and after learning that, suggesting that the fbi director ought to lead this go or stop the investigation, that has the makings of obstruction of justice. the special counsel has more work to do and it s to make sure his investigation continues uninterrupted with no interference and has the resources in necessary to do this work and get to the facts where they lead us. this is very, very disturbing that the president of the united states according to his own tweet although he later said he didn t tweet it, acknowledging that he fired michael flynn because he lied to the vice president and the fbi. after learning that, he had a conversation in which he asked the fbi director to let this thing go with flynn. those have all the markings of obstruction of justice and mr. mueller s team will continue to generate the evidence surrounding this. that seems like obstruction of justice to me.
things that might contribute to an obstruction case. there s the february 14th meeting where the president allegedly asked jim comey to let this thing go with flynn. there are similar requests to other leaders in the intelligence community. there is pressure on mitch mcconnell to protect me from this investigation. so i think mueller and his team are likely looking at the bigger picture of all of the examples of efforts too obstruct justice and the firing really is just but one example. and although the president has the pow tore do it, the fact that he did it could still be evidence that his goal was to obstruct justice. and i m wondering if you know probably the toughest witness against donald trump might be donald trump. i go back to that lester holt interview where he explained in detail why he fired jim comey. is there any way to back out of that in. i don t think so. especially because we awe saw it in living color and on videotape. i think one thing that s
comparative power of pardon. in this idea of inherent power to fire, therefore he could fire jim comey for any reason he wanted, is that enough of a argument to he the get out of a obstruction of justice charge. he has the power to fire anyone he wants. comey said i accept the fact the president can fire for me for any reason or no reason at all. that doesn t mean there s no obstruction of justice. i think we re taking a narrow view of the obstruction. that was one example of a long litany of things that might contribute to a obstruction case. there s the february 14th meeting where the president allegedly asked james comey to let this thing go with flynn. there are similar requests to other leaders in the intelligent community. there s the conversation with mcconnell to protect him from russia. i think he s looking at a bigger
inauguration about a potential quid pro quo in which flynn would be paid to carry out directives from ankara, secretly, while in the white house. i guess it seems like a simple question, really. if true, what could this mean for michael flynn, barbara, and for the trump white house? these would be very, very serious crimes. i think there has been speculation that he could be charged with failing to register as a foreign agent, but this is a completely different kind of crime. this is either conspiracy to commit kidnapping, which is punishable by up to life in prison, or it s accepting a $15 million bribe from a foreign adversary to engage in an official act. either way, this is a very serious crime if the facts merit it, and certainly it s worthy of additional investigation. but if so, very, very serious crime. and it also, i think, impacts the potential obstruction of justice charge. if president trump knew that this was part of the fbi s investigation, and when he asked jim comey t