President Donald Trump's growing frustration with the ongoing Russia investigation spilled over onto Twitter again this weekend.
Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018
It confirms the 2016 meeting in Trump Tower was about gathering opposition research from a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties, and not primarily the issue of international adoptions as previously stated.
Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow says that isn't a crime.
"The question is, what law, statute, rule or regulation has been violated? Nobody has pointed to one," Sekulow said to ABC This Week.
Trump's tweet came on the heels of another tweet last week in which he said Attorney General Jeff Sessions "should stop this rigged witch hunt right now."
..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!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018
Democrats call the statement obstruction of justice, plain and simple.
But Sekulow says, not so fast. "Obstruction of justice by tweet is absurd," he said.
"This theory that's being bandied around that you can have an obstruction case by tweet - and by the way, (Attorney General) Jeff Sessions and Bob Mueller and all of them, the entire Department of Justice are under what? The Article II branch of government."
Article II is what grants the president of the United States executive powers over the government.
"And that's why I go back to saying that at the end of the day this is all about the Constitution, it's all about Article II and that would be the question if it went to court. That would be the question that the courts would be addressing. For someone to make an allegation of obstruction, those are Article II powers," he said.
While President Trump's lawyers say he is willing to sit down for an interview with the special counsel, they've advised against it, leaving the question for Robert Mueller's team: to subpoena or not to subpoena?
"A subpoena for live testimony has never been tested in court as to a president of the United States and there is a lot of language and articles and precedent against that. But if that decision is made, we'll prepare to handle it in court," Sekulow assured.
While the president is calling for the investigation to end, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says it must continue, for the good of the nation.
"I believe it is in the best interest of the president, and of the United States of America and the American people for that investigation to run the course, for all the truth to come out," Rubio told Fox News Sunday.
"If there was strong evidence of collusion, I guarantee you it would've been leaked by now," he continued.
Meanwhile, visions of a blue wave in the upcoming midterm elections have some Democrats talking impeachment again.
"Two in three Democratic voters say if they win the House, they should begin the process of impeaching president Trump. Would you support that?" CNN's Jake Tapper asked former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a possible 2020 presidential contender.
"Yeah, if the grounds are there then we should proceed," said Patrick without hesitation.
He did, however, say impeachment should not be the first order of business.
Others in the party say the Democrats need to be careful when it comes to invoking the "I" word.