ABC: Comey will stop short of saying Trump obstructed justice

[Badger]

This article seems to miss the point:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does it matter if Comey himself thinks that rises to the level of obstructing justice?  Comey's not in a position of authority anymore.  If Comey testifies that Trump did in fact say that to him, then it's up to the legal system (or Congress, if they want to impeach Trump) to decide if they believe him or not, and if they do, if they consider that to be "obstructing justice" or not.  It's not up to Comey.

The quote is not obstruction of justice. It's inappropriate, but not obstruction. A hope is not an order.

Coming from one's boss in this context, it's hard to construe it as anything but. It's not like he followed up with saying "Consider X, Y, and Z indicating Flynn did nothing wrong". This is very difficult to interpret as anything other than a heavy-handed lean on Comey by Trump to stop the investigation into his administration's/campaigns behind the scenes dealing with the Russian government.

After Trump thereafter fired Comey for refusing to back down, it's damn near impossible for anyone other than cultists to interpret this otherwise.

[Badger]

This hearing wasn't going to break any new ground ever folks.

Comey hasn't publicly said that Trump asked him to drop the Flynn investigation.  It's been reported that he's saying that behind closed doors and that he wrote a memo saying so, but all we have to go on right now are leaks.  So if Comey testifies that Trump said that, it would be the first time we've heard that accusation coming out of Comey's mouth.

Yeah it will be interesting if there's some additional context to it if Comey mentions it.  Was it - "Dude, if there's no evidence by now, drop it."  or  simply "Consider ending the investigation, period."  Either way is bad, but one is worse.

The only issue here is whether people will care or not. I'm not completely in agreement with Grumps on the lack of impact, but I think he's got a good point that Comey's refusal to outright state "The President sought to obstruct me from doing my job" will be enough for Trump and his allies to declare victory, nothing to see here, and help rally the base a bit. I won't be shocked if Trump's numbers actually slightly rise after Comey's testimony.

Whether that holds in the following months all depends on whether the Senate follows this up or buries it.

[Badger]

This article seems to miss the point:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does it matter if Comey himself thinks that rises to the level of obstructing justice?  Comey's not in a position of authority anymore.  If Comey testifies that Trump did in fact say that to him, then it's up to the legal system (or Congress, if they want to impeach Trump) to decide if they believe him or not, and if they do, if they consider that to be "obstructing justice" or not.  It's not up to Comey.

The quote is not obstruction of justice. It's inappropriate, but not obstruction. A hope is not an order.

Coming from one's boss in this context, it's hard to construe it as anything but. It's not like he followed up with saying "Consider X, Y, and Z indicating Flynn did nothing wrong". This is very difficult to interpret as anything other than a heavy-handed lean on Comey by Trump to stop the investigation into his administration's/campaigns behind the scenes dealing with the Russian government.

After Trump thereafter fired Comey for refusing to back down, it's damn near impossible for anyone other than cultists to interpret this otherwise.

I understand what you are saying, in connecting the dots, and the more dots there are, the more serious it gets. Asking the intelligence officer to "intervene" to me is a very big dot. In the end though, it will come down to whether Trump did something terribly wrong which is revealed by the investigation. Then we have obstruction of justice. If there isn't that much there but inappropriate conduct that really isn't illegal, then while we have a horrible POTUS, I don't see it ending in his removal. This story is moving rather rapidly. I may change my mind tomorrow.

Bona fide convicted criminal activity is not a prerequisite for impeachment. Full-scale abusive office can suffice, and this at bare minimum qualifies.