today was hey, no, trump did not say what he said, that his call to stop the probe was not really a call to stop the probe, not an order. mueller s investigators may disagree with that. they are probing how the president talks to and pressures the doj. one democrat a former prosecutor, spoke to how this all fits into criminal intent. clearly there statement is serious and substantial evidence of criminal intent. even if it doesn t constitute a crime itself. the president is coming close to actual committing the crime of obstruction of justice if not crossing that line already. and these tweets adding to each other amount to evidence of criminal intent. there is now right now a clearly credible case of obstruction of
gets somebody other than a fox interview, he doesn t do well. he gets nervous. he has a tendency to lie a lot. he can t help himself and there are things that he can t help backtracking. can he protect himself in an interview with mueller. every one of his lawyers is advising him not to sit down. a lot of reaction to the president s tweets today. let s watch those. clearly this statement is serious and substantial evidence of criminal intent even if it doesn t constitute a crime itself. there is now, right now, a clearly credible case of obstruction of justice against the president of the united states. do you think it is appropriate for him to send a text like that? no, i don t. of course it is not appropriate. there are definitely indications that would lead to the conclusion that he is engaged in obstruction of
as it says, as preet was telling you, very clearly, for the first time, to stage the release of stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 u.s. presidential election. and to sew dissent here in the united states. which clearly, which clearly was their objectobjective. on that front, jeffrey, mission accomplished, as well. and who was encouraging this crime to take place? yeah. who was encouraging russia to keep stealing these e-mails in violation of the law? donald trump. candidate donald trump. now, i don t think encouraging someone to violate the law in fact, i know encouraging someone to violate the law is not a crime itself. but it is worth part of the historical judgment about the 2016 election that this criminal conspiracy took place with the endorsement and support of the candidate who was the beneficiary of this criminal
seeking foreign help which can be a crime itself. they immediately tried to get away from it being literal. you as a journalist pressed him at the time. those questions obviously proved prescient and perhaps you were triggering him. he tried to say people raising those questions were, quote, trying to help his opponent. that s not what today s indictment says. it says that people who worked for vladimir putin s military were trying to interfere in the election to help donald trump. this is a huge sweeping change in what s been charged. everything up to this point involves putting pieces together. bob mueller isn t talking today. he s indicting. the other important point i would draw everyone to on page six is the object of the conspiracy. the object of the conspiracy is to interfere in a manner that hurt one side, helped another and to do it through felonious activity. ken was reporting it involves
evidence to support that. we re at a point now where there s not a factual hook they can go on. when they talk about spies in the campaign, there was a foreman who was around the campaign, here this was just made up. i don t know any fact that they could point to that will get you close to the idea of somebody being framed. that s a crime itself of framing someone of a crime. they re using the man who served this country of economying a crime. the claim was pushed back on as planting a spy in the campaign. do you think that s significant? i do. can we take a step back can we take a step back for a moment. did you ever take civics in high school, don? yeah. the executive branch the