own credibility as somebody who doesn't know anything. but i can reasonably say i've got plausible deniability here. i have no idea what's going on, so you cannot hold me accountable in any law that requires my knowledge or my intent. that's as legally absurd to me as with the president of the united states being somehow immune from the obligations that everyone else is. he certainly has some privileges, and it is good to be the king. but you can still obstruct even if you are. >> as you were saying that, and i was writing plausible deniability on my little blue card here. what does that say the trump administration is using this argument in the first place? >> i completely agree with laura regarding some sort of the questions of legality. as a strategic matter, it is sort of interesting, right? we've seen this shift before. going from asserting there is no collusion, no coordination. and then moving into collusion wasn't a crime. and now we're seeing once again this sort of subtle step from the president did not obstruct