[National Review] Let’s say I’m an assistant United States attorney in, oh I don’t know, Montana. I get to work one morning and I say to myself, "Self, you know what would be really interesting? Why, to ask Barack Obama some questions." Sure, there are a lot of people who’d like to do that ‐ Obama’s a very interesting guy. But see, I’m not just "a lot of people." I’m a federal prosecutor, just like Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Thanks to this nifty federal grand jury we’ve empaneled here in Montana, I’ve got subpoena power, just like Mueller. Let’s back up a bit. After my weekend column, it occurred to me that a hypothetical was in order, to demonstrate the sorts of things a self-absorbed, unrestrained prosecutor can do.
My column argued not only that President Trump should refuse to be questioned by Mueller’s alpha-prosecutors, but that it would be wrong for Mueller to seek to interview the president of the United States unless he can first show cause that (1) a serious crime implicating the president has been committed and (2) the president is possessed of testimony that is both essential to proving the crime and unobtainable by alternative means. In response, some commentators who were sympathetic to this standard wondered how it would be enforced.