Trump Jr. stated on “Fox and Friends” that “I wouldn’t do it. I think it would be stupid.” He added
“I don’t think any proper lawyer would say, ‘Hey, you should go do it,’ because it’s not about collusion anymore.’ It’s about, ‘Can we get him to say something that may be interpreted as somewhat off or inaccurate, and after 50,000 questions, maybe you make a mistake, and that’s how we get you, and that’s ridiculous.”
Putting aside the towering irony in the advice on stupid meetings, the President’s legal team has been split on the issue because the refusal could well lead to a subpoena fight that Trump would lose. He would have create bad precedent and the image of being forced to answer questions — thereby fueling narratives of obstruction and the appearance of guilt. The question is what will be achieved and at what cost. It is possible to prep a witness, including Trump, for such an interview if there is an agreement on well-defined areas of questioning.
In the end, there are clearly good reasons not to go to the interview, which is without question a risk. However, lawyers often opt for advising witnesses from not taking the stand or going into such interviews. You cannot be blamed for something that goes wrong if you advice against taking any risk at all. However, there is a failure to consider how this would playout in the various scenarios. Precisely the failure that led to the Trump tower meeting.