A former Watergate prosecutor said Thursday she believes there is enough evidence to bring an obstruction-of-justice case against President Trump Donald John TrumpHR McMaster says president's policy to withdraw troops from Afghanistan is 'unwise' Cast of 'Parks and Rec' reunite for virtual town hall to address Wisconsin voters Biden says Trump should step down over coronavirus response MORE over his firing of FBI Director James Comey James Brien ComeyTrump jabs at FBI director over testimony on Russia, antifa Graham: Comey to testify about FBI's Russia probe, Mueller declined invitation Barr criticizes DOJ in speech declaring all agency power 'is invested in the attorney general' MORE last year.

Jill Wine-Banks told MSNBC's "All In with Chris Hayes" that she believes she could bring a successful case against Trump, adding that there is "so much evidence" that Trump meant to obstruct the investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russia by firing Comey.

"I was asked in May whether I thought I could make an obstruction case, I said 'I thought I could' ... I know I can," she told MSNBC.

ADVERTISEMENT

"There is so much evidence now, and as was said, it's not one piece, it's the total picture. The pieces of the puzzle are fitting together and they spell obstruction," Wine-Banks said.

"You don't need an underlying crime for the crime of obstruction," she added. "To impede an investigation, whether you were part of the original crime or not, you have committed a separate crime: Obstruction of justice."

Wine-Banks has also pointed to Trump and other Republicans' frequent attacks on FBI agents' integrity as "witness intimidation."

"It is also a possible obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, and it's obstructing justice by saying to agents, 'You better not dig too deep, you better not find anything because I will attack you,'" she said in December.

"And this is the president of the United States, it is congressmen who have a national audience and can make people's lives miserable," she said.

The former Watergate investigator is a frequent critic of Trump and his administration's handling of the Russia probe. Last July, she called Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner Jared Corey KushnerAbraham Accords: New hope for peace in Middle East Tenants in Kushner building file lawsuit alleging dangerous living conditions Trump hosts Israel, UAE, Bahrain for historic signing MORE's explanations about his meetings with Russian nationals during the presidential race "utterly ridiculous" in another MSNBC appearance.

“He clearly has a very good lawyer, but as soon as you start to probe it it falls apart,” she said at the time. “The explanations that are offered seem blatantly ridiculous.”