Facilities across the country. The administration has worked with the Committee Staff to observe 11 cpb, 13 i. C. E. Detention activities to contract with hhs. Contrary to the assertions from the democrats, the Trump Administration has cooperated substantially in matters related to the border and elsewhere, but lets just contrast that with the democrats combative posture. In letters to the state Department Employees the committee threatened witnesses that, and i quote, any failure to appear, any failure to appear in response to a mere letter requesting their presence for deposition shall, and i quote, constitute evidence of obstruction. This is just letter, not subpoenas. In letters the state Department Employees in letters to the state Department Employees the committee threatened witnesses that if they insist on having
agency counsel present to protect the Executive Branch in their Confidentiality Interest or if they make any effort to protect Confidentiality Interest at all, these o
e-mail and in that investigation he went to great lengths to obstruct it. so why is it so urgent that we act right now? the president s lawyer was just in ukraine. the president s lawyer said in may i m not meddling in an election. we, not i, we, donald trump and i are meddling in an investdation and that continues today. the president s own words tell us about intent. on october 2nd, the president said, and you know we ve been on investigating on a personal basis corruption, i think if we re honest about it they should start a major investigation into the bidens. that simple. the president stood on the white house lawn and confirmed that he wanted ukraine to investigate the bidens, but then he added a country because that s what he
specific intent. he set it for the sole purpose of shutting down the flynn investigation. anything short of that, you don t have what you need. it might all be for nothing because again, is an fbi investigation a legal proceedin proceeding? let s start there and bring it to the panel. the obstruction charge, do you think people are looking at it deeply at this point? mollie: i think the central conceit of the claim based on anonymous sources is that what trump did was serious enough to lead to impeachment but not serious enough to do anything about it unless comey was fired? that seems pretty weird. when your people under oath giving testimony thing there was no obstruction of justice and we have these comments to the contrary, it seems bizarre. i will point out that if this is obstruction, we have evidence of the previous administration saying similar things in a more
public format. saying that there is no scandal at the irs or hillary is fine. indicating what president obama s desire was in those investigation which almost matched with what comey end up saying. if this was obstruction, that would be obstruction. eric: let s talk about what was allegedly said. this is what they are going to look at. you have people from chaffetz and others saying they want to hear from comey. i hope you can let this go, hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, letting flynn go. eric: on your definition of intent, that sounds like the intent would be hey, flynn is my friend. if this were true and it s accurate, he s a good guy. you should let him go or let s get on with business. it is not enough content to call for obstruction of justice? eboni: that s what we call arguable. if i m representing the
why say it now and not before? they re going to ask all those questions. they re going to ith educated and talk about it. to determine the intent behind it. a violent brawl breaking out in washington, d.c., between protesters and security for turkey s president. you re here to buy a car.