President Donald Trump’s lawyers are considering ways for him to testify before special counsel Robert Mueller, provided the questions he faces are limited in scope and don’t test his recollections in ways they say could unfairly trap him into perjuring himself, a person familiar with his legal team’s thinking said.

Mr. Trump’s legal team is weighing options that include providing written answers to Mr. Mueller’s questions and having the president give limited face-to-face testimony, another person familiar with the matter said. “Everything is on the table,” this person said.

Mr. Mueller is investigating whether Mr. Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 elections and whether the president obstructed justice when he fired former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, who launched the Russia probe.

The president denies his campaign colluded with Moscow and that he obstructed justice; Russia says it didn’t meddle in the campaign.

Mr. Mueller this month secured an indictment against three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens for allegedly engaging in a widespread effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including inventing fake personas on social media and staging rallies with the “strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system.” The indictment didn’t accuse the Trump campaign of assisting that effort.


Lawyers for Mr. Trump hold different views on whether he should testify and under what conditions.

One member of the Trump legal team said Sunday that Mr. Trump’s testimony could set a bad precedent for future presidents, eroding their powers.

This person also questioned whether an interview is necessary given all the information that the White House has shared with Mr. Mueller.

Mr. Mueller’s office, the member of the legal team said, “has all of the notes and memos of the thoughts and actions of this president on all subjects he requested in real time without reservation or qualification, including testimony from his most intimate staff and eight lawyers from the White House Counsel’s Office. Any question for the president is answered in these materials and testimony.”

This person added that, “It would be a travesty to waste his (Mr. Trump’s) time and to set a precedent which would cripple a future president.”


If Mr. Trump’s legal team offers an interview under specific terms, it is unclear whether Mr. Mueller would agree; Mr. Mueller’s office declined to comment.

“The sooner they make the president available to submit to an interview, the faster that Bob Mueller can get to the finish line and be over and done,” said Robert Ray, who served as independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation that examined former President Bill Clinton’s conduct.

Negotiations could break down should Mr. Mueller insist on conditions Mr. Trump finds unacceptable, and the president’s lawyers are prepared to launch a court fight to shield him from testifying, people familiar with the matter said.

Both sides have leverage they can use, legal experts say.


A subpoena from Mr. Mueller compelling Mr. Trump to testify could increase pressure on the president to answer questions.

When it comes to the Russia investigation, the word "Collusion" gets thrown around a lot. But there's not a lot of clarity on what it actually means. Is it illegal? Is it grounds for impeachment? We asked a law professor to explain. Photo Illustration: Drew Evans/The Wall Street Journal.

“The American people really want him to cooperate with this investigation,” said Alberto Gonzales, who was attorney general under former President George W. Bush.

Newsletter Sign-Up Capital Journal Scoops, analysis and insights driving Washington from the WSJ's D.C. bureau. Subscribe Now

Should Mr. Trump face a subpoena, he could try to quash it, setting in motion a lengthy legal proceeding that could deprive Mr. Mueller of an interview any time soon. Guy Lewis, a former U.S. attorney in Florida who has worked with Mr. Mueller in the past, said, “If that’s not two years of delay and litigation, up and back to the Supreme Court, then I don’t know what is.”

To avoid a protracted court fight, Mr. Mueller might prefer to strike an agreement on the interview’s scope, he said. “You’re playing chess here, and both sides are smart chess players,” Mr. Lewis said.


Whether Mr. Trump winds up talking to Mr. Mueller is one of many lingering questions surrounding the Russia investigation, which has shadowed this presidency from the start.

The probe’s latest turn came Friday when Richard Gates, a former Trump campaign aide previously indicted by Mr. Mueller, pleaded guilty to two charges, making him the fifth person to publicly admit to criminal misconduct, and the third Trump associate to cooperate with Mr. Mueller’s team.

For Mr. Trump, an interview would pose risks, with the president facing skilled prosecutors, armed with documents and witness testimony, who have shown they are willing to indict people on perjury charges. Mr. Trump is a freewheeling conversationalist, an instinct that proved advantageous on the campaign trail but could be unsuited to a legal setting. Still, Mr. Trump is no stranger to litigation, having given depositions tied to his career as a private businessman.

“As a lawyer, what I would want to get a sense of is how careful my client is going to be when responding to questions,” Mr. Gonzales said. “If I’m totally confident that this person can be careful in saying no more than needs to be said, I might let my client go ahead and testify.”

If Mr. Trump were to face detailed questions involving dates and times, his legal team may be reluctant to have him participate, the person familiar with his team’s thinking said. As an example, this person said, general questions about what the president was thinking when he ordered the firing of Mr. Comey might be acceptable, as opposed to what action he took on a specific date and time.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump have studied a 1997 federal court ruling from the 1990s that could be the basis for delaying or limiting the scope of an interview, or perhaps avoiding one altogether. In that 1997 case, a federal appeals court ruled that presidents and their closest advisers enjoy protections against having to disclose information about their decision-making process or official actions.

Legal experts say Mr. Trump’s attorneys can use the case as leverage in talks with Mr. Mueller.

“If it were exclusively a legal judgment, no one would ever do it, but there’s a political aspect to this,” Mr. Ray said.

Write to Peter Nicholas at peter.nicholas@wsj.com