not the obstruction. nixon didn't leave office because he obstructed justice. he got caught in a final lie that lost his support and so he packed it in and left. but there are hints of a pattern here where he keeps doing things that i think in the non federal criminal law sense, rather in the impeachment territory, could result in obstruction which is a very different standard than the criminal law standard. >> matt, what do you think of that? why isn't this obstruction? >> well, first of all, several of the acts are constitutionally permitted, you know, his conversation with james comey about the mike flynn investigation and together with firing of director comey, those are both well within his power of the executive. these asking the dni and the -- and others to sort of support him and to publicly state that, you know, that he hasn't -- there was no collusion, i think is just, you know, his pattern of he doesn't believe he did anything wrong. you heard that in the clip from earlier in the show that he just is -- i'm sure he's flabbergasted at this point in ti

there's no legal basis for obstruction.hat means the destroy-trump-media, which has been hyperventilating, they've been completely wrong. watch this coverage. >> when you say there is a obstruction case here, who is your target? >> the president and anyone else who was involved in that decision to fire jim comey. >> as an attorney, a u.s. senator, do you consider this to be a growing body of evidence that the president might have attempted to obstruct justice? >> does what we have heard and seen so far constituted obstruction of justice, and if not, how would you prove it? >> it's getting pretty close. >> your reaction to this bombshell report? >> three words. obstruction of justice. >> sean: here's the most important point the media will never tell you. if james comey did in fact think this was obstruction of justice and he did not come forward, comey could have committed a felony and he himself broke the law. when putting up the law. the actual law on the side of your screen -- as my colleague has pointed out, gregg jarre

liz: if james comey said, i lost my job, that is obstruction of justice, yes, i felt threatened by the president. stuart: that is it? >> he can't say that, tell you what. there is federal statute that misprison of felony. means if you don't notify your superiors at department of justice somebody attempted to obstruct, justice, then you mr. comey are committing a crime. it is equivalent accessory after the fact, aiding and abetting a felon. comey put himself in a box here. he does not dare say i ever thought this rose to the level of the specific intent of obstruction of justice. liz: you're saying james comey should have told his superiors -- >> absolutely. liz: that is president is trying to obstruct our investigation, at that time, at the time -- >> he has to say here, i think he is going to dodge the question, but in the end he can not say this was obstruction of justice because he would be incriminating himself in felony. stuart: matt whitaker, still with us, former u.s. attorney, would you comment on that please? is there a bombshell which comey could reveal which would hurt the m

i did not obstruct justice. when i said to comey, let it go, i was saying that because flynn is a good guy. flynn wore the uniform of the country. i think flynn has been wronged in the process and suffered enough. let me get back to bringing jobs to middle class americans. sure, that's the president's posture. >> the problem is, paul f y, if were advising him as counsel, don't disrespect the institution. that's part of the leak stuff is about. you know, when they want to spread leaks. nothing leaks like this white house. that would be your advice. stick to your being upset. >> you are right about this. the thing that astounded me. he came in as an outsider and elected as president. he has great political inn stik stingts you would think. he goes to war with his law enforcement structure and his intelligence structure. those are the two parts of government that have the ability to torpedo a president quietly and effectively. by attacking them, i guess my analogy would be this, it would be like income the real est

that obviously relates to the possibility of obstruction of justice, which is this central question in terms of the fate presidency. did the president try to stop ongoing fbi investigations? now, the special counsel, mueller, he was appointed to look into the russia issue, right? he was appointed to look into the specific question of who weather the trump campaign or any trump associates helped or cooperated with the russians in this russian attack on our election last year. the order appointing bob mueller to be special counsel said i don't have any idea that investigation he could also investigated and prosecute any other matters that, quote, arise from that russia investigations. well, it now seems clear that one of the matters that has arisen from the russia investigation is this possibility there's been an attempt to obstruct justice in this matter potentially by the president of the united states himself. and although the mueller investigation, the spokesperson for bomueller is not confirming that overtly, that bob mueller isow investigating whether the president obstructed justi

that, to me, is obstruction of justice. and the reason you know it's obstruction of justice is that when comey doesn't end the investigation, trump fires him. that's a pretty compelling case. >> mary katherine, is it obstruction of justice to you? >> i've been somebody along the way more likely to believe comey and be sympathetic of him than others and to believe him more than trump. i was most surprised to find trump had told the truth about saying he was not under investigation. this document turns out comey is the one who set the precedent for them meetinging alone in the first meeting at trump tower. and then the subject of the conversation was that comey wanted to tell him on these personal, salacious part of the counter intelligence he was not under investigation personally for that. the thing that is interesting to me about that, as somebody who lays most of trump's faults at the feet of incompetence, if that was precedent set, i'm not that surprised he did it several more times. this does not exonerate him. why do w

obstruction of justice is a specific intent crime. you can't just -- jim comey who is a witness to this didn't believe that from february until he was fired that the president had obstructed justice. he could have opened his own file. it seeps curious that this has been leaked and the other thing i might point out is the white house, all they have to do is call up director mueller or acting attorney general for this specific investigation rod rosenstein and ask is the president a target or subject of an investigation. they have to answer that question. >> why would they want to know that? why would they -- >> i think at this point this time the fbi or director mueller need to confirm or deny this. this innuendo of an investigation of a sitting president that no one can confirm is very dangerous for our republic. we need to know whether there's an investigation or not. the american people would like to know that. >> i don't think mueller will say a word. lots of people -- >> he doesn't have to tell the white house? >> no. by no means.

if you think it's obstruction-ish or obstruction if he wasn't the president.t is simply not a crime for the president to exercise his constitutional authority to pardon, to direct the fbi. it wasn't a crime when thomas jefferson directed the attorney general what to do. it wasn't a crime when lincoln did it. it wasn't a crime when president obama -- >> alan, i think you're coming up with all sorts of interesting hypotheticals, but i think it is well established that the president of the united states cannot engage in corrupt acts, acts designed to protect his political interests and use the fbi to advance those political interests and obstruct justice. i just think that's so basic and -- >> as long as he doesn't destroy tapes, as long as he doesn't fail to comply with the subpoena, as long as he exercises his constitutional authority, he cannot be prosecuted for exercising his constitutional authority. >> i want to bring in gloria. the president's personal attorney is focusing on the fact that according to comey's opening statement, he is, in the president's w

bob muller appears to be investigating obstruction of justice. is congress investigating that too? we know the intelligence committees are investigating the russia side of this t russia attack, whether they colluded in the russia attack. mike flynn handed over this week hundreds of pages to the house and senate intelligence committees in response to their subpoenas after initially taking the 5th. we know they're looking at russia. is anybody in congress looking into whether or not the white house tried to obstruct justice or illegally medals with or block the russia investigations? is that bob muller alone or is congress working on that too? as of tonight we have a lot more information about it. it looks like the answer to that is possibly the committees in congress that would have jurisdiction over obstruction of justice by the president or obstruction of justice by other officials in the executive branch, the committees that would have jurisdiction over that would be the judiciary committees. the chairman. judiciary committee in the house is republican congressmen bob got lat. he

>> obstruction of justice. three words. >> sean: here's the most important point the media will never tell you. if james comey did in fact think this was obstruction of justice and he did not come forward, comey could have committed a felony and he himself broke the law. the actual law on the side of your screen -- as my colleague has pointed out, gregg jarrett, if james comey thought the president was doing something illegal, he had a legal obligation to come forward immediately. that's not what comey did. in his testimony, comey says he didn't bother to tell the attorney general jeff sessions about his conversation with president trump because in part, he thought sessions was going to recuse himself from the russian investigation. that would not be a reason not to follow the law. when comey complained to the attorney general's face about not wanting to be left alone with the president, he decided not to tell sessions about his conversation with the president. another key major point -- comey also told preside

the president may have obstructed justice.he day after a gunman opened fire on a republican baseball practice, badly wounding a u.s. congressman. republican and democratic lawmakers once again they're getting ready for their charity game at nationals park. we're waiting for the first pitch. stay with us. award winning interface. award winning design. award winning engine. the volvo xc90. the most awarded luxury suv of the century. visit your volvo dealer to take advantage of our midsommar sales event offer. visit your volvo dealer to take advantage ♪ he came to the world justin the usual way ♪ ♪ but there were planes to catch and bills to pay ♪ ♪ so i moved my meeting saw him walk that day ♪ ♪ he was talking 'fore i knew it, and as he grew ♪ ♪ he'd say i'm gonna be like you, dad ♪ ♪ you know i'm gonna be like you ♪ ♪ and the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon ♪ ♪ little boy blue and the man in the moon... ♪ listen up, heart disease.) you too, unnecessary er visits. and hey, unmanaged depression, don't get too comfortable

no obstruction. he is a leaker. >> reporter: during a news conference with the romanian president, he denied he tried to shut down the russia probe, specifically when it comes to former national security advisor michael flynn. >> well, i didn't say that. i will tell you, i didn't say that. >> reporter: the president rejected the notion he asked comey for a pledge of loyalty as the former fbi director said in sworn testimony. >> i hardly know the man. i'm not going to say i want you to pledge allegiance. who had do that? who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? think about it. i hardly know the man. it doesn't make sense. no, i didn't say that. >> reporter: mr. trump's response when asked whether he would speak under oath on the matter. >> 100%. >> reporter: the president dug in his heels on the question of whether he has recordings of his conversations with comey and others at the white house. >> i will tell about you that maybe sometime in the near future. do you have a question here? >>

which is one of the classic ways that the obstruction of justice statute is charged.cly, and so columns lumsily that i d know that it would be charged by a lawyer in that. it's in the court of public opinion of demonstrating further bullying tactics. >> listening to james comey's testimony yesterday, a lot of us nonlawyers and citizen journalists, see what james comey testified to yesterday and it seems like he's alleging obstruction of justice on the part of the president, the president trying to impede or stop that investigation. as a former u.s. attorney, is that what you heard in terms of james comey's allegations yesterday? >> there's certainly some pieces that could lead to that conclusion. he mentioned at least twice that whether this was obstruction of justice is matter for bob mueller, the special counsel to look at. which suggests he thinks that bob mueller is looking at that. and it also seemed to me that jim comey is helping him do his work. he's putting out the bread crumbs. he created for mueller in his written statement a chronology of all the things th

. >> investigating president trump for possible obstruction of justice. more on that coming up. i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room." our breaking news coverage begins right now with "out front" with erin burnett. >> "out front" next. breaking news. new details on the gunman who opened fire with a semi automatic. what we're learning about him tonight. more breaking news at this hour. the washington post with a stunning report. saying president trump is now under investigation, why special counsel robert mueller for possible obstruction of justice. this is a major turning point in the russia investigation. we have all those breaking headlines. let's go "out front." good evening, i'm erin burnett. "out front" this evening, the breaking news, steve scalise is in critical condition tonight after fire was opened on softball practice. the first shots ringing out at about 7:00 this morning. the heavily armed shooter crouching behind the third base dugout. several officers on the scene fired back. the gunman later died from his injuries. cell phone video recorded the chaotic scene.

obstructing justice, a probe. new signs that the special counsel is considering an expanded investigation into allegations the president obstructed justice by trying to quash an fbi investigation. sources say robert mueller's investigators will talk about that with key intelligence officials. >>> phony and made-up. the president unleashes barrages of tweets complaining that the obstruction report is phony and that he's the target of ta witc hunt. and just now he complains that hillary clinton destroyed phones with a hammer, adding, and they talk about obstruction. >>> tough shape, congressman steve scalise is in critical condition, undergoing a third surgery after being shot when that gunman attacked a congressional republican baseball practice. amid vows of unity, republicans and democrats will go ahead with their charity game this evening. >>> and no excuse. doctors say american otto warmbier suffered severe neurological damage during his 17 months in north korean detention and his family rejected the regime's e

the comttees in congress that would have jurisdiction over obstruction justice by the president or obstruction of justice by other officials in the executive branch, the committees that would have jurisdiction over that would be the judiciary committees. now the chairman of the judiciary committee in the house is republican congressman bob goodlatte. he appears to have no interest whatsoever in investigating this matter. he has certainly taken no steps to exercise his committee's oversight role on this at all. i should tell you as an aside, since president trump has been in thafrks only reason bob goodlatte has made any news at all is because he brewed up a little local controversy at home in virginia when he got his speeding ticket amended so they dinged him for a faulty speedometer instead of for going 69 in a school zone. that's the only way he's made news. and he's got the committee in the house that would oversee something like an investigation into obstruction of justice. a democrat on his committee, congressman luis gutierrez wrote to bob goodlatte and said, hey, we're the judiciary com

in may we first heard about obstruction of justice.n july we heard about the tapes and in october there was the firing of the special prosecutor . we have had all these echoes of watergate and a period of just over a month so it is kind of head spinning but not unprecedented. james calling from bradenton, florida on the independent line. caller: good morning. first of all, if there are similarities with donald trump, i certainly think they end at scandal because i guess the reason i am calling, as a historian, sir, when i look at richard nixon -- i am 29 years old -- but when i look at richard nixon and his achievements i look at the creation of the epa. he was the first president to create self-determination for native american ride -- tribes. nte with russia, opened up china, all of these amazing achievements. do you think enough time will pass where watergate will move into the background and we will begin to see mitchard -- richard nixon as one of the most well-balanced residents of the 20th century? of of my favorite quotes is --

he committed obstruction of justice. paul butler, then what?then it becomes a political determination by the congress of the united states. so the house would impeach him, which means charge him. and the senate would judge the case. they would decide whether to convict him or not. >> but just to be clear, they're under no obligation to do so. robert mueller could file a report that says, here's all the evidence that the president of the united states criminally obstructed justice. you know, under the letter of the law, there's no legal requirement that the house initiate or theouse judiciary committee initiate impeachment proceengs, right? >> that's exactly right. again, the congressmen were saying earlier in your program whether those could set aside their partisan differences and just express fidelity to the rule of law is going to be key. one of the reasons that the president can't be indicted, formally charged with a crime, is because we want him to focus on governing the nation. but this president, knowing that he's in serious jeopardy of

no obstruction of justice. mr. comey testified under oath no obstruction.he other interesting things in here, too, chris. it is interesting. the only conversations that w e werebetween mr. comey and mr. trump. how come others were not memorialized? >> do we know they weren't? >> how about when they gave cheryl mills immunity? after key conversation was justice department. how about the day after mr. clinton meets with loretta lynch on the tarmac? were those memorialized? why was this treated differently? >> i think as purview of the senate intel committee on the russia investigation, they should talk about issues that have nothing to do with it? >> no, i think context is important. right? >> come on. that's a political talking point. we know it. it has nothing to do with the russia investigation. >> you don't think the american people would like to know key conversations with mr. comey and senior justice department officials that took place around the event of loretta lynch meeting with bill clinton on the tarmac three days before the scheduled interview of

was it obstruction of justice? we'll ask preet bharara, the federal prosecutor also fired by the president in his first tv interview since the firing. a "this week" exclusive. responding for the president, new trump lawyer, jay sekulow, only on "this week." key senators from the intelligence and judiciary committees are here for what's next in the congressional investigations, plus, insights and analysis from our "powerhouse roundtable," everything you need to know on the showdown that's put the trump presidency on a perilous new course. >> announcer: from abc news, "this week" starts now with abc news chief anchor, george stephanopoulos. >> good morning. the hype was big and the hearing delivered. it was a blockbuster reaching 89 million on facebook, 19 million more on tv. what they saw like so much in this young trump presidency, something that's never happened before. an fbi director fired by the president under oath accusing the white house of lying and strongly suggesting the president himself committed an imp

what does constitute obstruction of justice? investigation go" was that enough? james rosen is president of the national constitution centre. . thanks for joining us. from what you've been able to hear from joining us. from what you've been able to hearfrom comey‘s joining us. from what you've been able to hear from comey‘s testimony, do you think donald trump's words, do you think donald trump's words, do they amount to obstruction of justice? we don't know any more than we did before, the crucial meetings where the president said, i hope you can let this go, is the crucial thing. comey was asked directly and he could not go further than that. the legal standard for obstruction is precise, the person has two intentionally aim to impede an investigation, so a lot depends on president trump's motive, was he trying to shut down the best occasion or was there something else in comey‘s conduct that irritated tim cross jamaat it is complicated further by the fact that some people feel that the director can be fired for the purpose of

most obstruction of justice cases, the person doesn't come out and say, oh, i'm going to obstruct the investigation. they do a wink, a not, a hint. but you've got three other key pieces of evidence here. you've got coats, and you've got rogers, both of whom trump called individually and asked them to put the squelch on the investigation. >> the director of national intelligence dan coats. reporting indicates both of them were contacted by the president. >> and you've got the firing of comey. on top of that, you've got the president of the united states admitting that when he fired comey, he was thinking about the russia investigation. if you're talking about somebody's intent and their state of mind, what better evidence could a proper have than the person actually saying, that's why i did it? then on top of it he tells the russian ambassador that this guy comey, who is a nut case, i got the whole burden of the investigation me when i fired him. >> the prosecutor rests. >> i rest. >> here's the other argument, and i'm going to play paul ryan's case because it's slightly different than

if this was a private citizen could you bring a case of obstruction of justice? and how he answers that question, that will have a big influence on how congress reacts but ultimately this is is a critical question. >> it always is. people ask me what is the standard for impeachment. it's whatever congress wants it to be. period. >> you're the political guy, i'm the legal gal. the point is the yarmt says you cannot indict a sitting president so as long as that guidance stands, it isn't going to be a criminal matter the question is, of course, to the political branch, and what the congress decides to do. >> one thing that didn't happen was a live tweet from the president himself. there was a lot of speculation, he had the morning free to watch this, he's at the faith and freedom forum where he has been speaking. he did not address this hearing specifically but there's what many might take as a veiled reference, we'll let you hear it. >> they will lie, they will obstruct, they will spread their hatred and their prejudice. but we will never back down from doing what

. >>> obstruction of justice. this is "hardball." >>> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. donald trump and his ties with moscow remain the big story here even on a day struck by violence. late this evening, another bombshell from "the washington post." quote, the special counsel overseeing the investigation into russia's role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether president trump attempted to obstruct justice. so he's in the crosshairs. although former director comey assured president trump he was not under investigation, officials now say that changed shortly after comey's firing. this comes after "the new york times" reported that the president has been considering firing mr. mueller himself, but someone on his staff waved him off the idea warning this would make a bad situation worse. we'll see about that. yesterday deputy attorney general rod rosenstein assured members of congress that mr. mueller's investigation would remain independent

could very well be obstruction of justice. so i don't think any confident prosecutor in bob mueller's position or the fbi before mueller even came on could fail to follow up with investigation of whether president trump is obstructing justice in connection with the russia investigation. and that's exactly what's been going on. so this is an interesting development. but it's an inevitable development. well knew it was going to happen. it's part of bob mueller's job to look into this. the notion it somehow leaked from the fbi is something we all knew was going to happen anyway. it's likely people who were kbakd t contacted or new people kbakd the fbi talked about it. this is not classified information. we should be focusing on the leak here, if there was a leak. the real issue is did the president of the united states obstruct justice in connection with an investigation of russian espionage inside the united states? and if so, that is a very, very serious situation. it obviously should be on the very top of bob mueller's list of

corrupt intend to obstruct or corruptly obstructing a bribe. the criminal law bounds what a president can do and, importantly, the president is like every american. none of us are above the law. >> it's not about being above the law. this is the typical exaggeration of a proposition. >> let's listen again to the exchange. roll it. >> i want to get back to james comey's testimony. you suggested he didn't tell the truth in everything he said. he did say under oath that you told him to -- you said you hoped the flynn -- >> i didn't say that. >> so he lied about that? >> well, i didn't say that. i will tell you, i didn't say that. >> and did he ask you to pledge -- >> and there would be nothing wrong if i did say it according to everybody that i've read today but i did not say that. >> and did he ask for a pledge of loyalty from you? >> no, he did not. >> so he said those things under oath. would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of the events? >> 100%. i didn't say under oath -- i hardly know the man. i'm not going to say i w

what's key for obstruction is intent, whether the president thought firing flynn was punishment enough or whether he corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the investigation for an improper purpose. >> i think the one overall takeaway would have to be obstruction of justice. >> reporter: scott fredericksen is a former federal prosecutor. >> the fundamentals might be there potentially, but there is more investigation in the future. >> not a question i can answer in an open setting, mr. chairman. >> reporter: and some of comey's testimony, like this exchange with committee chairman richard burr, bolstered the president's claims he did not obstruct. >> did the president at any time ask you to stop the fbi investigation into russian involvement in the 2016 u.s. elections? >> not to my >> reporter: but this is more of a political matter. a sitting president has never been indicted. the constitution says impeachment is the punishment for committing high crimes and nis demeanors, which means, scott, obstruction of justice is whatever a majority of congress says it is. >> jan c

that was supposedly obstruction of justice.e that january 6 meeting had said he didn't think that secretary clinton should be investigated any further. was that obstruction of justice? probably none of it was that and i don't think mr. comey said today that he thought it was either. >> neil: so where is this going, senator? >> i think, again, the committee led by mark warner and richard burr showed today that we have the capacity to deal with these difficult issues. i've said repeatedly that we ought to look at everything a reasonable person should look at, talk to everybody a reasonable person should talk to. i think if we do that, we'll come to a conclusion that is largely bipartisan based on the facts and i think we're a long way both in private and a little bit now in public of establishing what those facts might be. >> neil: so real quickly, your colleague, senator lindsay had said, there's no way that robery to testify if there was any behind or he was looking to obstruction of justice. i'm paraphrasing. do you agree with

no obstruction. he is a leaker. yesterday, he showed no collusion or obstruction. we are doing really well. that was an excuse by the democrats.s. james comey confirmed a lot of what i said. and just saying things that weren't true. can i take one of the killer networks that treat me so badly as fake news? >> reporter: did he ask for a pledge of loyalty from you? >> no, he did not. >> reporter: would you be willing to give your version under oath? >> 100%. >> sean: jay sekulow, anthony scaramucci, geraldo rivera, larry elder, lou dobbs, dr. gina loudon, gregg jarrett, ronna romney mcdaniel will all join us. liberals turning out to be dead wrong about the trump-russia collusion and their conspiracy theories. they have to admit they have been lying to you, the american people. >> the assumption of the president is that somewhere along the lines in the last year, the president had something to do with colluding with the russians. i a helping hand, encouraging them and feeding their desire to effect the election in some wayi some conversation he had with michael flynn

he may interview other people and decide that there is no obstruction or no case he can bring on obstructionit is really a preliminary moment. we are seeing effectively of a file being opened here within the fbi to basically look at obstruction. that does not mean that that's where mueller is going to go at the end. >> adam, extraordinary reporting as usual, thank you very much for the washington post, appreciate your time. >> the panel is going to talk about this and when we come back of the latest of today's shooting and what we know of the shooter and more of what happened and the conditions of the others who are injured. we'll be right back. tech: when you schedule with safelite autoglass, you get time for more life. this family wanted to keep the game going. son: hey mom, one more game? tech: with safelite, you get a text when we're on our way. you can see exactly when we'll arrive. mom: sure. bring it! tech: i'm micah with safelite. mom: thanks for coming, it's right over here. tech: giving you a few more minutes for what matters most. take care! family: bye! kids singing: safelite® re

obstructing justice, a probe.counsel is considering an expanded investigation into allegations the president obstructed justice by trying to quash an fbi investigation. sources say robert mueller's investigators will talk about that with key intelligence officials. >>> phony and made-up. the president unleashes barrages of tweets complaining that the obstruction report is phony and that he's the target of ta witc hunt. and just now he complains that hillary clinton destroyed phones with a hammer, adding, and they talk about obstruction. >>> tough shape, congressman steve scalise is in critical

obstruction ofjustice.dgment short. mr comey himself refused to pass judgment today. but we got news from his special counsel and we'll look at this issue. i don't think it's for me to say whether the conversation i had with the president was an effort to obstruct. itook president was an effort to obstruct. i took it as a disturbing, concerning thing, but that's a conclusion i'm sure the special counsel will work towards to try to understand what the intention was and to decide whether that was an offe nce. let's get a little more on this — barak cohen is a former federal prosecutor. whether a president can be investigated and prosecuted for a federal crime, other questions aside it rises to the level of something that warrants a criminal investigation. but i don't think right now it brings us to the level ofan right now it brings us to the level of an offence. mr comey made it clear as the president that on three occasions he reassured him that he wasn't directly under investigation. when asked today where

that's not obstruction.e has the right under the constitution to fire jim comey anytime he wants for whatever reason he wants. might not be prudent but he has the constitutional right to do so. >> obstruction questions are about asking comey to let go of the flynn investigation. but the question, the fact that he wasn't under investigation, he was right. not only did jim comey tell him all those times but he told the senate. grassley and feinstein said yes, we have never been told anything to contradict what the president said in the firing letter. the question of obstruction is going to be something that bob mueller has to determine. and even if he decides there is, there is a long-standing doj legal opinion that says special counsel should not bring any criminal indictment of the sitting president. that is the job of congress. >> a couple points. >> john: this is a point we talked about before we came on. karl rove had an interesting op-ed suggesting it is in the president's preview to ask for any investig

there is no right to obstruct justice.e the president can fire the director of the fbi, but that act can be evidence of a broader obstruction of justice. for example, my favorite law professor that loves hypotheticals, what if donald trump said to james comey, i am going to fire you unless you give me $100,000? is that constitutionally protected? >> are you citing one of the exceptions to it which is corrupt intent, bribery as one of the witness tampering, do you believe those are -- >> that's precisely what this investigation is about, is whether there was corrupt intent. can the fbi -- can the president go to james comey and say i am going to fire you because you're a catholic? that power is not unreviewable. >> jeffrey's point is, can he fire, yes. can he fire for bad reason and still have the protection of the executive? your answer? >> yes, the president's motive should not be probe if the president about properly. when president bush pardoned casper wweinberger, nobody lookd into his mind. walsh, the special prosecut

there's no indication i can see that there was obstruction of justice.her hand, it's a trail of a person who's in charge of the government that you have some questions about. in fairness, we all have conversations that are not comfortable behind closed doors. but you don't get a great sense of confidence in the president as a leader from this portrayal. >> more about the president here in a few moments. that does it for bloomberg's special coverage of the testimony of fired fbi director james comey. thank you to our viewers on bloomberg television and on twitter as well. >> although the law required no reason at all to fire and fbi director, the administration then shows to defame me -- chose fbi byme me and the saying the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. those were lies, plain and simple. that you have any doubts russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections? >> none. timed the president at any ask you to stop the fbi investigation into russian involvement in t 2016 u.s. el

obstruction of justice. reports out that the special counselor is zeroing in on president trump perhaps with criminal charges surrounding james comey's finding and trying to halt the russian investigation. so much to cover. good to be here in washington where we're going to begin where house republicans are meeting as we speak to talk over yesterday's tragic shooting. the house officially convenes in about 60 minutes, but today no such thing as business as usual. not after this. each and every lawmaker arriving here this morning. it is painful, painfully aware, that one of their leaders, majority whip steve scalise remains in critical condition, hospitalized just a few miles away. you're looking at live at nationals park where the game is still scheduled for tonight. this game, this unity, important more than ever. and our team is covering every angle. i want to start with nbc's tom costello at medstar washington hospital. tom, tell us, who is there and give us an update on everyone's condition. >> well, we

but obstruction of justice is a crime. it's an impeachable offense. that's the issue that i think is the focus now and i think it's a really problematic place for the president. >> so my question to you, following up, and let's give the president the benefit of the doubt. to your point, if there's this cloud swirling and there's a guy in the oval office -- >> and you know you're not a target and -- >> he keeps asking and -- >> because he wants to be -- >> sure. no one said he was being investigated personally but he keeps asking and asking and let's give him the benefit of the doubt. then why with comey in this recollection of mike flynn conversation in which he talks to the president and i replied only that he's a good guy, goes on and i did not say that i would let this go. the questions of the president saying to comey, let this go on the probe into mike flynn. >> right. i think this came out in an interview, the president talks about -- >> do you not take comey at his word that this did not happen? >> let me be very clear about this. i do not take

the coverage on the left is slam-dunk obstruction case. the conversation on the right, comey is a leaker. the president watched about 45 minutes of the hearing in the white house. what is the reaction you are hearing from the white house? >> well, that squarewith my reporting as well, brian. look, i think threaction from the white house is that they are picking out what they think benefits them from comey's testimony. they think that there are things that happened today that actually helped the president's argument. you are going to hear his surrogates repeat those things over and over again. one, that he corroborated the fact that the president said that comey told him he wasn't under investigation. the fact that comey said today that the president didn't urge him to drop the russia investigation broadly. and then that point that you raise brian, the fact that comey acknowledged leaking out his own memo, that's something that i think the president and his surrogates are really going to be focused often in the coming days and weeks. in ter

the crime, section 1503, says obstruct or attempt to obstruct. now, since he's the president, i think there's a very clear -- unclear constitutional question about whether he could ever be charged with a crime while he's president. but certainly if congress decides to look at this as a high-crime and misdemeanor, they will look at obstruction of justice and it doesn't matter that comey had the integrity to protect the fbi. what matters, it seems to me, unless it's refuted, is that trump tried to obstruct the fbi. >> ambassador eisen, how would you respond to that? >> well, i agree with jeff. i will say that if that were the only conversation, as troubling as it is, if there had been no firing at the end of this, no loyalty demand at the beginning of it. if you didn't have a whole pattern, you'd have a legal argument that trump has the constitutional right to direct investigations but the pattern is what takes it out of the argument which you're hearing from commentators about trump's right to direct comey. the pattern takes it out of that and mov

. >>> "the washington post" reporting that robert mueller's obstruction of justice investigation now reaches to the very top. i'm ryan and i quit smoking with chantix. i tried to quit cold turkey. i tried to quit with the patch; that didn't work. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. for me, chantix worked. it reduced my urge to smoke. compared to the nicotine patch, chantix helped significantly more people quit smoking. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or opera

it doesn't rise to the level of obstruction of justice.hat prosecutor in their right mind would allow their star witness to go out before the senate panel of 20 senators and get beat up, if you really believe he had a case? so, this is the best evidence yet that in the mind of the special counsel there is no obstruction of justice case to be made against president trump. >> is it appropriate for the president to ask a question of loyalty from the fbi director? >> yeah, no. i mean, obviously, i don't think that is. fbi directors are supposed to be independent. that's something that's very, very critical. i think that's why we have a new person that's been announced, ray, who seems to fit the bill for an independent prosecutor career professional type, because we typically look for someone who is going to be independent, but also that that position is treated independently. and this obviously crosses that. >> and chris wray is independent, except that he represented governor chris christie in the bridgegate scandal, but we'll leave that to a

illegal, obstruction of justice is another thing. some legal scholars have suggested there has to be proven intent to -- to successfully prosecute obstruction of justice. >> that's right, and the word that the statute uses is corrupt, but corrupt means for a bad purpose, and there is no innocent explanation as far as i can tell for the president to exclude his attorney general from a room and ask to have a -- have a top aide's investigation dropped, and you also have to put it in context. this is after he's been -- that comey has been repeatedly been asked by the president for loyalty, personal loyalty, not loyalty to the constitution, not loyalty to the fbi, but loyalty to president trump, and what hams after comey does not drop the investigation of -- of michael flynn, he gets fired by the president. that to me sets out a story of obstruction of justice. again, if it's to be believed. >> and you know that some of the senators tomorrow, the republican senators, will press comey. if you felt that there was a problem there, why didn't

not obstruction. let's ask the counselor. are these obstruction? >> kisha: i have to say there is no clear-cut evidence of obstruction of justice but it does smell of a fishy situation paraguay would president meat along with the head of the fbi and say i hope you can let this go? or we can drop this? >> eboni: the counterargument would say he wanted privacy. he wanted to be able to develop a relationship with his sitting fbi director. the point we are demonstrating, all of us, you can argue it either way. that's the point. >> eric: but the obstruction is not arguable either way. it is or it isn't, and there has to be evidence of it. so far, we have no evidence. >> kisha: that's why we have them to determine whether there is sufficient evidence. >> eboni: hopefully robert mueller will give us some facts. we also have ivanka trump, daughter and special assistant, sitting down with "fox & friends" today to provide analysis. >> there is a level of viciousness that i was not expecting. i was not expecting the intensity of the experience. this isn't sup

i just don't see an obstruction charge here.what i see is something politically damaging, and i see the president being incredibly naÏve. neil: but if you're looking for something politically damaging, then best to get out of the way earlier rather than later. we're toldhat this is running late, that the president's lawyer is going to address reports. he is expected to respond to this allegation on the part of former fbi director comey that the president repeatedly that they don't like that's the way framing donald. that the president has been proven right on the three times comey told him he was not part of that investigation. what do you make of that? >> and sarah huckabee sanders says right away when the -- it was off camera. but when she briefed reporters after that at the white house, not a liar. so i mean, that was probably -- and, again, to charlie doesn't point, if this is a political story, one of the more politically damaging parts of this. i mean, think about it from the democrat's point of view if you're going to be

or act that's going to make the case for obstruction.that that's not necessarily the way that a potential obstruction case might be made. really, i think folks will have to look back, the investigators will look back over a series of events, meetings, conversations, tweets, the firing of director comey, and then the tweets after and more activities and it's going to be a trail of events that cumulatively will make a case for obstruction or not and that case will most likely be in the political realm, not necessarily in a criminal court. >> all right. charlie, i want to ask you about another one of donald trump's associates who came up yesterday in the comey testimony. that's michael flynn. i wonder if anything that the president said today basically for the first time that i can recall in public saying i never said that, i never -- really sort of denying in both his personal attorney's statements yesterday and today, really denying some of the substance for the first time of the comey mem kn memos which have sort of been in the news in t

obstruction is not the end game. more importantly in this contest of credibility as chris stated, you have the fbi director who is corroborating the statements of the president. he felt compelled to document, but not compelled to confront the president on the inappropriateness of the questions. he has tried to talk to the attorney general. at one point jeff sessions and then dana bente. this begs one question. when you have obstruction, it is intent of the speaker and how it is received. if he acquiesced to try to assure the president he was not doing the wrong thing or not inn appropriate, you have a harder case for any prosecutor on that charge. >> that's a good point. if comey is going to deal with that today, he will be asked a lot of questions why he did not do more if he thought that it was so wrong. david sanger. you left a juicy one for you where they talk about this requirement of loyalty. let's put this up here. all right. president trump then said i need loyalty. i replied, you will always get honesty from