on charges, is does that conduct warrant the extraordinary remedy of removal from the highest office in the land? you know, some of your democratic colleagues, a few have already reached that conclusion. i take it you have not. you know, i think we re still early in getting the facts other. we haven t had the actual testimony of director comey. there are a lot of things would i like to ask him in addition to, you know, all of the important context actual details that go around that factual statement, but also who did he tubing about this? what is encapsulated in those memos? you know, we re going to need to know whether his account can be corroborated because it s clearly going to be contradicted by the white house. they are already trying to impeach director comey. i do think that, you know, frankly most of us in congress as well as in the country are going to be far more inclined to believe the director s account than the president s, but nonetheless, we re going to want to know
one seems to be the desire by the president to get the director to help him make the club go that is, make the investigation go ahead and the other is a more specific request by the president and that is to get information out of there that i m not a subject of the investigation. those are two different things. they are two equally serious, well, one more serious, i should say than the other but equally troubling, but we need to get i think get further information interest director comey. just what does he think the president was asking him, and how specific can he be about the president s exact words because the most important thing, of course, is what the president intended. were you surprised to read in comey s testimony that he did in fact kell the president on three separatecations that the president was not under investigation. i don t think that was
fired as fbi director, now that this has become an issue, he can go back to these memos and say i wrote these at the time. i thought something unusual was happening at the time. that s why i had this insurance policy. you ve covered comey. you know comey, evan, so when the argument, is you know what, don t believe a word he says. he s just by the their trump fired him. his response will be? well, i think one of the things that he does have is frankly a record here in this city of service, and i think people who have worked with him would think that he s actually very honest, and the other thing that i think would come across here is not only did he write the memos, but he also briefed members of the leadership team at the fbi, so there are other witnesses who know when he came back and he told them, unrelated to them, what he had just experienced, and i think, you know, that s part of what have will help corroborate this. obviously there s only two men that were in some of these me
go. do you believe this is evidence of obstruction of justice? it certainly very possible that this is evidence in combination with other actions by the president that could amount to obstruction. it s certainly an effort to interfere in the investigation, and i think that the context is very important, wolf, and and one of the one of the things we need to keep in mind in terms of when this is happening and how this is happening is that dinner that the president invites mr. director comey to take place the day after sally yates has gone to the white house to warn them about michael flynn so the very next day the president wants a dinner alone for director comey and asks for his loyalty and then you flash forward a couple of week. the day after flynn is fired is the day that the president asked comey to drop the flynn investigation. those are not coincidences in my view. the fact that the president
effectively cleared the room of other people when he had these conversations i think goes to the president s intent, but we also node to get answered those questions that were asked of rogers and coats today because they provide some of the other context, and that is did the president go to other people to ask them to intervene with director comey because he wasn t having enough success in getting homey to drop the flynn case? jeffrey toobin, as you know, a former federal prosecutor. you re also a former federal prosecutor. jeffrey believes it to be obstruction of justice. how high is that bar from your vantage point to go forward with a charge of obstruction of justice? well, you know, it s a high bar here because we re not really talking about whether you can bring a criminal charge against the president, whether you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. the burden is in many ways much higher because the remedy here if the president engaged in unlawful obstruction of