John Q. Barrett, a St. Johns University law professor who worked as an associate counsel for the independent counsel’s office during the Iran-Contra affair, said he wouldn’t flatly declare that what the Times reported was a crime. But he also emphasized the potential implications of Trump’s alleged comments.

“Much will depend on how Comey, and any other witnesses, understood the statement as they heard it,” Barrett said. “But this, as reported, is a piece of serious evidence of possible criminality. It is plainly a basis for criminal investigation and evaluation.”

The current firestorm erupted after Trump suddenly dismissed Comey last week, three months after the February memo would have been drafted. The White House’s initial explanation centered around a different memo drafted by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that castigated Comey for his behavior during the 2016 presidential election, which some observers believe cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. But Trump himself began to undercut the administration’s public stance almost immediately.

“[Rosenstein] made a recommendation, but regardless of the recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump said in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt two days after Comey’s sudden ouster. “And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.”

Trump’s statement that he had been considering the Russia investigation when making the decision to fire Comey immediately drew criticism. Laurence Tribe, a prominent Harvard Law professor, published an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he declared the “time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice.”

But other legal scholars were more circumspect about the implications of Holt’s interview. “I think we need to know more about Trump's reasons for firing Comey, but if one puts the worst face on it, yes, it would be obstruction of justice,” said Peter Schuck, a Yale Law School professor. “That is to say, if he was attempting to intimidate Comey or exact loyalty from him in connection with the investigation, that would be obstruction of justice.”

Gerhardt said there was a “good chance” Trump’s comments in the interview could be considered obstruction of justice. But Gerhardt also noted the interview could be interpreted multiple ways. “It seems to sort of suggest he was obviously thinking about it, but it still requires some further elaboration,” he noted. “Was he trying to stop it? Did this have the effect of trying to stop it? What does it reveal about his mindset?”

Those caveats would make it challenging for federal prosecutors to use the Holt interview as conclusive proof against him in a federal case. Obtaining an obstruction-of-justice conviction requires evidence the official in question acted with a “corrupt” purpose. Because Trump could lawfully fire Comey as the president, federal prosecutors would have to prove he acted “with an improper purpose” when removing the FBI director from office. Those thresholds amount to a “high burden of proof,” Gerhardt said.