Why Trump hasn’t been charged with obstruction — even after admitting to it on Fox News: ex-FBI agent

Speaking to Fox News on Sunday evening about his new self-published picture book, former President Donald Trump confessed that he had to fire former FBI Director James Comey otherwise he would have lost the presidency.

"Had I not fired Comey, you might not be talking to me right now about a beautiful book about four years in the White House, and we'll see about the future," Trump said.

Given this, former FBI agent and current Yale professor Asha Rangappa and national security legal expert Bradley Moss debated why Trump hasn't been hauled into a grand jury to testify.

Moss explained that there are too many constitutional questions to indict Trump over firing Comey, which is what Trump specifically mentioned in his Fox interview. Rangappa noted, however, that firing Comey relates to a lot of other counts that could be considered.

"But his firing of Comey is related to most of the other counts (protecting Flynn, pressuring CIA and NSA directors to get Comey to announce publicly, dangling pardons, etc.). And those other counts do not have the same constitutional issues as the firing itself," she tweeted.

READ MORE: 'Coup memo' lawyer says he doesn't want to comply with subpoenas -- then complains about criminal contempt charges

Moss agreed, noting that pardons absolutely could be considered, as could pressuring agency officials around the election.

Rangappa recalled that at the time, everyone noted that "granting a pardon is a constitutional prerogative."

The difference is that, in some cases, Trump was dangling pardons, "using it as an inducement for a personal benefit — is not."

She explained that pressuring agency officials would be an easy case to indict Trump with.

"What he was asking them to do wasn’t even in their job descriptions (which is why they said no)," she concluded.

Read the full thread here.