No, but the problem is there is nothing stated that he did so. It all hinges on his "hope" statement. Could he have been pressuring Comet with that statement? Sure, but only two men were in the room together and if Comey states today he didn't feel pressured there is no case. At best these guys will start pleading the fifth.
Anyone who actually thinks Trump will get impeached on any of this is delusional. Clinton was caught with evidence and she got off. If you can't charge her, does anyone think they can convict Trump the sitting President?
Here's the thing. He's the President. Saying "I hope" is pretty much the same thing as an order. There's this fiction based view of the Presidency and of leaders that they go around all day ordering people to do things and sprinkle in "I order you to do X." People have seen way too many movies. Many leaders and even past Presidents don't explicitly say what they want, or specifically order it to be done. They just let it be known that it is their desire or hope that a certain thing happens. It gives them plausible deniability and a buffer to basically argue "hey, I never ordered you to do that or say you had to..." when in reality, when someone at that level of authority says "I hope," it means the same thing as I want you to do this. Legally it may preclude Trump from facing an obstruction of justice charge based on that one interaction, but everyone who is honest with themselves know exactly what Trump was doing. Trump is incompetent and ignorant but he isn't stupid. It is just like the mobster that wants to buy your building or land. He comes and meets you at your office and asks if it is for sale. You tell him no. He says, "aww, that is a shame it is such a beautiful place I was really HOPING to buy it from you" then he looks over at a picture of your two children on your desk, and then says with a smirk: "are those your children? I bet you are very proud of them and worry everyday about something bad happening to them. You never know what can happen in today's world." Did the mobster threaten the guy? There's certainly no way to prove it, and there's no prosecutor in the world that could make that case.
I haven't seen many people reference this, but there was something very interesting in Comey's written testimony. Did anyone see the part about Trump saying:
COMEY: I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.
Trump said he would do that and added, "Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal;
we had that thing you know." I did not reply or ask him what he meant by "that thing."
That conversation was from a phone call on April 11th.
Prior to that conversation on March 30th, Trump called Comey and this was reported to have been said:
In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, saying he hadn't brought up
"the McCabe thing" because I had said McCabe was honorable, although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe's wife) campaign money. Although I didn't understand why the President was bringing this up, I repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person.
Comey refrains from making a conclusion, but specifically states that he did not reply or ask him what he meant. Notice how in the first conversation on March 30th, Comey is confused by why Trump brought up "the McCabe thing." But, on April 11th, the President says "we had that thing you know" and Comey says he didn't respond or ask Trump what he meant. Read between the lines. Comey isn't stating it, and I'm sure he's going to be asked about it in his testimony, but it isn't hard to see why Comey is pointing out both pieces as they fit together like a puzzle. Trump was basically intimating that he believed McCabe to be disloyal because he donated to someone close to the Clintons, but hadn't brought it up because Comey said he was honorable. He brings this up ABRUPTLY after saying we need to get it out publicly that I'm not being investigated. Why else would Trump bring that up other than as an attempt to pressure or compromise Comey?
Well, you say, the President is scatterbrained and he sometimes rambles like that. OK, then explain why in his last call with Comey he AGAIN asks Comey what he is doing to get it out publicly that he isn't under investigation (Comey again told him I've passed on your request and am waiting on the DOJ), doesn't get the answer that he wants and ADDS this: "Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal;
we had that thing you know."
What "thing" could Trump have possibly been referring to other than McCabe? There were no conversations or meetings in between the two phone calls. In the phone conversation about 10 days before, Trump had abruptly brought up "the McCabe thing" but said he hadn't brought it up before because Comey said McCabe was honorable.
How can anyone read that and not get the implication that Trump is pressuring/threatening Comey? Why else would you bring McCabe up or circle back to "that thing we had." Literally that is exactly how mobsters try to compromise and use people. And this is no conspiracy theory -- Trump had a lot of dealings with the Mob in NYC as they used to control a lot of the construction trades like concrete. So, hey, about your buddy McCabe, it sure would be a shame if something happened to him. I hope you can let this Flynn thing go he's a good guy. You told me McCable is honorable so I haven't brought him up. Hey, remember we had that "thing" you know, so get it out that I'm not being investigated. I did you a solid now you do me a solid.
We all know Trump has a history of trying to compromise and use people like this. That he tried to do it with the Director of the FBI is simply amazing. If these two exchanges aren't explored in detail during today's testimony then I seriously believe Congress isn't doing their job. It was a clear attempt to influence/pressure Comey. Was it laid out in clear detail like you do this thing for me or you are going to have a problem? No. It was laid out like... hey I'm doing you a favor with this thing. Hope you can handle this thing I want. Hey, we had this thing, so.... what about my thing? Have you handled it yet?
I seriously don't see how anyone can read that and not believe that Trump absolutely crossed the line. Does it prove a legal case of obstruction of justice? As I've said, based on that written testimony alone it does not. But ask yourself what you'd think if this was Obama doing this, or if this was the mayor in your local town talking to the police chief.
