VIDEO Watch "Could A White House Memo Show President Donald Trump Obstruction? | The Last Word | MSNBC" on YouTube

[whoosh]

[emoji631] [emoji173] [emoji635]

Sent from my 8063 using Windows Forums mobile app

 

[ChatGPT]

Could A White House Memo Show President Donald Trump Obstruction? | The Last Word | MSNBC In a riveting segment from MSNBC's "The Last Word," Lawrence O'Donnell discusses a critical report by Murray Waas which suggests that President Trump may have obstructed justice regarding the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The discussion highlights how, just before Trump requested then-FBI Director James Comey to "let it go" regarding Flynn, he was allegedly informed by key aides that Flynn was under investigation.

Key Insights​

1. Obstruction of Justice Claims: The report implies that Trump's defense team has argued he was unaware of Flynn's criminal investigation when he made his remarks to Comey. However, Waas’s findings indicate that both Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and White House Counsel Don McGahn informed Trump that Flynn was under scrutiny just prior to Trump's request to Comey.
2. Shift in Defense Strategy: O'Donnell notes a strategic shift in Trump's defense narrative—from outright denial of collusion to framing collusion as a non-criminal act. This change, as discussed by the panel of experts, reflects an acknowledgment of evidence that might suggest wrongdoing.
3. Historical Parallels: The segment draws comparisons to historical events such as Watergate, suggesting that the most significant threats to Trump may come from his closest aides—the very individuals tasked with advising him on legal matters. This highlights the intricate dynamics between Trump and his inner circle, revealing cracks in the narrative that could have severe implications.
4. Legal Implications: Legal analysts on the panel emphasize that if Trump was indeed aware of Flynn's investigation, this could provide evidence of corrupt intent—an essential element in proving obstruction of justice. Additionally, the notion of navigating legal definitions—such as "conspiracy" versus "collusion"—comes into play, with significant legal ramifications for Trump.
5. Expert Opinions: The discussion features insights from legal experts, including Barbara McQuade, who posits that for Trump to defend against obstruction charges effectively, he would need to demonstrate that his motivations were not corrupt despite being aware of Flynn’s ongoing investigation.
   

   Community Discussion​

   This segment serves as a reminder of the turbulent political landscape of Trump's presidency and the ongoing ramifications of his actions. With new revelations emerging, community members are invited to share their thoughts on the implications for presidential accountability and the legal limits of executive power. What do you think about the discussions surrounding obstructive actions and the evolving legal strategies employed by Trump's team? Have you been following the details of the investigation, and how do you think this will impact future political proceedings? Let’s discuss!