Did Donald Trump Obstruct Justice? | For The Record

CORRESPONDENT. LET ME GO FIRST TO YOU, ALAN.
I'LL ASK ARI THE SAME QUESTION. WHAT DID YOU THINK ABOUT TODAY?
>> WELL, I THINK COMEY MADE A VERY SIGNIFICANT STATEMENT
TODAY. HE SAID HE BELIEVED THE
CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDENT TO TELL THE DIRECTOR
OF THE FBI WHO TO DEVELOP, WHO NOT TO INVESTIGATE, WHO TO
PROSECUTE, WHO NOT TO PROSECUTE. HE'S 100% RIGHT ABOUT THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS. I'VE BEEN MAKING THIS POINT NOW
FOR WEEKS AND VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY HAS DISAGREED WITH ME.
TODAY COMEY AGREED WITH ME. AND, THEREFORE, IF THAT'S RIGHT,
IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT WAS A REQUEST, A HOPE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TELL THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI
TO STOP AN INVESTIGATION. HE ALSO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
PARDON FLYNN AND STOP THE INVESTIGATION.
JEFFERSON DID THIS, LINCOLN DID THIS, KENNEDY DID THIS,
ROOSEVELT DID THIS, AND OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE IT.
PRESIDENT BUSH THE FIRST PARDONED CASPER WINE BERGER IN A
SITUATION WHERE HE MIGHT HAVE TESTIFIED AGAINST BUSH.
IN FACT, THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN THAT CASE, WALSH, CALLED IT A
COVER UP. NOBODY SUGGESTED AT THAT POINT
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. WE HAVE TO GET OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE OFF THE TABLE. THE SECOND IMPORTANT POINT I GET
OUT OF THIS WAS THAT IT NOW TURNS OUT COMEY IS A CHICKEN WHO
IS AFRAID OF SEAGULLS. I MEAN THE IDEA THAT HE WOULD
NOT TELL THE PRESS ABOUT THESE MEMOS AND HE WOULD HAVE SOME LAW
PROFESSOR SERVE AS A SURROGATE TO LEAK INFORMATION, THE LAST
PERSON IN THE WORLD WHO SHOULD BE LEAKING INFORMATION IS THE
DIRECTOR OF THE FBI. AND THIRD, I THINK THAT COMEY
GAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY HE WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIAN
THING. REMEMBER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
THREE TIMES SAID TO HIM, I WANT YOU TO CONTINUE THE
INVESTIGATION. I WANT YOU TO GET IT OUT.
GET IT OUT THAT I'M NOT A SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION.
HE REPEATEDLY SAID, GET IT OUT. COMEY DIDN'T DO IT.
SO, I THINK COMEY WAS FIRED BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO ACCEPT A
PRESIDENTIAL ORDER TO GET OUT THE INFORMATION PUBLICLY THAT HE
WAS NOT A SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION.
THAT WAS A PROPER REQUEST FROM THE PRESIDENT.
YOU CAN'T HAVE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHEN THE PRESIDENT
DIDN'T COMMIT A CRIME. NIXON COMMITTED CRIMES.
HE TOLD HIS UNDERLINGS TO LIE TO THE FBI.
HE ARRANGED FOR HUSH MONEY TO BE PAID TO WITNESSES.
NONE OF THAT IS ALLEGED AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> ALL RIGHT. LET ME GO TO YOU, ARI.
SAME QUESTION, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT TODAY?
>> WHAT WAS MOST SIGNIFICANT WAS THAT JIM COMEY, UNLIKE MANY
OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THIS DRAMA, WAS WILLING TO COME OUT
UNDER HIS OWN NAME, UNDER OATH, AND TESTIFY.
HE ALSO HAS SOME BACKGROUND MATERIALS.
I DIDN'T FIND IT ALL THAT NOTABLE WHETHER HE USED OTHER
PEOPLE TO DISTRIBUTE THINGS. A LOT OF SENIOR OFFICIALS ARE
ACCUSTOMED TO HAVING AIDES SO TO SPEAK.
WHAT HE SAID WAS BACKED UP BY OTHER OFFICIALS AT THE FBI THAT
THIS EFFORT TO STOB THE FLYNN INVESTIGATION WAS PROBLEMATIC SO
MUCH SO THEY TOOK ALL THESE EXTRA STEPS TO TRY TO DEAL WITH
IT. READING FROM DIRECTOR COMEY,
BECAUSE THIS IS THE NEW FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT'S INTERESTING.
THEY WERE AS SHOCKED AND TROUBLED AS I WAS, REFERRING TO
OTHER FBI OFFICIALS. THEY WERE ALL EXPERIENCED PEOPLE
WHO HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A THING.
SO, THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED AND THE CONVERSATION TURNED, WHAT DO
WE DO WITH THIS INFORMATION? HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT HE
BELIEVES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WILL LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF
THIS AND DONALD TRUMP'S WORDS AS WELL AS THE FIRING AND THE
CONTEXT OF ANY INVESTIGATION THAT COULD INCLUDE OBSTRUCTION.
IT'S CERTAINLY TOO EARLY TO KNOW WHERE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
INVESTIGATION LEADS. THAT IS BAD IN SOME SENSE FOR
THE WHITE HOUSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
IT'S ALSO GOOD IN SOME SENSE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE BECAUSE IT COULD
ULTIMATELY LEAD NOWHERE AND VINDICATE THEM.
I THINK ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY HAVE A HANDLE ON WHERE THAT
INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO LEAD IN SIX OR 12 MONTHS HAS A BETTER
CRYSTAL BALL THAN I DO. >> WELL, I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD
CRYSTAL BALL BECAUSE I LISTENED TO COMEY.
IF COMEY IS RIGHT, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS COMPLETE
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO TELL A DIRECTOR OF THE FBI TO END AN
INVESTIGATION, IT WOULD BE WRONG TO DO IT.
IT WOULD BE IMMORAL, POLITICALLY WRONG.
BUT IF HE HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO T YOU DON'T NEED
A CRYSTAL BALL TO CONCLUDE ANY REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD
CONCLUDE WHAT COMEY CONCLUDED, THERE WAS NO CRIME COMMITTED.
THE REASON HE DIDN'T GO TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NOT BECAUSE
THERE WAS RECUSAL, NOT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A PERMANENT DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT BECAUSE HE KNEW THERE WASN'T A CRIME AND
YOU DON'T GO TO PROSECUTORS TO REPORT CONDUCT THAT'S WRONG OR
IN VIOLATION OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RULES.
YOU GO TO PROSECUTORS IF YOU BELIEVE A CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
COMEY DIDN'T BELIEVE A CRIME WAS COMMITTED THEN.
I DON'T BELIEVE HE THINKS -- >> THAT'S NOT WHAT THE RECORD
STATES. IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THAT CRIMES
WERE COMMITTED. IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THAT
PARDONS WOULD BE ISSUED. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES BROAD
PARDON POWER. THE FORMER DIRECTOR DID NOT TALK
ABOUT A CONCLUSION OF A CRIME. THAT WOULD INDEED BE
APPROPRIATE. HE IS A WITNESS TO EVENTS
CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION OF THE FBI AND SPECIAL COUNSEL.
THAT IS AN OPEN PROCESS. IT WILL BE UP TO THEM, NOT ANY
INDIVIDUAL WITNESS TO ULTIMATELY DECIDE WHETHER A FACTUAL
PREDICATE EXISTS AND RECOMMEND SUCH TO THE D.O.J.
>> FORGET ABOUT FACTUAL PREDICATE.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PREDICATE DOESN'T EXIST NO MATTER WHAT THE
FACTS ARE. UNLESS THEY CAN SHOW WHAT NIXON
DID, BRIBING WITNESSES NOT TO TESTIFY, TELLING PEOPLE TO
TESTIFY FALSELY, IF ALL THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE WAS THAT THE
PRESIDENT EXERCISED HIS PROPERs CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO FIRE
COMEY AND TELL HIM TO STOP INVESTIGATING FLYNN, THERE IS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS. FORGET ABOUT THE FACTS.
NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS TO GO FORWARD WITH ANY INVESTIGATION.
>> I APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATION TO FORGET ABOUT
THE FACTS. I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF
FORGETTING ABOUT THE FACTS, PROFESSOR.
THE FACTS MATTER. THE FACTS MATTER FROM A
JOURNALISTIC SENSE, THEY MATTER FROM A LEGAL SENSE.
YOU ARE REFERENCING A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER THAT DOES
EXIST, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY WHICH COULD RESULT IN THE PARDON
POWER. THAT DOESN'T OBVIATE THE FACTUAL
PROCESS AS IT UNFOLDS RIGHT NOW. >> ADAM, I'M GOING TO GIVE ALAN
THE LAST WORD BECAUSE HE'S OUR GUEST AT MSNBC.
>> ALWAYS HAPPY TO BE WITH HIM AS A GUEST.
>> I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE THE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE OFF THE TABLE AND FOCUS ON WHAT WE REALLY CARE ABOUT,
THAT IS, DID THE RUSSIANS TRY TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION.
DID THEY SUCCEED IN INFLUENCING AN ELECTION.
WAS THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN INVOLVED IN THAT.
THAT'S THE ISSUE. NOT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. THAT'S A DISTRACTION AND WE
SHOULD TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE. >> I KNOW I'M JUST A GUEST AS
WELL BUT I WOULD HAVE TO THROW IN THERE, I WOULD ECHO WHAT THE
PROFESSOR IS SAYING ABOUT THAT SEARCH.
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT SEARCH. BUT THAT COULD ALSO UNVEIL
CRIMES. TAKE THE PRESIDENT OUT OF IT.
IT IS A CRIME UNDER FEDERAL ELECTION LAW TO TAKE A THING OF
VALUE FROM A FOREIGNER.
IF THAT OCCURRED, WHICHEVER PARTY, THAT IS SOMETHING PEOPLE
ARE GOING TO CARE ABOUT. >> I WANT TO POINT OUT THERE WAS
ONE LAWYER WHO DIDN'T HAV

Did Donald Trump Obstruct Justice? | For The Record | MSNBC

Latest Posts