With the russian story and found zero proof, so now they go for Obstruction Of Justice on the phony story. Nice. Thats trump in tweet. Joining me now are three National Security reporters, charlie savage, adam entous and shane harris. Shane, youve got the story which follows up on what we had last night, that the Special Counsel is looking at the president for Obstruction Of Justice. My question is how do you have to add to that . What you have now is you have the president both trying to convince Director Rogers of the nsa to come out and shoot down these issues of collusion, but also privately still continuing to doubt the very intelligence that the nsa collected that led to the conclusion that russia interfered in the election. Weve seen trump publicly talk about the fact he thinks theyre nothing to russia, but to know that hes now saying this privately and continuing to argue with one of his intelligence chiefs about that, i think really reveals the degree to which this has
complet
is perfectly innocent has done nothing wrong isn t going to be framed by somebody. when they donated 36 granted hillary s campaign or, at her victory/to defeat par the cried the night she lost. these guys have already been cited for not turningr in it ence aut innocent people and at this idiot congressman wants me to trust him? i ve been a lawyer for a long me, that kate doesn t know what he s talking about. laura: are you also going to make an argument about the underlying constitutionality of special in this process? both on his facend as appliedbecause on its face, thee itself, and second, the fact that it was produced by what might have been a totally illegal counterintelligenc investigation that they tried to make into a criminal investigation. and clearly by the comey memo, we have to see what horowitz
like telling comey, get rid of the flynn investigation, and then give me the loyalty oath, and then going to coats and saying the same thing. get rid of the flynn investigation. and then going to rogers and saying, clear me of any collusion. he keeps taking steps as a result of the investigation that could very well metastasize into an impeachment. that s his problem. this thing has a dynamic to it that he keeps pushing perhaps the crimes into the future the way i see it. it s not just what he s saying privately. it s what he s saying publicly. you just mentioned all the things he s alleged to have said to comey and coats and rogers. as a result of good reporting. as a result of good reporting. or in comey s case, you know, that was a little bit helped along. well, he said it under oath. i believe him. i believe him too. i m just saying he gave the document. that s how it got out. but what i m saying a lot of republicans who are calling me in the last 24 hours, during a strai
to comey at one point and said, kill the flynn investigation. he s my pal, a good guy, glblah blah, blah. trump also went to coats and same the same thing. he also went to mike rogers, head of the nsa according to rogers former deputy and said kill this talk about this collusion in the campaign. so we have a lot of evidence of the president going out and trying to stop the investigators, trying to chill them, whatever, charm them. maybe that s your term. but why would he be doing all this, and how do you defend it at least as evidence that this guy wasn t going to let an investigation take its course, that he had to keep putting his finger in the eye of somebody to stop it? well, two things there. i would say the first thing is that i think erybody i certainly anybody who supports donald trump and republicans are concerned aboutt they read, and they re concerned of the fact that sometimes it s been hyped. i read for weeks and watched television where the impression was donald trum
around to be he s getting hurt by investigations without being proven guilty. the very fact of being investigating, he made it into a crime. the irony here is, of course, there is no way how tall are you? maybe they forgot it move it down. they usually move it down. anyway, i ll slouch a little bit. no, doubt. i m okay. it s classic what about-ism, but the thing about hillary is there s no way they could have put this many tentacles on an e-mail server. this investigation is going to so many different knots that we re going to be tied up for years. regardless of what the republican plans were, i don t think we could have ever imagined this sprawling an investigative body over hillary clinton. and i don t think the it s hard to do the apples and oranges here, but there s an element of not treason but something like it. if he s guilty, which i don t know yet, if he s guilty of having consorted with the russians in any way to help them screw with our election, that s