Former FBI Director Jim Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday confirmed Democrats' fears that President Donald Trump may have committed obstruction of justice, but most shied away from impeachment talk. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO Some Dems see stronger case for ‘obstruction’ after Comey bombshells

Democrats are still dodging their base’s intensifying interest in impeaching Donald Trump, but former FBI Director James Comey’s Thursday testimony left some of them more confident in the strength of an obstruction of justice case against the president.

Democrats are largely avoiding impeachment talk in part because their leaders want to stay focused on the GOP’s Obamacare repeal plan and other pocketbook issues that might help them rebound in the midterms, not a Russia scandal with an uncertain timeline. But after Comey testified that Trump directed him to ease up on a probe of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, some Democrats pointed to growing evidence of Trump’s obstruction.


“Having him, under oath, saying he felt he was directed to drop the investigation into the national security adviser, I do think strengthens that case” for obstruction of justice, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told reporters.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s broad investigation into Russian electoral meddling, including the question of whether Trump tried to shutter Comey’s inquiry into his campaign’s alleged collusion with Moscow, could take months to reach a conclusion. But some Democrats viewed Comey’s Thursday testimony as a significant step forward.

“The walls feel like they’re closing in on the White House,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an interview.

Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

“No one here is planning for impeachment,” Murphy added. “But we theoretically don’t need to wait for a Mueller product in order to have that conversation — if more evidence like that which was presented today continues to mount.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a veteran prosecutor, said in a statement that Comey had "concluded that the president of the United States intended to obstruct an FBI investigation." Comey's testimony also suggested possible "complicity in the president’s improper and obstructive conduct" among other Trump advisers, Whitehouse said.

Not every Democratic senator was ready to go that far, starting with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The New York Democrat warned in a floor speech that "the cloud hanging over this administration has just gotten a whole lot darker" in the wake of Comey's testimony, but steered clear of referencing obstruction as he described Trump's behavior toward the axed FBI chief.

“I’ve been asked questions: Is this collusion? Do you have evidence of collusion? Right now, no,” the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, told reporters. “Not what I would call sufficient. Suspicion is one thing — evidence is another.”

Senators are “not there yet” on an obstruction case either, Feinstein added.

"For any of us to make an assumption on that is wrong," agreed moderate Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), an Intelligence Committee member who questioned Comey on Thursday. "Comey wouldn’t go there, and for us to go there would be wrong right now too.”

Another Intelligence panel Democrat, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, pointedly declined to use the term “obstruction of justice," saying only that "what we are hearing and seeing is a pattern of abuse of presidential power."

Abuse of power made up one of several impeachment charges against former President Richard Nixon in 1974, although he resigned before those charges could proceed, and one of two failed impeachment charges against former President Bill Clinton in 1998. The full House ultimately impeached Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, but he was not convicted by the Senate.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) made a subtle reference to the impeachment-and-removal process even as he urged colleagues to be measured in their discussions of Trump's actions toward Comey.

"Whether it meets a certain legal standard or not remains to be investigated and determined," Schatz said in an interview. "But I think it’s important also for us to remember that we members of the Senate may even be sitting in judgment of this particular question, so we should be very precise with our thinking."

The House Intelligence Committee's senior Democrat, California Rep. Adam Schiff, said in a statement that Comey's testimony "constitutes evidence of an intention to interfere or potentially obstruct at least a portion of the Russia investigation, if not more." But Schiff added that lawmakers now must gather further documentation of Comey's statements about Trump's behavior.

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who is working with Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) to draft articles of impeachment against the president, said Comey’s testimony “validated the facts” needed to remove Trump from office for obstruction of justice.

Green is one of more than a dozen House lawmakers who have in recent weeks stepped up calls for Trump to be impeached. But most other House Democrats were much more cautious in their assessment of the hearing, describing Comey’s testimony as alarming but also confirming fears that the president tried to interfere in the Russia investigation.

“I don’t think there’s any question that there’s a lot more ‘there’ there,” said Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “What I continue to say, and I can only speak for myself, is let the special prosecutor do his job and let the facts lead where they may.”

Crowley and other House Democratic leaders also reiterated their calls for an independent commission to work alongside Mueller. They argued a commission completely independent from the White House and not under the Justice Department's umbrella is needed to prevent future hacking attempts by Russia.

“Do I think from my layman’s point of view was this an attempt to obstruct? I think so,” Crowley said. “But can it be corroborated? Can you show intent? ... That remains to be seen.”