Mark Eiglarsh

consistently said that sometimes the things that he says, he makes himself his own worst enemy in many ways.

And saying things like this publicly the way he did was a mistake.

I think anybody can admit that.

But more than one thing can be true at the same time, Megan.

He can have animus towards Comey and vice versa.

That can be true.

But it can also be true that Comey would have, and I would say should have been prosecuted, irrespective of who the president is.

And to meet his burden of proving this vindictive and selective prosecution, Comey's got to demonstrate that there were similarly situated other people that did not get prosecuted.

Now, obviously, there's not that many people you can find that would be quite similarly situated to the specific facts that we have in this case.

But

The evidence of Comey's guilt, in my view, is overwhelming, okay?

So that's why I said earlier, if you can't win on the facts, then you attack the law.

And if you can't win on the law, then you attack the prosecutor.

And this is what they're doing.

They're trying to say that the prosecutor had ill motives.

Two things can be true.

Trump can hate Comey, and because Comey is guilty, that can be the sole basis for the prosecution.

So I think on balance, an appeals court, I think the trial court may very well toss this out, but I think an appeals court would probably rule with the administration.

Well, if I can take that first, Megan.

Look, what he said, and you've got to, setting aside the absolute atrocity, like the atrociousness of what was said, I think it's just reprehensible, the things that he said, but setting that aside, you have to look specifically