Legal experts say written testimony presents evidence of obstruction of justice, but there are mixed opinions on whether it would be enough for impeachment

Legal experts agreed that James Comey’s account of his nine conversations with Donald Trump earlier this year presented strong evidence of obstruction of justice and an attempt to bury an investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Moscow.

Danger for Trump from Comey hearing lies in three words: obstruction of justice Read more

However, there were mixed opinions on whether it would be enough for a conviction, or impeachment. Articles of impeachment would have to be passed by the House of Representatives, and most Republicans on Wednesday evening appeared to close ranks in support of Trump, despite the details of Comey’s statement.

Comey’s statement to the Senate intelligence committee was released on Wednesday ahead of his eagerly awaited appearance before the Senate intelligence committee on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

Some observers said the statement would add momentum to multiple investigations into the conduct of the Trump campaign, which could in turn produce yet more damaging testimony that would be hard for Republicans to ignore. Comey’s evidence also contradicted Trump’s account of the conversations, in which he denied demanding loyalty of Comey. If the president repeated his version under oath, he could face accusations of perjury.

“Comey’s entirely credible prepared statement strengthens my belief that the president sought to influence and even end an ongoing investigation into serious wrongdoing by [Michael] Flynn and others close to the president. That constitutes obstruction of justice,” Laurence Tribe, Harvard University professor of constitutional law, said in an email.

Richard Painter, who was ethics counsel in the George W Bush administration, argued that a determination on whether Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice would require more evidence.

“The key question is whether there was a threat to fire Comey if he did not do what he was told,” Painter said. “I think asking for loyalty as a condition of employment, the times he asks him to drop the Flynn investigation and the fact that he was actually fired – putting those three occurrences together is strong evidence that Trump was communicating to Comey that he would fire him if he didn’t drop the investigation.”

“There is a question of whether it would be enough to convince a jury,” he added. “A lot would depend on if there were other witnesses who, say, hear Trump said ‘I’m going to fire him if he doesn’t drop the case’ or if he was on tape saying ‘I will fire you if you don’t’ – that would be clear-cut evidence. But there is certainly enough for the House and Senate judiciary committees to start holding hearings and calling witnesses.”

James Comey’s written statement

Comey is likely to be asked questions about the context for the conversations with Trump when the former FBI director gives oral testimony on Thursday morning.

“Clearly director Comey is looking ahead to the day beyond the hearing tomorrow when he may have to testify about this,” Norman Eisen, another former White House ethics counsel, told CNN. “Whether it’s in an obstruction proceeding, or an impeachment proceeding, or something else.”

He compared Comey’s testimony to Richard Nixon’s secret recording of his phone calls when he was in office at the height of the Watergate scandal.

“This moves us into the same realm as Nixon’s obstruction, maybe worse,” he said. “This is the equivalent of the Nixon tapes. We are headed into very, very choppy waters.”

Russia and Trump: the chronicle of a scandal Read more

“The pressure brought to bear on Comey could well amount to obstruction of justice depending on the intent and motive,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut. Asked by the Guardian what specifically Comey needed to answer in Thursday’s hearing, Blumenthal replied: “What more did the president say? And what was the tone and apparent intent in his saying it?”

Benjamin Wittes, the editor of the influential Lawfare blog and a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, also drew a comparison to the Nixon era, calling Comey’s statement “the most shocking single document compiled about the official conduct of the public duties of any president since the release of the Watergate tapes”.

Wittes added: “Comey is describing here conduct that a society committed to the rule of law simply cannot accept in a president.”

A friend and former adviser to Comey said Trump’s intervention on the Flynn investigation had been “way out of the norm” and amounted to “borderline – although not necessarily actual – obstruction of justice”.



“It’s only if you can connect [Comey’s] firing to it that it becomes retaliation, and that’s an easier obstruction case to make,” the friend said. Asked whether Comey viewed the dismissal as retaliation, the friend, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, replied: “I don’t want to speak for him.”

The friend said that the ousted FBI director had been “keenly” awaiting his opportunity to testify publicly because “he thinks the American people are entitled to know what happened”.

The friend added Comey had not been shaken by the saga. “He’s fine. He’s absolutely fine,” said the friend. “He’s at peace with himself, he’s always proud to do the right thing, and he will continue to stand up for that.”