Well, folks, it looks like MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews is going to need another panic button after Thursday’s show. All show, Matthews touted as if it were fact that President Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the Mueller probe and that, based on his tweets and the Comey firing, he could be removed from office.
“Obstruction in plain sight....Could Donald Trump's tweeting cost him his presidency? Could Robert Mueller find that Trump’s relentless threatening and bullying of possible witnesses constitute obstruction of justice? Does the fact that Trump does so so outrageously in broad daylight constitute any defense? Is this all Trump's lawyer has to defend him? That he obstructs in plain sight,” Matthews screeched at the top of the program.
Matthews illustrated his newfound glee had to do with a New York Times piece which he explained as having revealed that “Robert Mueller’s team is investigating numerous incidents that occurred privately” but also “actions that the president has taken in plain sight that could bolster a potential obstruction case” such as his daily tweet storms.
Speaking to Peter Baker from the aforementioned paper, Matthews hailed the new reporting as “fascinating because it points out that just cause you do something in public doesn't make it’s legal or make you innocent” and cited killing someone in public as still being murder.
Later during the Hardball Roundtable, The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus told Matthews that she’s “excited to tell you about obstruction of justice” as even though “[i]t would be probably unprecedented for a prosecutor to make” an “obstruction case based solely on Twitter.” But let’s speculate anyway that Mueller probably has the case based on “tweets plus...the other things.”
Closing out the show with an extra long, two-minute-and-48-second “Trump Watch” commentary, Matthews rehashed many of these same points and ruled that it looks like Trump’s carried out “a pattern of obstruction” and thus “[i]t makes clear sense that Robert Mueller’s team is looking at Trump’s tweets, his almost daily fuselage of misleading statements, public attacks, possible pardon offers to potential witnesses.”
“It’s all part of a broad effort from the beginning to interfere with investigation,” he added before running through almost ten different examples that, in his mind, would lead to Trump’s guilty.
Moments later, he ended the show this way:
It’s no wonder that Giuliani says the President refuses to be questioned by the Special Counsel about obstruction of justice. It’s the one area where his actions are so well-known they require little detective work. Tweeting may be Trump's impulsive choice of weapon. That doesn't exempt him from the law.
To see the relevant transcript from MSNBC’s Hardball on July 26, click “expand.”
MSNBC’s Hardball
July 26, 2018
7:00 p.m. Eastern
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Obstruction in plain sight. Let's play Hardball. [HARDBALL OPENING CREDITS] Could Donald Trump's tweeting cost him his presidency? Could Robert Mueller find that Trump’s relentless threatening and bullying of possible witnesses constitute obstruction of justice? Does the fact that Trump does so so outrageously in broad daylight constitute any defense? Is this all Trump's lawyer has to defend him? That he obstructs in plain sight? Good evening, I am Chris Matthews in Washington. While Robert Mueller’s team is investigating numerous incidents that occurred privately, there are also actions that the president has taken in plain sight that could bolster a potential obstruction case. Earlier today, The New York Times reported: “Mueller....is scrutinizing tweets and negative statements from the president about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former FBI director James Comey, according to three people briefed on the matter. Mueller is examining whether the actions add up to attempts to obstruct the investigation by both intimidating witnesses and pressuring senior law enforcement officials to tamp down the inquiry.” Reacting to the development, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was dismissive, telling The New York Times: “If you're going to obstruct justice,” do you quietly — “you do it quietly and secretly, not in public.” However, The Times reveals that: “Privately, some of the lawyers have expressed concern that Mr. Mueller will stitch together several episodes encounters and pieces of evidence like the tweets to build a case.” Specifically: “The fact that they are scrutinizing his actions under a section of the United States Code titled ‘Tampering With a Witness, Victim, or an Informant,’ raised concerns for his lawyers about Mr. Trump's exposure in the investigation.” The report also makes clear that the Special Counsel still wants to question the President. However, as Bloomberg reported this week: “Trump is demanding...that he isn't asked questions about obstruction of justice...under a proposal of the President's legal team submitted to Mueller.” [INTRODUCES PANELISTS] Let's start with Peter. Peter, The New York Times report is fascinating because it points out that just cause you do something in public doesn't make it’s legal or make you innocent. You can do all sides of — kill — kill people in public. It’s still murder.
(....)
7:41 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS: Whatcha you call it? What was the phrase? The legal term you said?
RUTH MARCUS: Excited utterance.
MATTHEWS: Well, tell me about excited utterances
MARCUS: Ah, so I’m excited to tell you about obstruction of justice because, look. It would be probably unprecedented for a prosecutor to make a case solely on — obstruction case based solely on Twitter. We’ve never seen that. But that is not what I think Mueller would be thinking about here if he were to argue.
MATTHEWS: Alright, let’s take a couple —
MARCUS: It’S — it’s a tapestry, right?
MATTHEWS: Very good.
MARCUS: It is tweets plus and it’s the other things.
MATTHEWS: It’s a pattern. It’s like a RICO charge.
MARCUS: It’s without the other things. The tweets aren't criminal without evidence to bribe.
MATTHEWS: What about — what about, let's take the case so we nail this down. The stuff he says about Jeff Sessions. I want — you recused yourself, I hate you for it. I want you out of there. Why are you still there? Can’t you do it again? Can’t you take control of this case and throw it out the window? Can't you protect me? Can't you do it, Jeff? He’s doing it all the time. He’s intimidating the guy — in an overall charge of justice at his case.
(....)
7:57 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS: Trump watch Thursday July 26, 2018. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reported to be investigating the President's tweets now as part of an effort to obstruct justice. President Trump’s Rudolph Giuliani retorts the tweets cannot be part of an obstruction of justice case because they are public acts.“If you're going to obstruct justice, you do it quietly and secretly, not in public.” Really? We all and that includes Rudy, know the President Trump is quite willing to carry out often what others try to hide in broad daylight. It is, to use a crime-fighting term, his M.O., his known method of operation. What others dare not, he dares not only to do, but to broadcast. Making a racket is part of Trump’s weaponry. It’s his way of striking fear in rivals and underlings alike. It makes clear sense that Robert Mueller’s team is looking at Trump’s tweets, his almost daily fuselage of misleading statements, public attacks, possible pardon offers to potential witnesses. Talk about a pattern of obstruction. It’s all part of a broad effort from the beginning to interfere with investigation. There was his intimidation of FBI Director James Comey, Trump’s pushing Comey to profess his personal loyalty to him, pushing Comey to let his national security director, Michael Flynn, off the hook, then his demand that Comey announce publicly that he, Donald Trump, was not under investigation, and finally, his firing of Comey for not playing ball. Want more? How about Trump’s continual threats and intimidation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions? His haranguing of him to get Sessions to end his recusal of himself in the Mueller probe, his demand that Sessions take charge of the probe personally so he, presumably, can do Trump's bidding or get fired himself. As The Times reports today, such behavior can fit under the U.S. Criminal Code, which outlaws tampering with a witness, victim or informant.” In other words, obstruction of justice. Rudy Giuliani's defense that all of this is innocent because it was done in public is nothing more than a confession on his part that this fits this President’s outrageous method of operation generally. This is how he runs his presidency. Whenever somebody tries to limit his power, he throws him out of the way. He fired his first chief of staff for this reason. Now, he threatens to fire his new one. He’s fired Secretary of State Tillerson and his second national security director, McMaster as if he were changing ties. He negotiated with Russian boss Putin as if he were an autocrat, just like Putin. Claiming that his client is innocent because accused behavior fits this M.O. is a joke. It’s no wonder that Giuliani says the President refuses to be questioned by the Special Counsel about obstruction of justice. It’s the one area where his actions are so well-known they require little detective work. Tweeting may be Trump's impulsive choice of weapon. That doesn't exempt him from the law.
