TRUMP ON THE QUESTION OF OBSTRUCTION.

OBSTRUCTION. >> THANK YOU

>> THANK YOU SEE YOU AT 4:00 P.M.

SEE YOU AT 4:00 P.M. MY

MY MAYA WILEY WILL STAY WITH US

MAYA WILEY WILL STAY WITH US AND CHRIS MATTHEWS IS JOINING

AND CHRIS MATTHEWS IS JOINING US

US CHRIS.

CHRIS. >> I’VE BEEN WATCHING YOUR GREAT

>> I’VE BEEN WATCHING YOUR GREAT COVERAGE

COVERAGE I THINK NICOLLE HIT IT ON THE

I THINK NICOLLE HIT IT ON THE NAIL A NUMBER OF TIMES

NAIL A NUMBER OF TIMES BUT A COUPLE THINGS I HAD THE

BUT A COUPLE THINGS I HAD THE LEISURE OF SITTING HERE WATCHING

LEISURE OF SITTING HERE WATCHING YOU RATHER THAN JUST -- I’VE

YOU RATHER THAN JUST -- I’VE BEEN ABLE TO READ IT OVER AND

BEEN ABLE TO READ IT OVER AND OVER

OVER THE FIRST THING THAT STRUCK ME

THE FIRST THING THAT STRUCK ME WAS THE POLITICAL BRILLIANT OF

WAS THE POLITICAL BRILLIANT OF BILL BARR FOUR WEEKS AGO

BILL BARR FOUR WEEKS AGO HAD HE SAID THEN WHAT HE CAME

HAD HE SAID THEN WHAT HE CAME OUT ON SUNDAY WITH 48 HOURS NO I

OUT ON SUNDAY WITH 48 HOURS NO I TO STAY WHAT WAS IN THE REPORT,

TO STAY WHAT WAS IN THE REPORT, IF HE HAD COME OUT AND SAID THAT

IF HE HAD COME OUT AND SAID THAT I DISAGREED WITH ROBERT MUELLER

I DISAGREED WITH ROBERT MUELLER ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THAT

ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THAT WORD DISAGREED, IF HE HAD SAID

WORD DISAGREED, IF HE HAD SAID THAT THEN FOR THE LAST FOUR

THAT THEN FOR THE LAST FOUR WEEKS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE

WEEKS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE REIGNING HEADLINE OF THE STORY

REIGNING HEADLINE OF THE STORY I DISAGREED WITH THE MUELLER

I DISAGREED WITH THE MUELLER REPORT ON OBSTRUCTION OF

REPORT ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

JUSTICE. HE DID THAT THIS MORNING AS PART

HE DID THAT THIS MORNING AS PART OF A SOFT LANDING HE WAS WHAT WE

OF A SOFT LANDING HE WAS WHAT WE CALL ROLLING DISCLOSURE, IN

CALL ROLLING DISCLOSURE, IN POLITICS WHERE YOU SOFTEN THE

POLITICS WHERE YOU SOFTEN THE BAND LANDING

BAND LANDING BAD LANDING.

BAD LANDING. WHAT YOU WILL HEAR IN THE ACTUAL

WHAT YOU WILL HEAR IN THE ACTUAL MUELLER REPORT IS NOT WHAT I

MUELLER REPORT IS NOT WHAT I AGREED WITH.

AGREED WITH. I DON’T THINK THAT THERE WAS

I DON’T THINK THAT THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE I DON’T LIKE THOSE CASES HE

I DON’T LIKE THOSE CASES HE POINTED OUT.

POINTED OUT. I FELT THEY WERE WRONG

I FELT THEY WERE WRONG SO THAT IS ONE THING

SO THAT IS ONE THING THE OTHER THING, TRUMP HAS BEEN

THE OTHER THING, TRUMP HAS BEEN INSISTENT ON SAYING I DON’T OWE

INSISTENT ON SAYING I DON’T OWE THE RUSSIANS ANYTHING FOR WHAT

THE RUSSIANS ANYTHING FOR WHAT THEY DID IN 2016

THEY DID IN 2016 I DON’T OWE THEM ANYTHING.

I DON’T OWE THEM ANYTHING. WELL, THIS REPORT IS VERY CLEAR

WELL, THIS REPORT IS VERY CLEAR THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT

THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 2016

INTERFERED IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC FASHION.

SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC FASHION. AND THEN IT GOES IN TO ALL THE

AND THEN IT GOES IN TO ALL THE WAYS, RALLIES, WEBSITE, ALL THE

WAYS, RALLIES, WEBSITE, ALL THE WORK THAT THEY DID, THE HACKING,

WORK THAT THEY DID, THE HACKING, ALL THE WAYS THAT THEY DID

ALL THE WAYS THAT THEY DID INTERFERE.

INTERFERE. BARR THIS MORNING OVER AND OVER

BARR THIS MORNING OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN HIS STATEMENT SAID

AGAIN IN HIS STATEMENT SAID ATTEMPTED TO INTERFERE

ATTEMPTED TO INTERFERE EFFORTS TO INTERFERE

EFFORTS TO INTERFERE NEVER ONCE -- AND I THINK THIS

NEVER ONCE -- AND I THINK THIS WAS PLAYING FOR THE PRESIDENT --

WAS PLAYING FOR THE PRESIDENT -- DID HE ADMIT THE STATEMENT IN

DID HE ADMIT THE STATEMENT IN THE BOTTOM LINE OF THIS REPORT

THE BOTTOM LINE OF THIS REPORT THAT THE RUSSIANS DID IN FACT

THAT THE RUSSIANS DID IN FACT INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTIONS

INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTIONS I THINK THOSE TWO POINTS, HIDING

I THINK THOSE TWO POINTS, HIDING HIS DISAGREEMENT OVER THE

HIS DISAGREEMENT OVER THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE DECISION,

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE DECISION, AND COVERING UP REALLY FOR THE

AND COVERING UP REALLY FOR THE RUSSIAN INTERVENTION, EFFECTIVE

RUSSIAN INTERVENTION, EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION IN THE CAMPAIGN,

INTERVENTION IN THE CAMPAIGN, TWO BIG POINTS HE SCORED FOR

TWO BIG POINTS HE SCORED FOR TRUMP TODAY.

TRUMP TODAY. >> AND DON’T FORGET THE NET

>> AND DON’T FORGET THE NET EFFECT OF THE FOUR PAGE LETTER

EFFECT OF THE FOUR PAGE LETTER ON AN OTHERWISE NEWSLESS SUNDAY

ON AN OTHERWISE NEWSLESS SUNDAY AFTERNOON WAS TO GIVE THE

AFTERNOON WAS TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT AIR COVER TO CLAIM AS

PRESIDENT AIR COVER TO CLAIM AS HE WAS UP UNTIL TODAY TOTAL

HE WAS UP UNTIL TODAY TOTAL EXONERATION.

EXONERATION. NO COLLUSION

NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION

NO OBSTRUCTION >> AND ALONG THOSE LINES, CAN

>> AND ALONG THOSE LINES, CAN ANYBODY BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT’S

ANYBODY BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT’S RESPONSES, THOSE WRITTEN

RESPONSES, THOSE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE TAKE HOME EXAM

RESPONSES TO THE TAKE HOME EXAM HE WAS GIVEN BY MUELLER?

HE WAS GIVEN BY MUELLER? MY GOD, IT WAS LIKE HE HAD

MY GOD, IT WAS LIKE HE HAD FAILED AN ALZHEIMER’S COMPETENCY

FAILED AN ALZHEIMER’S COMPETENCY TEST

TEST 36 TIMES HE SAID I CAN’T

36 TIMES HE SAID I CAN’T REMEMBER

REMEMBER I CAN’T REMEMBER

I CAN’T REMEMBER I CAN’T REMEMBER

I CAN’T REMEMBER WE’VE BEEN TALKING IN THE LAST

WE’VE BEEN TALKING IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS THANKS TO ROBERT

COUPLE OF DAYS THANKS TO ROBERT KAISER IN THE "POST" ABOUT WHAT

KAISER IN THE "POST" ABOUT WHAT IS TOO OLD TO BE PRESIDENT

IS TOO OLD TO BE PRESIDENT MY GOD, IF YOU CAN’T REMEMBER

MY GOD, IF YOU CAN’T REMEMBER ANYTHING, IS THAT TO BE

ANYTHING, IS THAT TO BE BELIEVED

BELIEVED NO

NO OF COURSE IT IS NOT TO BE

OF COURSE IT IS NOT TO BE BELIEVE.

BELIEVE. HE IS COMPETENT TO REMEMBER ALL

HE IS COMPETENT TO REMEMBER ALL THOSE INSTANCES BUT IS SOMEHOW

THOSE INSTANCES BUT IS SOMEHOW USING THAT AS HIS REFUGE

USING THAT AS HIS REFUGE WHAT BOTHERED ME THE MOST IS

WHAT BOTHERED ME THE MOST IS ROBERT MUELLER’S REPORT.

ROBERT MUELLER’S REPORT. THERE IS SOMETHING IN THERE THAT

THERE IS SOMETHING IN THERE THAT IT MAKES MOOT THE WHOLE EFFORT

IT MAKES MOOT THE WHOLE EFFORT HE SAYS I CAN’T INDICT A

HE SAYS I CAN’T INDICT A PRESIDENT OR I’VE DECIDED NOT TO

PRESIDENT OR I’VE DECIDED NOT TO BECAUSE IT WILL CURTAIL HIS

BECAUSE IT WILL CURTAIL HIS ABILITY TO BE PRESIDENT.

ABILITY TO BE PRESIDENT. THEREFORE I CAN’T ACCUSE BECAUSE

THEREFORE I CAN’T ACCUSE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE UNFAIR IT SOMEONE

IT WOULD BE UNFAIR IT SOMEONE WHO I CAN’T INDICT TO ACCUSE

WHO I CAN’T INDICT TO ACCUSE THEM BECAUSE THEN THEY WOULDN’T

THEM BECAUSE THEN THEY WOULDN’T HAVE THE RECOURSE OF A COURT TO

HAVE THE RECOURSE OF A COURT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN

DEFEND THEMSELVES IN SO WHAT WAS HE DOING IF HE CAN’T

SO WHAT WAS HE DOING IF HE CAN’T INDICT THE PRESIDENT, HE CAN’T

INDICT THE PRESIDENT, HE CAN’T ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT, WELL, OH,

ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT, WELL, OH, I CAN’T EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT.

I CAN’T EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT. SO HIS VERDICT WAS THAT UNCLEAR

SO HIS VERDICT WAS THAT UNCLEAR SORT OF THE OLD SCOTTISH VERDICT

SORT OF THE OLD SCOTTISH VERDICT THING UNPROVEN, I CAN’T

THING UNPROVEN, I CAN’T EXONERATE HIM.

EXONERATE HIM. I THINK THAT IT IS VERY

I THINK THAT IT IS VERY UNSATISFACTORY

UNSATISFACTORY AND HE THREW THE BALL UP AT THE

AND HE THREW THE BALL UP AT THE BASKETBALL GAME AND ONE SIDE

BASKETBALL GAME AND ONE SIDE GRABBED THE BALL, THAT WOULD BE

GRABBED THE BALL, THAT WOULD BE BARR, GRABBED THE BALL AND SHOT

BARR, GRABBED THE BALL AND SHOT IT AND SAID INNOCENT

IT AND SAID INNOCENT >> SO FINAL QUESTION, CHRIS.

>> SO FINAL QUESTION, CHRIS. WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US

WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS IN

BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS HAVE A REAL CHOICE HERE

CONGRESS HAVE A REAL CHOICE HERE ABOUT HOW AND WHERE TO

ABOUT HOW AND WHERE TO STREAMLINE THEIR OBJECTIONS,

STREAMLINE THEIR OBJECTIONS, THEIR BILLS OF PARTICULARS, AND

THEIR BILLS OF PARTICULARS, AND THEIR INVESTIGATION.

THEIR INVESTIGATION. >> WELL, THEY CAN TAKE THE

>> WELL, THEY CAN TAKE THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE POINT,

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE POINT, THEY CAN TAKE ELEMENTS OF THE

THEY CAN TAKE ELEMENTS OF THE COLLUSION PART, CLEARLY ALL THIS

COLLUSION PART, CLEARLY ALL THIS BALL PLAYING

BALL PLAYING I THINK THE DECISION BY THE

I THINK THE DECISION BY THE MUELLER TEAM TO SAY YOU CAN’T

MUELLER TEAM TO SAY YOU CAN’T PROSECUTE ON A GUY WHO TAKES

PROSECUTE ON A GUY WHO TAKES DIRT FROM WikiLeaks, FROM

DIRT FROM WikiLeaks, FROM GUCCIFER 2 AND USES IT AS PART

GUCCIFER 2 AND USES IT AS PART OF A PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN ALONG

OF A PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN ALONG THE LINES THAT RUSSIA INTENDED,

THE LINES THAT RUSSIA INTENDED, I DON’T SEE THAT -- THAT IS NOT

I DON’T SEE THAT -- THAT IS NOT ADVANCING A CONSPIRACY, BI-I

ADVANCING A CONSPIRACY, BI-I GUESS THAT IS THEIR LEGAL

GUESS THAT IS THEIR LEGAL JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT SEEMS TO BE A BIG DIFFERENCE

SEEMS TO BE A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM REPORTING IT FOR

BETWEEN THEM REPORTING IT FOR THEIR POLITICAL PURPOSES AND

THEIR POLITICAL PURPOSES AND SOMEONE IN THE OBJECTIVE MEDIA

SOMEONE IN THE OBJECTIVE MEDIA SIMPLY SAYING HERE IS WHAT THE

SIMPLY SAYING HERE IS WHAT THE RUSSIANS ARE PUSHING

RUSSIANS ARE PUSHING BUT I THINK THAT IT WILL COME

BUT I THINK THAT IT WILL COME DOWN TO LET’S FACE IT, JERRY

DOWN TO LET’S FACE IT, JERRY NADLER, WHO IS LISTENING TO

NADLER, WHO IS LISTENING TO NANCY PELOSI, AND NANCY PELOSI

NANCY PELOSI, AND NANCY PELOSI HAS MADE A POLITICAL JUDGMENT

HAS MADE A POLITICAL JUDGMENT THAT WITHOUT REPUBLICAN SUPPORT

THAT WITHOUT REPUBLICAN SUPPORT FOR AN IMPEACHMENT EXERCISE, SHE

FOR AN IMPEACHMENT EXERCISE, SHE SHOULDN’T GO ALONG WITH IT FOR

SHOULDN’T GO ALONG WITH IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

POLITICAL REASONS. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU CAN’T

IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU CAN’T MAKE THE CASE IN A BIPARTISAN

MAKE THE CASE IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION, DON’T MAKE IT BECAUSE

FASHION, DON’T MAKE IT BECAUSE IT WILL ONLY SERVE THE PURPOSE

IT WILL ONLY SERVE THE PURPOSE OF HURTING YOURSELF POLITICALLY.

OF HURTING YOURSELF POLITICALLY. AS JOURNALISTS AND COMMENTATORS,

AS JOURNALISTS AND COMMENTATORS, WE CAN SAY THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT

WE CAN SAY THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO MAKE THE DECISION BECAUSE

WAY TO MAKE THE DECISION BECAUSE YOU’RE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG

YOU’RE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG THAT YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT TRUMP

THAT YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT TRUMP WERE NONPARTISAN, YOU SIMPLY

WERE NONPARTISAN, YOU SIMPLY WANT TO FOLLOW THE TRUTH

WANT TO FOLLOW THE TRUTH BUT THEN YOU CAN’T STEP BACK AND

BUT THEN YOU CAN’T STEP BACK AND SAY NOW I’M GOING TO MAKE A

SAY NOW I’M GOING TO MAKE A POLITICAL JUDGMENT, IT IS NOT IN

POLITICAL JUDGMENT, IT IS NOT IN OUR INTERESTS TO PURSUE THIS IN

OUR INTERESTS TO PURSUE THIS IN A PARTISAN FASHION IF THAT IS

A PARTISAN FASHION IF THAT IS WHAT IT COMES TO

WHAT IT COMES TO THAT IS NOT BEING CONSISTENT

THAT IS NOT BEING CONSISTENT GO ALL THE WAY TO THE TRUTH AND

GO ALL THE WAY TO THE TRUTH AND THE WAY TO GET TO THE TRUTH IS

THE WAY TO GET TO THE TRUTH IS AN IMPEACHMENT EXERCISE.

AN IMPEACHMENT EXERCISE. THAT IS HOW YOU GET THE SUBPOENA

THAT IS HOW YOU GET THE SUBPOENA POWER THAT WILL BE UPHELD.

POWER THAT WILL BE UPHELD. I THINK THIS SUPREME COURT WILL