opinion on these ridiculous obstruction charges, it seems utterly outrageous to me. jim comey was up on capitol hill and was asked specifically if he felt he was obstructed in his investigation and he said no. when he asked jim comey about the mike flynn case he said, i hope this can go away. he in no way obstructed the investigation. how do we know that? because general flynn already took a plea. so is there any lakes to this obstruction thing or is william barr correct in his memo? william barr is correct, it s outrageous. it s originally about article two power for the president, and they exercise the most robust power for the president that we seen in decades. we don t want an attorney general from mars who hasn t given serious thought to serious issues like this.
this whole obstruction thing is nonsense. if he wanted to obstruct it, he would have obstructed it. he has a right to defend himself. if he believes he s innocent, he is innocent, he should speak out. white house also moved quickly to frame trump s words as nothing more than his own personal view. it s not an order. it s the president s opinion. the president is not obstructing, he s fighting back. the president is stating his opinion. he s stating it clearly. he s certainly expressing a frustration that he has with the level of corruption that we ve seen from people like jim comey, the president s angry. frankly, most of america is angry as well and there s no reason he shouldn t be able to voice that opinion. but remember what the white house once told us about how we should regard what this president says on twitter. are president trump s tweets considered official white house statements? well, the president is the president of the united states
in the room he knew about enough from being around. you want to know where trump s problems are go back and read all the stuff steve bannon has said in the past. this obstruction thing is one of the key ones. barbara mcquaid, what is donald trump s best defense at this point at this stage of the evidence as we know it. well, i think he would have to i don t know that he s going to be able to refute jim comey s testimony about what it was he said. but if he can show it was for some other purpose other than to cover up his own misconduct or the misconduct of people in his campaign, that might be the best. if he can show there was not a corrupt motive. yes, he knew that michael flynn was under investigation but he believed it was a waste of taxpayer funds, that he believed it would be fruitless to try to go after this kind of a case. if he can show that there was some other motive other than corrupt intent, that might be the best. but you know, at some point i think there s going to
problems with him as a political actor, but steve bannon who very quickly identified to michael wolfe and other people and the obstruction of justice thing was going to be the thing that would hang trump because of the fact firing comey is the worst political decision you ve ever made because he knew, not necessarily directly, not necessarily because he was involved in putting together these timelines but because he was everywhere in that white house and he knew what the truth of these stories were, it s why he always grasped the obstruction of justice thing was such a difficult problem for trump and why some of the things we re hearing michael cohen has been saying are also things steve bannon even if he wasn t in the room he knew about enough from being around. you want to know where trump s problems are go back and read all the stuff steve bannon has said in the past. this obstruction thing is one of the key ones. barbara mcquaid, what is donald trump s best defense at this point
transaction. steve: the president? the president did not. and the other people at the meeting that he claims he had without the president about it say he was never there. and there are at least four separate witnesses who say that against a guy who has been kind of proven to be one of the biggest liars in america. pete: i read your body language on this almost. come on. how much more this is the theater of the absurd. the president is innocent. hasn t done anything wrong has been proven over and over again. there is not a single stitch of evidence of collusion. he didn t have anything to do with russians. he made no deals with the russians. he didn t get elected because of the russians. they may have colluded with 13 of them. 1 of them. watch the americans and watch the russians collude. they do it for a living and do other things. he wasn t involved in it the obstruction thing is crazy. he had a trite fire comey. that s what it is all about. he had a right to say to comey gi