say, is the president s attitude toward attorney general sessions part of an obstruction of justice charge that they re looking to build? i think that s a tough road to travel because number one, the attorney general did not recuse himself. and has in fact held strongly to the position that it s inappropriate for him to be involved in this investigation. and if this helped an ab instruction charge, it would only be one small piece of a much larger picture. and prosecutors usually don t like to just come after somebody with an obstruction charge because what that means is, they haven t been able to prove the charge they re investigating. so they re coming after you on a collateral charge. and, when you re dealing with the president of the united states and you re looking to take him down, i think you want to be proving the main charge and not a collateral charge. so, so i have a feeling this
paul cal lesson, laura coats, done steen and jeff tu been. michael, let s put this into perspective for us. what does this mean for the mueller investigation? well, what it means is that he s indicted somebody. we don t know whether it s to the core charge of collusion or whether it s to the collateral charge of money laundering or tax evasion. we can surmise from pamela s reporting if it was andrew wise man who was at the courthouse who was returning the indictment, wise man has been on the manafort case and that it therefore might beological to conclude that it is manafort. manafort has been under scrutiny for both collusion and also for his real estate dealings and for tax and money laundering investigatio investigations. so you could have an investigation of manafort separate from the collusion but which implicates his dealings with the monies that he earned in ukraine and elsewhere over seas. jeff, is what s your take on this from a legal standpoint?