which the president and james comey have very different accounts of what happened there. and finally to the deutsch bank discussion that you re having. jay sekulow is another one of the president s outside counsel, who says, look, deutsch bank has not turned over any records. and yet, nicole, it is possible, and i ll leave it to your legal team to dig into this more deeply. but the president s legal team wouldn t be advised by that. so a lot of unanswered questions and of course shadowing over all of that the fact that you do have this dispute with the president s legal team, over whether the president can commit obstructio obstruction, and say they that he can t. i heard from three senior republicans closely aligned with this white house, firmly behind the president and his agenda. who all have been in contact with people who are of interest
how in the world are we allowing the federal bureau of investigation to leak this information to the washington post. this is not the way the justice system is supposed to go. sean: this is the 50th leak though! this is a different level. the call for the special counsel where did this come from? i hope that he is investigating that tonight. sean: where is james comey s investigation. loretta lynch s investigation? he ended the obstruction case against the president of the united states peered his own testimony ended that. and there is a point there. when you look at it, obstructio obstruction, they talk to all the intelligence chief. they ve asked everyone over and over in congress again. in testimony, did president trump try to obstruct this investigation.
how in the world are we allowing the federal bureau of investigation to leak this information to the washington post. this is not the way the justice system is supposed to go. sean: this is the 50th leak though! this is a different level. the call for the special counsel where did this come from? i hope that he is investigating that tonight. sean: where is james comey s investigation. loretta lynch s investigation? he ended the obstruction case against the president of the united states peered his own testimony ended that. and there is a point there. when you look at it, obstructio obstruction, they talk to all the intelligence chief. they ve asked everyone over and over in congress again. in testimony, did president trump try to obstruct this investigation.
it s about james comey, jeff sessions, collusion, obstructio obstruction. i fully agree with senator klobuchar and others. do it in a classified setting, then. let the special counsel proceed. let s stop the public kabuki going on. bret: another story that was shot down and that was that president trump was going to fire bob mueller, the special counsel. there was some talk about that and then the deputy attorney general who was in charge was asked about it. at this point, have you seen any evidence of good cause for firing special counselor mueller? no, i have not. if president trump ordered you to fire the special counsel, what would you do? senator, i m not going to follow any orders and thus i believe they are lawful and appropriate. as long as i m in this position, he s not going to be fired without good cause.
so he stuck with that, the fbi is stuck with it. unfortunately president trump is stuck with it as well. martha: obstruction of justice. the definition of obstruction of justice is the interference within law enforcement or judicial proceeding for a corrupt purpose. so if donald trump did say to james comey layoff of mike flynn and the purpose was flynn has suffered enough, not obstructio obstruction. the fbi has more important things to do, not a corrupt purpose. but if the purpose was to prevent general flynn from telling the fbi something about him, the president, or people around him, that s a corrupt purpose. can the president be indicted? never happened before, there s nothing too prohibited. obstructionists obstruction of m the basis of impeachment, almost universally us. martha: it can start the political process. which then goes to congress. it doesn t have the final rules of evidence that we have in a court of law. martha: we will take a