those three things together it seems to me they're not absolute truth but definitely prima fascia. >>m no legal scholar or scholar of any kind but i can tell you if that's the standard for obstruction you could just about charge every president in the 20th century and going back further with obstruction. >> that's an outrageous statement. >> look, the -- there are only a couple of occasions where presidents have done with the head of the fbi or someone who is investigating his own campaign or his own administration and the last time. >> hold on. >> let him finish. >> and he was in fact impeached. >> put yourself in his shoes. if you had a new national -- if you were president and you had a new natio adviser, he's being persecuted right away, what's wrong with going in and saying, you know, this is a good guy, lay off him and if you don't do that. >> first thing i'd do is i do not ever talk to the head of the fbi who is conducting an investigation into my administration. i maintain that many fire wall over. >> but the constitution doesn't set up any fire wall. >> flynn is definitely in

but we have great suggests here in what we know so far of a kind of prima fascia case of obstruction of justice perhaps, abuse of authority. but what we now need to know is what is the president going to say in his own defense and where are these facts going to lead in terms of the overall sprawling investigation that the special counsel is doing about russia, russian hacking and possible collusion? >> we're hearing from jim acosta the president will be monitoring the situation today. he will be with his lawyer. so we'll see if he decides to respond in real-time. >> i mean not just in real-time. we need to hear in a definitive way, methodical way from the president of the united states what occurred here, what were his interactions with the russians, if they were. we need to hear from him sooner rather than later. >> but he has said he had no dealings. he said it a lot of times. what happens here is that very often it becomes what line of inquiry do you want to follow. there is a very good likelihood when jim comey gets up there, some republican is either going to want to talk about

so this is a prima fascia case here, and it would be just inevitable that the special counsel start lookingnd it's going to broaden the investigation considerably. >> take us back to your watergate experience. is this comparable? >> you know, don, i learned about those statutes by watching my colleagues and debating them about these statutes and they are very broad, they're very confusing. they differ from different circuits in the federal system. so it's very easy to obstruct justice. the only hope that trump can have is for some reason the jurisdiction he's in doesn't think that an fbi investigation is a pending proceeding. and this is something that scholars have been debating already for weeks about trump's actions. so we don't have a clear case and we have also evidence that there may be a clear case. it depends upon which line of cases happen to fall in with the facts that are emerging. >> yeah. you know, we keep hearing people say there's nothing there, the president's not under investigation. let's dig into this "washington post" reporting a little bit more. it says trump had receiv

the russians as well as on the nbc interview that it was because of the russian thing create a prima fascia case to go forward with this investigation. >> it's not unusual, though, for someone whose being investigated to criticize the special counsel or the independent counsel. remember bill clinton he used to criticize the independent counsel ken starr and his investigations whether white water or monica lieuenski all the time. >> and criticism is fair and not unprecedented but has to be seen in the context of the demand for loyalty from comey, the plea to comey that he go light on flynn and the other statements that were made afterward as the investigation is unfolding now. i think it is evidence, it's not conclusive evidence but it's more evidence, a thickenning cloud of evidence over this administration that i think will be difficult to deny in the long run. >> the chairman of your committee, chuck grassley says the committee will pursue investigations into any efforts to influence fbi investigations. do you consider that an investigation into possible obstruction of justice? >> it is v

. >> a prosecutor would develop further information in support of the prima fascia case of what the president said. let's follow not just the money but also follow the evidence and see where it leads. >> unanswered questions, you know, matt raises a very good one which is, why -- >> why flynn? >> why flynn of all people? even related and broader question is why russia? why always russia? why are all these people, you know, jared kushner, jeff sessions, why are they all afflicted with bad memories about their contacts with russian leaders? why are they all making false or inaccurate statements of congress and on the security clearances of russia? why can no one remember, why are there so many contracts of the trump campaign and russia? i don't know the answer to this question. >> may there be a conspiracy case that perhaps could develop from this? >> we don't know. >> there was one overlooked detail in comey's testimony posted today and he quoted the president saying that flynn didn't do anything wrong on russia. >> right. >> just that he lied to the vptd and that's why i had to fire him. >> h

this constitutes, i believe now, beyond a prima fascia case of obstruction. we may still hear the negative case, but i think this is another turn of the screw for president trump on the obstruction of justice front. >> mr. am bass abassador, stand. jeff toobin, you heard him. >> i don't think it's that complicated. when you tell an fbi, the director of the fbi to shut down an investigation or ask, you know, the crime of obstruction of justice takes place regardless of whether you succeed in obstructing or not. 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 respo