UPDATE: Trump says Mueller has not subpoenaed him.
"No," Trump told reporters on the South Lawn when asked if he had received a subpoena from Mueller. The president was departing the White House en route to a campaign rally in Florida.
(...)
One of Trump's attorneys in the Russia investigation, Jay Sekulow, disputed the assertion to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman.
"There has been no subpoena issued and there is no litigation," he said.
Trump's legal team has insisted it will fight any efforts from the special counsel to subpoena the president as part of his investigation.
Rudy Giuliani, the president's lead attorney, argued over the summer that Trump would not have to comply with a subpoena, and said he would fight it up to the Supreme Court if necessary. Such a legal battle would be unprecedented.
(...)
The president told Fox News's Laura Ingraham on Monday that he will "probably" respond to "some" questions from the special counsel's office as part of its investigation.
Giuliani said Monday that Trump's legal team will not share those answers with Mueller until after the Nov. 6 midterm elections.
Trump says he has not received subpoena from Mueller (The Hill)
Since all is relatively quiet right now on the special counsel front, Russia investigation followers are left with plenty of time to mull over what Robert Mueller may be doing behind the scenes. One legal expert makes a compelling argument that the special counsel may have subpoenaed President Trump.
Nelson W. Cunningham has served as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York under Rudy Giuliani, general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee under then-Chair Joe Biden, and general counsel of the White House Office of Administration under Bill Clinton.
Cunningham explains in great detail why he suspects a presidential subpoena is working its way through the courts and then offers the following summary:
We cannot know, from the brief docket entries that are available to us in this sealed case, that the matter involves Trump. But we do know from Politico’s reporting that it involves the special counsel and that the action here was filed the day after [the president's lawyer Rudy] Giuliani noted publicly, “[W]e’re pretty much finished with our memorandum opposing a subpoena.” We know that the district court had ruled in favor of the special counsel and against the witness; that the losing witness moved with alacrity and with authority; and that the judges have responded with accelerated rulings and briefing schedules. We know that Judge [Gregory] Katsas, Trump’s former counsel and nominee, has recused himself. And we know that this sealed legal matter will come to a head in the weeks just after the midterm elections.
If Mueller were going to subpoena the president—and there’s every reason why a careful and thorough prosecutor would want the central figure on the record on critical questions regarding his knowledge and intent—this is just the way we would expect him to do so. Quietly, expeditiously, and refusing to waste the lull in public action demanded by the midterm elections. It all fits.
However, the Associated Press' Justice Department reporter Eric Tucker says the president's other lawyer, Jay Sekulow, says no one currently is fighting a subpoena, and Matthew Miller, a security and justice analyst, points out if the president were facing such a battle, he would not be one to keep it quiet.
Read the full argument: Has Mueller Subpoenaed the President? (Politico Magazine)