>> this is quite a story that you have and i was interested in how i think this does a couple of things. one is this starts building the case or is part of building a case for obstruction of justice. so my view has been that firing comey by itself was sufficient arguably to build an obstruction of justice case. to build that case you need to establish corrupt intent. so you can only get into the mind of trump through a couple of things. it helped that he told lester holt, as you said, on nbc i fired comey because i was thinking of the russia investigation. he tells kislyak and lavrov the day after he fired comey that's what he was doing. but a prosecutor will want to go backward and say this is part of a pattern. >> so even if it's just the firing itself that is the act of obstruction of justice, previous meetings and previous contacts between the president and the person he fired leading up to the firing end up being legally important because they go to the president's state of mind, the