they wouldn t. i don t believe they are going to agree to limit it to two things, but also in giuliani s statement, he actually basically admitted that there is a good case for obstruction. he said, oh, i m fine with collusion because there s no collusion. but obstruction, that s a matter of interpretation. and it isn t. facts are a funny thing. the truth and the facts will come out and i don t think it s going to show that it s a matter of interpretation but of guilt. there is enough evidence that has become public, and that s without what mueller knows that none of us knows, that could show that there is a really strong case for obstruction. and, jill, will that include this the new york times story tonight? we talked to mike schmidt about it, that trump says to his attorney general, can you unrecuse yourself, please, and get involved in this russia thing? that s just one more example of the obstruction. there are so many incidents of
lot to talk about there and let s do that. peter baker chief white house correspondent for the new york times back with us tonight. also back with us jill wine-banks assistant and former watergate counsel. watching that kind of slap jawed, if they have mueller limited to two categories, the questions for them, collusion and obstruction, that s like saying you ve got a tornado to agree to death and destruction only. what does that mean? well, i think you were right when you said in the beginning that this has all come down to a lot of p.r., and you have an unanswered accusations from giuliani that mueller cannot and must not answer because he s acting appropriately. so, giuliani can say whatever he wants. and then he can say, and see how unfair it was? they didn t want to agree to that. they said they would and then
robert mueller fired, there was a particular price to be paid. and if he was going to do it he had to be willing to take that price. he hasn t been willing to take that price so far for the very reason we just talked about, jill talked about, in that he is the head of the executive branch and his power and authority to determine who serves under him, including the attorney general, there is no specific thing in the constitution that says he cannot fire an attorney general he considers to be disloyal to him. but, you know, as rudy giuliani said in that clip you showed, could it be interpreted as a corrupt use of his power? could it be interpreted as, you know, using his power to shield himself as opposed to some, you know, more neutral purpose, and that s where the special counsel clearly seems to be focusing his intention. peter, another thing you and i have talked about are the two parallel universes we re living in now. i watched the president tonight in nashville. i made a list. h