Welcome to Worldly, Fox's weekly guide to the most important stories in the world,

part of the Fox Media Podcast Network,

Zioli here with Jen and with Zach.

And we're in this amazing moment where a former FBI director, Bob Mueller, wants to sit down and

interview a sitting US President Donald Trump about

whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. But there's one problem, at least for

now Trump says there's no need for them to talk because there has been no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians or

Trump and Russians no collusion. So we're gonna get into that in a second

because it's very possible that Donald Trump himself did not collude even if people in his campaign did,

but we want to go in a slightly different direction which is there's a part of the molar probe that gets less attention

than the Russian collusion part which is obstruction of justice.

Whether Trump may have broken the law by trying to stop the probe as compared to whether Trump

may have broken the law by colluding with Russia.

Zach, you had a long piece about this on the website this week on Vox.com this week,

and let's dive into it a little bit.

Why would the case for obstruction, which I think people know less about,

be stronger than the case for collusion.

So I spoke to a number of different lawyers and the argument that they made is actually a little

simpler than you might think given that it's legal stuff.

It's that if the president corruptly,

meaning with the intent to do something wrong, interferes with the workings of justice

including an investigation, then that is obstruction of justice. And that can be true even if the president

...