here s comey claiming that he ss never been asked ofun hillary clinton obstructed justice in her email case on a radio interview in d.c. this is unbelievable. take a look. why wouldn t smashing cell phones and the destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be p obstruction of justice? that is a great question. it s the first time i ve been asked that. the answer is, it would dependnd upon what the intent of the people doing it was. lots of people smash their cell phones so they are not resold on a secondary market and your personal stuff ends up in somebody else s hands. if you smash your cell phone, knowing that the investigators want it and they have a subpoena for it for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice. the law requires intent? yes, not just intent, the prosecutors demonstrate corrupt intent. sean: seriously? he was never asked if clinton and her team obstructed justice? really? okay.
administration handled this and the trump administration handled this. there was material that he was able to finish his investigation under president obama but not under president trump. shannon: katie, i ll give you a chance to respond. it s news for a couple of reasons. the first is that it s news based on the situation we re in now. the left has been accusing president trump op obstruction of justice without any kind of evidence on the russia investigation. but here we are yesterday with james comey saying, look, loretta lynch directed me and told me to use the term matter, not investigation. it does matter in the sense that the hillary clinton campaign repeatedly called the fbi s criminal investigation of hillary clinton a security review which james comey last year told katherine herridge he wassen aware of what a security review was because the fbi does criminal investigations. it does matter. it also matters because in the election last year, one of the issues that was seve
wanted to effect the fbi s investigation into his campaign and its ties with russia, that would be that is that s the kind of example you might make up if you were teaching a low level class on op obstruction of justice and you wanted to give your students a crystal clear example of what that might look like in a banana republic where things like that happen. as far as that goes though, the remedy for obstruction of justice is committed by a president, there s only one remedy which is impeachment. it was the third article of impeachment against bill clinton. any such investigation by the inspector general. justice department would only cover the actions of justice department personnel. it would not cover the actions of the president of the united states. if the president obstructed