but what he did was wrong. >> when i say ambiguous, i'm talking about not as an investigator. you've had guests formerly with the fbi to talk about that. i understand the investigative value of things and i'm not saying there ought not to be a fulsome investigation and i take chairman engel at his word, he sounds responsible to me. you're asking me what i think is the ultimate question as a former independent counsel and the only thing that's relevant here, investigations aside, is whether or not it's sufficient to rise to that high level that constitutes a crime. if it doesn't, then you're never going to have bipartisan support to do the rather extraordinary thing, which is to remove a sitting president from office short of an election. >> their constructive case will be he abused his power and asked somebody to do something that was good for him in exchange for a certain relationship with the united states. and now here's my -- i think where people are really