people through this report in five which episodes of obstruction of justice were presented. i think it was an important hearing. we are going to continue to hear from witnesses. obviously don mcgahn, and cory lewandowski, there s a lot more work to do. i think people are thinking about this in a very serious way. they re reviewing evidence. they re talking to their constituents. they are trying to make judgments about what they think is right for the country. i think each day it feels like there are more people who think the time has come to begin a formal process to consider whether or not the president should be removed from office in an impeachment inquiry. i think this speaker will continue to reflect the broad consensus in the caucus. we re not there yet i think in terms of a majority of our members. but i think more and more people see based on the president s conduct that s presented in the mueller report and his subsequent conduct of attempting to obstruct, prevent witnesses fr
wasn t as helpful. that s why you used words like incomplete, imprecise, inadequate, insufficient. is that a fair summary of what you thought of those written answers? that is a fair summary. and i presume that comes from the report. and yet, sir, and i ask this respectfully. by the way, the president didn t ever claim the fifth amendment, did he? i am not going to talk to that. all right. i want to know what were you going to ask respectively. it sounds like you think mueller that you were second-guessing mueller s decision not to subpoena the president. you better believe i am. i think it was a mistake, but i think it s important what he said. what he said was that they were balancing. in fact, he did this with his hands. and what he was trying to convey is that they were building what he called in the report significant and substantial evidence of the president s intent to obstruct justice. he was balancing what they already had with the delay required to possibly get mo
prosecute hillary clinton and james comey? this excellent reporting is a bombshell, profoundly significant. the fact that there was actually no prosecution in no way means that there wasn t evidence of criminal intent. in fact, intent to obstruct justice. and it also indicates the profound danger to the special prosecutor, because now mcgahn is gone. sessions is gone. whitaker is there. he is really a trump loyalist. in fact, he has no other qualifications for this job, and that indicates that congress must take action now. there are protocols and practices and policies in place informal little written down in memoranda, but congress needs to be involved, having hearings and setting boundaries and
guardrails on what the house can do because the department of justice needs to be protected. its independence is a bedrock. the using of this police power against political enemies is characteristic not only of a banana republic but of saudi arabia and russia whose rulers apparently donald trump really admires. i understand the discussion about using the justice department as a tool to go after political opponent, and i want to come back to that, but you said this is evidence of obstruction of justice. i m trying to understand exactly why in this narrow case hillary clinton was go longer in office. james comey was no longer fbi director. why would their prosecution be an obstruction of justice? in the same way that the firing of james comey was an obstruction of justice. in the same way that misuse and abuse of the police power to silence critics is a potential obstruction of justice. the fact that a crime is planned
there has never been so many lies, so much deception. there has never been anything like it. and we re going to have a special prosecutor. with me now is senator richard blumenthal. senator, what s your reaction to this news tonight in the new york times, also cnn is reporting it as well, that president trump, and we re talking about just this past spring, asked then white house counsel don mcgahn, questioned whether or not he could prosecute clinthillary clinton james comey? this is a bomb shell. profoundly significant. the fact that there was actually no prosecution in no way means that there wasn t evidence of criminal intent. in fact, intent to obstruct justice. and it also indicates the profound danger to the special prosecutor, because now mcgahn is gone.