’s most likely option is a written report, which could make its way to Congress. If such a report is damning against Trump, and if Democrats retake the House of Representatives in the fall, the chance of impeachment increases. But if the public can be convinced, that, as the president says, that the special counsel’s investigation is a total “WITCH HUNT,” lawmakers might be more leery of taking on the president.

“Nobody is going to consider impeachment if public opinion has concluded this is an unfair investigation, and that’s why public opinion is so important,” Giuliani told the Times.

Giuliani, Trump, and his allies in Congress have done their best to discredit Mueller. Giuliani played up the debunked “Spygate” conspiracy — that the FBI planted a spy on the Trump campaign — admitting last month that the drama was conjured up “for public opinion.” The House of Representatives is waging war against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — Mueller’s boss — sanctioning him on the House floor for failing to turn over requested documented about the investigation.

The war against Mueller has shown some signs of working. A Politico/Morning Consult poll in June put Mueller’s favorability at just 32 percent. More people — 36 percent — had an unfavorable opinion of Mueller than a favorable one. Opinions have dipped sharply among Republicans, too: According to that same poll, 53 percent of Republicans viewed Mueller unfavorably, up from 27 percent in July 2017, according to Politico.

The Times also pointed to a Washington Post-Schar School poll, published Friday, that put Mueller’s approval rating at just 49 percent among all adults — though it reached 52 percent among registered voters. A total of 45 percent of adults disapproved of Mueller.

See More:

More in Politics

Politics
The rise of the progressive billionaire candidateThe rise of the progressive billionaire candidate
Politics

Why some on the left are feeling warmly toward Tom Steyer and other very wealthy contenders.

By Andrew Prokop
Politics
Mifepristone survives another Supreme Court scare — for nowMifepristone survives another Supreme Court scare — for now
Politics

Only Thomas and Alito publicly dissented.

By Ian Millhiser
Podcasts
Why the anti-abortion movement is disappointed in TrumpWhy the anti-abortion movement is disappointed in Trump
Podcast
Podcasts

Trump helped overturn Roe. Anti-abortion advocates still aren’t happy.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
A year of Trump is backfiring on the religious rightA year of Trump is backfiring on the religious right
Politics

Americans don’t really want “Christian nationalism.”

By Christian Paz
Politics
The real reason Americans hate the economy so muchThe real reason Americans hate the economy so much
Politics

Did decades of low inflation make the public far more unforgiving when it finally did surge?

By Andrew Prokop
Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram