When the news broke on Tuesday that Robert Mueller, the special counsel in charge of the Russia investigation, aims to interview President Donald Trump in the coming weeks, some observers considered it a bombshell.

I think we're going to need a bigger cannon https://t.co/hnHrXOnpWn — Ruth Marcus (@RuthMarcus) January 23, 2018

Oh, it is on https://t.co/iLlMEUlQxj — Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) January 23, 2018

It’s no small matter when a federal prosecutor formally questions a president. That the president is a habitual liar raises the stakes. That his inquisitor is a meticulous investigator and former FBI director raises them even higher.



Synchronize your watches: Donald Trump will commit perjury in... https://t.co/bUxYWh7q1w — Matt Ortega (@MattOrtega) January 23, 2018

But we always knew this news was coming. Both Trump’s campaign and his early presidency are at the center of the Russia investigation. Even without any suspicion of wrongdoing on his part, it’d be a strange oversight for Mueller not to interview the man sitting atop those structures. He also won’t be the first president to find himself on the opposite side of a prosecutor. Bill Clinton, for example, testified before a grand jury in 1998 during independent counsel Ken Starr’s sprawling Whitewater probe. Clinton’s lies under oath about the extent of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, eventually culminated in his impeachment.



Recognizing this potential risk, Trump’s lawyers have signaled through the press that they want Mueller to grant some concessions for his interview with the president. The Washington Post reported Tuesday that they’re seeking a combination of oral and written answers to the special counsel’s questions, an arrangement that could shield him from falling into what Trump confidante Roger Stone called a “perjury trap.” Whether Mueller will agree to those terms, as with so many things about the special counsel’s probe, is unclear.

The initial reports suggest that Mueller’s focus for the interview centers on whether Trump obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James Comey. Firing an FBI director to hinder criminal probes into your election’s legitimacy or to shield a political ally from prosecution is obstruction of justice. It would be an attack on the American rule of law, a criminal offense, and an impeachable act. And most legal scholars agree there’s a good chance Trump may have committed it under current federal law.