Last week, the New York Times reported on how Special Counsel Robert Mueller is looking at US President Donald Trump's tweets as potential evidence in an obstruction of justice case.
Today, Trump gave him more potential evidence.
In a tweetstorm, Trump called upon Attorney-General Jeff Sessions to shut the whole Mueller probe down - the first time he has done that. It wasn't altogether surprising, given his lawyer Rudy Giuliani has called for the investigation to be closed. But it was notable because it came directly from Trump this time and his call focused on Sessions.
The Attorney-General has recused himself from the matter because of potential conflicts of interest, given he campaigned for Trump. So Trump is apparently calling for Sessions to un-recuse himself from a case in which he's acknowledged he can't been seen as neutral, and then to end it.
". . . .This is a terrible situation and Attorney-General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!," Trump tweeted.
In defending the tweet, Trump's lawyers told the Post that it wasn't an explicit command. "He carefully used the word, 'should,'" Giuliani noted. Trump's personal lawyer Jay Sekulow added: "The President has issued no order or direction to the Department of Justice on this."
But that clean-up effort betrays the problematic nature of the tweet. And this is hardly the first time Trump has broadcast a desire to change the course of the investigation. Whether any of them rise to the level of obstruction of justice or may be used to build such a case, we don't know. But Trump has clearly played with fire - and is continuing to do so.
Let's review his other tweets that could similarly factor into the obstruction probe, ranked by how troublesome they seem to be.
1. The Flynn tweet
"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!," - Dec. 2, 2017
This is a big one, and it was so problematic that the Trump team was forced to argue that Trump didn't actually send it (they blamed it on lawyer John Dowd).
The problem is basically this: Shortly after Trump fired Michael Flynn in February 2017, he suggested in a private meeting that then-FBI Director James Comey be lenient on Flynn, according to Comey's testimony under oath ("I hope you can let this go," Comey quoted Trump as saying).
If Trump knew at that time that Flynn had lied to the FBI - which Flynn later pleaded guilty to - it would make for a more compelling argument that he was trying to obstruct an investigation of Flynn and, by extension, protect himself.
Trump's legal team told Mueller in January that Trump "had every reason to believe at that time that the FBI was not investigating Lieutenant General Flynn," according to a memo obtained by the New York Times. That's yet another indication that they see how troublesome it would be were Trump to have known Flynn was under investigation at the time.
2. "I fight back"
"....doing things that nobody thought possible, despite the never ending and corrupt Russia Investigation, which takes tremendous time and focus. No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight back), so now they do the Unthinkable, and RAID a lawyers office for information! BAD!" - April 11, 2018
In this tweet, Trump appears to acknowledge that the actions that some have construed as potential obstruction of justice are actually just him "figh[ing] back." But that's also him acknowledging that he's acting in his own self-interest - rather than for other, less obstruction-y reasons like promoting good government.
The tweet echoed a January interview with ABC News in which Trump explained, "You fight back. Jon - you fight back," Trump said, before mockingly quoting his opponents: " 'Oh, it's obstruction.' "
Given all that, it's totally reasonable to ask whether events like firing Comey were Trump "fighting back" - rather than getting rid of an FBI director who had lost the faith of his agency, which was the initial explanation.
This is Lester Holt interview-esque.
3. The Sessions tweet
4. "Expose what they are doing"
"No Collusion, No Obstruction - but that doesn't matter because the 13 Angry Democrats, who are only after Republicans and totally protecting Democrats, want this Witch Hunt to drag out to the November Election. Republicans better get smart fast and expose what they are doing!" - July 21, 2018
It's one thing to decry the "witch hunt"; it's another to issue a call for action against it. Much like Trump calling for Russia to hack Hillary Clinton could be a key moment in the collusion investigation, calling for Republicans to "expose what [Mueller's investigators] are doing" sounds a lot like he's trying to damage the investigation.
Perhaps he would argue that's justifiable and it would be based on facts, but it's still an effort to impact the investigation.
5. The attacks on Mueller's team
There are almost too many to list here, but Trump has regularly attacked figures involved in the Mueller probe, up to and including the man overseeing it, Deputy Attorney-General Rod J. Rosenstein, and Mueller's lawyers.
"Much of the bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation, headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama. Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy!" - April 11, 2018
"Is Robert Mueller ever going to release his conflicts of interest with respect to President Trump, including the fact that we had a very nasty & contentious business relationship, I turned him down to head the FBI (one day before appointment as S.C.) & Comey is his close friend." - July 29, 2018
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt" - June 16, 2017
Every person has the right to defend themselves publicly, but as the Starr Report showed, a president's misleading public statements can be used against them.
And maliciously attacking the credibility of investigators could conceivably play into this.