Preet Bharara: 'Absolutely evidence' to begin an obstruction case against Trump

Former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara who was fired earlier this year by the President for not taking his "unusual" call has given his first interview to the ABC News’ “This Week” program , in the interview he tells George Stephanopoulos that in his view there is “absolutely evidence” to launch an obstruction case against President Trump and his team with regard to the Russia probe.

Here's the full 12 minute interview.


He isn't saying there was obstruction but he believes there is evidence to open an investigation.

Ah. Not the D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) thing, then?

a reply to: gortex

I'm sorry but I have doubts that this guy is telling the truth.

Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.

That's kind of my ongoing motto. s/f though

a reply to: gortex

When these people take these cases to court and lose,they should be made to reimburse the government,for the cost to taxpayers,maybe this would cure these idiot Dimocrats libs

a reply to: RisenMessiah

I'm sorry but I have doubts that this guy is telling the truth.

I believe that will be the ongoing theme of this thread but he is telling it as he sees it as a former U.S. attorney , he is not making allegations other than about the unusual calls he received and his belief of the purpose for those calls.

Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.

I believe he believes what he's saying.

a reply to: gortex

From what I can tell, I believe he believes it as well. But there's so much 'in between' we just don't know. It's good to be analytical however without believing automatically based on emotions which is how most people deal with events such as this.

let me rephrase. He might believe the lie is true, even thought it's not. That's what i meant to convey.

a reply to: gortex

That idiot was asked to resign. 45 out of 46 states attorneys did just that. He tried to gain some media attention by clinging onto his position and making Trump fire him. He's bitter now and his opinion means nothing.

a reply to: Oldtimer2

He isn't taking anything to court , he's stating that in his opinion there is evidence to base an investigation of obstruction , that's his opinion as a former U.S. attorney.

a reply to: D8Tee

He's bitter now and his opinion means nothing.

His opinion means nothing because it's a dissenting opinion.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: D8Tee

He's bitter now and his opinion means nothing.

His opinion means nothing because it's a dissenting opinion.

I think his opinion should be taken in the context that he may be a bitter former employee no long on the Govt. gravy train speaking on the show of a former Clinton employee.

Not exactly the ingredients for an unbiased outlook on the situation.

Wasn't this the guy who was fired by the Trump administration and spent the next month crying all over national TV about it?

originally posted by: UKTruth
Wasn't this the guy who was fired by the Trump administration and spent the next month crying all over national TV about it?

How is that relevant? Trump has been whining and crying and he got the job he wanted. Trump should welcome an investigation, 100%, if he wants to remove the "cloud."

Dershowitz explains it well.
edition.cnn.com...

Trump has the constitutional right to start, stop ANY investigation thus even if he had directed Comey to stop the investigation he broke NO law. A criminal investigation of obstruction of justice is a non starter - under the law.

Perhaps Mr Bharara should go back to law school.... he might then find it easier to hold down a job.

a reply to: UKTruth

Yes he was, and is very relevant, they are vicious, vindictive and full of crap.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth
Wasn't this the guy who was fired by the Trump administration and spent the next month crying all over national TV about it?

How is that relevant? Trump has been whining and crying and he got the job he wanted. Trump should welcome an investigation, 100%, if he wants to remove the "cloud."

As the President said - he wants the investigation to continue to find out if anyone colluded with the Russians.
As for the cloud being removed - the confirmation that he is not under investigation did exactly what he was asking Comey for.

As for obstruction of justice, why would the President or anyone else want to investigate something when no crime has been committed?

a reply to: UKTruth

He was soo good at his job that no even Hillary the hag was considering keeping him after winning the elections if she became president, what that tells you and she made it public too.

Poor Preet, nobody wanted him.

a reply to: UKTruth

As the President said - he wants the investigation to continue to find out if anyone colluded with the Russians.

And as we know , this President always tells the truth.
www.buzzfeed.com...

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

As the President said - he wants the investigation to continue to find out if anyone colluded with the Russians.

And as we know , this President always tells the truth.
www.buzzfeed.com...

Buzzfeed?


Regardless of opinions - Trump committed no crime - as per the law.

a reply to: UKTruth

Buzzfeed?

The information is sourced.

Regardless of opinions - Trump committed no crime - as per the law

That is just an opinion unless you have access to information we don't.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Buzzfeed?

The information is sourced.

Regardless of opinions - Trump committed no crime - as per the law

That is just an opinion unless you have access to information we don't.

Access to information? Try the law.