he can lawfully fire the director. but corruption and obstruction statues often depend on an official doing an otherwise lawful act but with a core run motive. he could fire james comey but if the president did that almost all of the white collar crimes, you see bribery, obstruction of justice, they involve and official doing an otherwise unlawful act, but there s some quid pro quo that made it corru corrupt. i m going to ask you why the dollar bills are sweaty in a second. while we all think that robert mueller and his prosecutors are investigating the president for whether or not the president s firing of comey was done to obstruct the investigation, weren t they supposed to be arguing that the president did it for some reason unrelated to russia? why would they concede this point? why would the president s lawyer concede this point, given that