‘The president’s new at this’: Other views A roundup of what people are saying about James Comey's testimony.

USA TODAY

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., House speaker: “Of course there needs to be a degree of independence between (the Department of Justice), FBI and the White House and a line of communications established. The president’s new at this. He’s new to government, and so he probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, FBI and White Houses. He’s just new to this. ... I’m not saying it’s an acceptable excuse. It’s just my observation.”

OUR VIEW:

Marc Kasowitz, personal lawyer to President Trump: “James Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the president privately: The president was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference. He also admitted that there is no evidence that a single vote changed as a result of any Russian interference. Mr. Comey’s testimony also makes clear that the president never sought to impede the investigation into attempted Russian interference in the 2016 election, and in fact, according to Mr. Comey, the president told Mr. Comey, ‘It would be good to find out’ in that investigation if there were ‘some “satellite” associates of his who did something wrong.’ ... The president never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that Mr. Comey ‘let (Michael) Flynn go.’ ... It is overwhelmingly clear that there have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications. Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.”

Peter Baker, The New York Times, on Twitter: “Can’t remember the last time someone in D.C. openly acknowledged orchestrating a leak — and without any senator having even asked.”

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. “In my experience of prosecuting cases, when a robber held a gun to somebody’s head and said, ‘I hope you will give me your wallet,’ the word hope is not the most operative word at that moment.”

Carol Costello, HLN, on Twitter: “ ‘Lordy, I hope there are tapes.’ — Oh, Mr. Comey, so do I.”

Greg Sargent, The Washington Post: “Republicans have widely said that Comey’s written testimony exonerated Trump, because in it, Comey also said several times that he informed Trump that he is not personally under investigation, as Trump had previously claimed. But Comey’s testimony reveals this to be nothing more than a laughable exercise in misdirection. What’s at issue here is Trump’s broader conduct — his effort to convert his relationship with one of the most powerful law enforcement officials in the country, one who oversees vast investigative machinery, into what Comey termed a ‘patronage relationship.’ ... This idea — that Trump only needs to learn what the rules are — elides the much more likely explanation, which is that Trump’s behavior is rooted in a sincerely held belief that our institutions and rules should not represent a check on his power and that he’s willing to actively abuse his power to further weaken those constraints. Comey’s testimony should substantially increase press scrutiny of the widespread refusal of Republicans to acknowledge how serious a problem this has become.”

Kayleigh McEnany, The Hill: “High hopes turned to dashed dreams when Comey’s testimony cleared President Trump. Not only did the testimony vindicate the commander in chief, it included a startling revelation that Obama-era Attorney General Loretta Lynch attempted to influence the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton.”

Christian Schneider, USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors: “To say that Comey’s testimony ‘vindicates’ Trump in any way ignores giant swaths of what the former FBI director actually said — it’s like leaving the theater after seeing Wonder Woman and telling people it’s a World War I documentary. This is the place where Trump’s supporters exist: Rather than seeing the president for who he clearly is, they construct an entirely different Trump in the negative space around him.”

Mark Bauerlein, CNN: “Comey didn’t sound like the head of a fearsome investigative agency. He sounded like a middle manager in business who has just attended a human resources seminar on inappropriate behavior in the workplace. ... Most of us have felt pressured by higher-ups at one time or another, but we didn’t freeze up. ... Trump’s approach was not unusual, and we wonder why the Democratic opposition and the media hang such explosive meaning on it.”

Tom Nichols, Naval War College professor: “Comey’s testimony is not even close to the end of this episode. As Comey himself noted, there were multiple matters he could not talk about in an open session. He repeatedly stressed that many of the questions raised Thursday — including whether Trump tried to obstruct justice — will fall to Robert Mueller, a possibility that likely chills the blood of the White House and national Republicans. In that respect, Comey left tantalizing clues. Asked why he suspected that Attorney General Jeff Sessions would have to recuse himself from any Russia matters, for example, Comey demurred, implying the answer was both classified and yet to be investigated. The Democrats who hoped Comey would nail shut a charge of obstruction of justice were too hopeful. The Republicans who hoped Comey could be smeared and discredited were too cynical. This is the opening soliloquy in a potential tragedy that has many more characters to be heard from in subsequent acts.”