Fareed Zakaria opines that "in the court of public opinion, [[the administration's obstruction of justice] is likely to turn into a case of 'he said, he said' — unless there are, in fact, tapes. On the one side, you have Comey, a distinguished civil servant … [who] most people believe … is honest and sincere. On the other side, you have Trump."
Zakaria rescues his argument of a "he said, he said" circumstance from devastating counterargument by stipulating "in the court of public opinion." That is, in a court of law Trump's "saying" anything would be worth about as much as a diploma from his sham university. Simply put, the man possesses no credibility whatsoever, as Zakaria proceeds to document: "in his first 100 days [he] made 492 'false or misleading claims'" (that, from the Post's Fact Checker). Put just as simply, any competent prosecutor would leave defendant Trump in witness-stand tatters.
Nevertheless, Trump supporters (especially on cable news) have taken Zakaria's carefully phrased "he said, he said" argument and promoted it — but without the stipulating care. They present the case as merely a matter of one man's word against another's, as though in a court of law equal weight would be given to Trump's and Comey's. Again, that might indeed be the case in the court of public opinion. It would, however, most emphatically not be the case in any competent court of law.