What Panetta claims is obstruction of justice is not obstruction of justice. Firing Comey is not obstruction of justice - he deserved to be fired straight out of the gate for incompetence, and it is beyond clear there were numerous other reasons singularly that he should have been fired, and the President had absolute Constitutional authority to do so. Moreover, there is no logic in saying Mueller is now “close to making a case” for facts known long before the investigation even began. And laughably, Panetta also claims that Trump verbally attacking the case as a witch hunt and Giuliani attacking the credibility of the investigation is also grounds for obstruction of justice charges. That’s plain stupid to begin with (especially since he was part of the Clinton administration - remember what they said about Kenneth Starr they were completely making up?), not to mention due to the revelations revealed in the Grassley memo, Nunes memo, FISA application, IG reports, released e-mails from Ohr, Fusion GPS, etc. which were the basis for the attacks on the credibility of the investigation, not to mention also the team Mueller has put together - and so many other things that have been revealed about the bogus origins of this investigation. Of course Martha Raddatz didn’t bother bring any of this up in the discussion. “Do you have concerns that the Trump team can undermine this investigation even before it’s finished?” was literally one of her questions. Does she really think all of that information revealed above and more doesn’t undermine the investigation?
Deliberately misleading viewers...again.
Leon Pinata said....”They’re getting very close to making a case for obstruction of justice not only by the steps that were taken in terms of the president demeaning and attacking a witch hunt, but also the fact that Rudy Giuliani himself has said that the whole purpose of their effort is to undermine the credibility of the special counsel. And then when you add to that the dismissal of those that were involved in the investigation, I think you begin to piece together the kind of case that could form around an obstruction of justice trial. So I think they have to be very careful to use this tactic of trying to undermine the special counsel and the special prosecutor because I think that could backfire.”
There were no follow up statements to his answer. A student who flunked out of journalism 101 at the locl community college would have followed up with at least a couple of questions, like: Mr Pinata, how do you know that Mueller is close to obstruction of justice? Can you point to a single case where the federal government has prosecuted anyone who obstructed justice for making political statements regarding an ongoing federal investigation? You are right on about the Clinton cabal’s attacks on the Ken Starr. Once Pinata explained why Carville etc were not guilty of obstruction, she could have then turned and asked, oh... so it is not like what one normally sees in obstruction... like YOUR FORMER BOSS Clinton’s instructions to Betty Curry about Monica’s gifts and her “recollections” about her visits were patent obstruction of justice, Pinata could have been pinned into cork board like an insect in a biology lab.
These “news” shows are so obviously choreographed - the journalist is trying to get all her questions in so Pinata can get his spin out. Notice how the end of his answer undermined his point about how Mueller is getting close to charging the President with obstruction of justice...”I think they have to be very careful to use this tactic of trying to undermine the [special prosecutor] because [that] could backfire.” So if he is already going to be charged with obstruction for past statements, .... exactly why should the President stop using that tactic now - will he get a lesser sentence? Or does he really not know what Mueller is working on?
Rosenstein sent a letter to Trump, seconded by Sessions, that Comey be fired.
Trump did.
How in the hell can THAT be obstruction of justice against Trump but not his AG and Asst. AG?
Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer
"Although misleading the public or the news media is not a crime, advisers to Trump and his family told The Washington Post that they fear any indication that Trump was seeking to hide information about contacts between his campaign and Russians almost inevitably would draw additional scrutiny from Mueller."
The extent of the president’s personal intervention in his son’s response, the details of which have not previously been reported, adds to a series of actions that Trump has taken that some advisers fear could place him and some members of his inner circle in legal jeopardy.
As special counsel Robert S. Mueller III looks into potential obstruction of justice as part of his broader investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, these advisers worry that the president’s direct involvement leaves him needlessly vulnerable to allegations of a coverup.
He fired FBI Director James B. Comey on May 9 after a private meeting in which Comey said the president asked him if he could end the investigation of ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats told associates that Trump asked him in March if he could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on Flynn. In addition, Trump has repeatedly criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from overseeing the FBI’s Russian investigation — a decision that was one factor leading to the appointment of Mueller. And he has privately discussed his power to issue pardons, including for himself, and explored potential avenues for undercutting Mueller’s work."
These are slim reeds to base an obstruction of justice charge. Maybe Trump told Flynn that he would take care of him and speak with Comey about his case. Perhaps this could explain why Flynn struck a deal with the SC. Trump has denied any mention of the Flynn case to Comey who said he did. Flynn's testimony would corroborate Comey's account.
The public will side with Trump if Mueller accuses him of a process crime like obstruction. And Comey is the one who said the didn't think Flynn was lying during his FBI interview.