For Republicans on Capitol Hill, Donald Trump may finally have gone too far. 
 
 Tuesday’s report that Trump asked former FBI Director James Comey to end the criminal investigation into ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn was more than just another embarrassing revelation for a president used to a near-daily barrage of scandal and staff intrigue. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 Republicans are privately beginning to worry that they may one day have to sit in judgment of Trump, or that more damaging information from Comey could force the president to step down. Within hours of Tuesday's report by The New York Times, there was a distinct shift among congressional Republicans, who until now have mostly resisted criticizing Trump, let alone demanding the president be held to account for all he says or does. 
 
 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) immediately said he’s prepared to subpoena the memos that Comey reportedly wrote contemporaneously to document his interactions with Trump. Chaffetz sent a letter to the FBI on Tuesday night asking for any notes, documents or records of Trump and Comey’s conversations to be turned over to his panel by May 24. 
 
 His request was echoed by AshLee Strong, spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan: "We need to have all the facts, and it is appropriate for the House Oversight Committee to request this memo." 
 
 Comey has also been invited by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to testify publicly at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to “tell his side of the story” about his dealings with Trump, Graham said Tuesday, even before this latest story broke. 
 
 More Republicans have openly discussed the possibility of a select committee or the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the Trump-Russia connection. It's still a minority of GOP lawmakers, but Republican leaders are watching closely. 
 
 The White House vehemently denied the New York Times report, and Trump has defended his firing of Comey and reported disclosure of classified information to Russian officials. 
 
 Not since October’s “Access Hollywood” moment — when many Republicans believed Trump would have to drop out of the race over his hugely offensive comments about women — has the president faced such a serious political threat. Even conservatives from districts that Trump won overwhelmingly in November want to find out what occurred between the president and Comey, no matter how damaging it may be to Trump. This is a dramatic turn for the party that's been whiplashed by Trump’s drama since his first day as a candidate in June 2015 yet has still stuck with him. 
 
 “It is important to get to the bottom of it,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the Freedom Caucus. Meadows was last seen celebrating passage of the House GOP health care bill in the Rose Garden with Trump and dozens of his Republican colleagues. “We've got one standard, and we need to make sure that applies to everybody.” 
 
 Top Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway met with the Freedom Caucus on Tuesday night and would not say afterward what they discussed. Meadows insisted the Comey matter did not come up, but he told reporters that he intends, through his role on the Oversight Committee, to help get to the bottom of what happened. And he expects cooperation from the White House. 
 
 “If this is legitimately something that there was some kind of influence or pressure from Comey doing his work, I’m going to be very disappointed," added Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee. 
 
 In private, top Republicans fear that this latest Trump controversy — coming just a week after he fired Comey, and only one day after it was revealed that the president revealed highly classified intelligence information during a meeting with Russian officials — will overwhelm everything they are trying to do legislatively. Health care, tax reform, building up the Pentagon — all of it is potentially threatened by the latest furor. 
 
 And if Republicans are paralyzed and can’t pass anything despite control of the White House and Congress, how can they justify their majorities when they go before voters next year? 
 
 Sen. Lindsay Graham listens as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse holds up a copy of "The Kremlin Playbook" at a hearing of the Senate Judicary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism on Capitol Hill on May 8. | Getty 
 
 “I don’t think we can just shrug our shoulders and walk away from this one,” said a top House Republican, who asked not to be named. “I don’t know where this goes.” 
 
 What is most worrying for congressional Republicans is how easy this latest episode is to explain to the public — Trump reportedly tried to interfere with a criminal investigation by the FBI but was rebuffed, then fired Comey — and thus fodder for endless cable TV coverage. That could spur moderate Republicans in swing districts, already nervous about 2018, to openly break with Trump. 
 
 “If these allegations are true, it’s deeply troubling and it certainly opens up a new chapter that all of us have to consider very carefully,” said Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) outside the House chamber Tuesday night. "We need to get to the truth as soon as possible. This weekly scandal, this weekly controversy is unhealthy for the country. It’s a major distraction for the country and it’s just bad for the psyche of every American.” 
 
 “I hope Director Comey testifies before Congress as soon as possible,” said Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), who earlier broke with Trump and his own leadership over health care reform legislation. 
 
 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. 
 
 "Congress needs to see the Comey memo," Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) tweeted late Tuesday night. 
 
 Rep. Pat Meehan (R-Pa.), a former federal prosecutor, suggested Trump’s interactions with Comey threatened the public perception of the Justice Department as an autonomous entity. 
 
 “This whole process is very difficult because we are seeing the central institution — the Justice Department, and the independence of the Justice Department — stretched. And people want to have confidence in the independence of [DOJ’s] activities,” Meehan said. “I’m hoping that throughout this long process, it can get back into a place where there could be confidence in the ability of the institutions to do their work.” 
 
 Kyle Cheney contributed to this report. 
 
 ||||| “He really needs a lawyer,” Ms. O’Sullivan said of Mr. Trump. “He is building a beautiful case against himself.” 
 
 Did Trump have lawful authority to fire Comey? 
 
 Yes. But courts have ruled that otherwise lawful acts can constitute obstruction of justice if done with corrupt intentions. In a 1998 case, for example, a federal appeals court upheld the conviction of a lawyer who had filed legal complaints and related motions against a government agent who was investigating an illegal gambling operation. The court ruled that the defendant’s “nominally litigation-related conduct” was unlawful because his real motive was “to safeguard his personal financial interests” in the corrupt enterprise. 
 
 What would such a case entail, in theory? 
 
 Obstruction of justice cases often come down to whether prosecutors can prove defendants’ mental state when they committed the act, legal specialists said. It is not enough to show that a defendant knew the act would have a side consequence of impeding an investigation; achieving that obstruction has to have been the specific intention. 
 
 Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor who led the Justice Department’s Enron task force and now teaches criminal law at Duke University, was initially skeptical about whether the mere firing of Mr. Comey could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump had an improper mental state. But he said on Tuesday that subsequent revelations have made the evidence much more robust. 
 
 “The evidence of improper purpose has gotten much stronger since the day of Comey’s firing,” Mr. Buell said. “Trump has made admissions about that. And we now have evidence that he may have indicated an improper purpose previously in his communications with Comey about the Russia investigation.” 
 
 What impediments would there be to charging Mr. Trump? 
 
 Ms. O’Sullivan said it was not realistic to expect the Trump administration’s Justice Department to charge the sitting president. And Mr. Buell argued that the developments had strengthened the case for Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who is overseeing the investigation because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, to appoint a special counsel to handle it. 
 
 “The issue right now is whether there needs to be a serious impartial investigation, and there can be no doubt about that at this point,” said Mr. Buell, who said the developments showed that Mr. Comey needed to be interviewed as a witness. “This kind of drip, drip, drip — we keep addressing this scenario as ‘here is the evidence, what is the result,’ but that’s only good until tomorrow when something else comes out. It is not at all clear that this is the end. If anything, it has become clearer that there is more to know.” 
 
 What about impeachment? 
 
 “Asking FBI to drop an investigation is obstruction of justice,” Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida, wrote on Twitter on Tuesday. “Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.” ||||| A theatrical showdown is now looming between the President with a hazy relationship with the truth and the FBI director he fired, whose finely tuned sense of his own integrity has often steered him into rocky political waters. 
 
 The epic head-to-head was set up by stunning allegations that in February Trump pressured Comey to shut down the FBI's Russia probe that was, among other avenues of inquiry, investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn. 
 
 Furthermore, in a sensational development, sources told The New York Times and then CNN on Tuesday night that Comey wrote down his account of Trump's request over the probe in a memo that is about to become one of Washington's most famed artifacts. 
 
 The coming confrontation between Comey and Trump is more than just an opportunity to air grievances that appear to have quickly grown between the two men during their short working relationship and over the FBI director's humiliating dismissal -- news of which he learned on cable television just one week ago. 
 
 It promises to have grave implications for the longevity of an administration that appears to slip deeper into utter disarray by the hour. There doesn't seem to be a way that both men could survive the contest with their reputations intact. 
 
 JUST WATCHED Cummings: Trump has stepped over the line Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Cummings: Trump has stepped over the line 00:47 
 
 Compelling evidence 
 
 Comey is the kind of adversary that no White House would relish. 
 
 If the claims in his memo are correct, they would appear to offer the most compelling evidence yet that Trump's attempt to shut down the probe could amount to an obstruction of justice that imperils his presidency. 
 
 "It looks like he was trying to impede the investigation," said CNN senior political analyst David Gergen. "He was using his power to do that, and when James Comey didn't go along with him, when he wasn't his boy, he fired him." 
 
 Gergen suggested the situation was so serious following Tuesday's revelations that America could be on the cusp of a new impeachment drama. 
 
 The White House has dismissed Comey's version of events revealed by a memo that was described to CNN. 
 
 "While the President has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the President has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn," a White House official said in a statement. 
 
 The prospect of a new arm's length confrontation with Comey might also be causing Trump to second guess himself after suddenly firing the former director last week, then admitting on television that he did so because he was frustrated about a Russia probe he has called a waste of taxpayer money. 
 
 Given the stakes, it now appears certain that Comey will be called out of his premature retirement to testify before Congress about the memo. He would be grilled on what Trump actually said in their Oval Office meeting on February 14 that is now at the center of the political hurricane. Comey would also face scrutiny over why he decided to keep a log of his conversations with the President that was then leaked at a moment of maximum embarrassment for the White House. 
 
 JUST WATCHED Chaffetz: I'm ready to subpoena for Comey memo Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Chaffetz: I'm ready to subpoena for Comey memo 01:41 
 
 'I have my subpoena pen ready' 
 
 The Republican Congress hasn't exactly been holding Trump's feet to the fire in the first few months of his administration. 
 
 But that may be changing. 
 
 Already, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has asked the FBI to provide "all memoranda, notes, summaries, and recordings referring to or relating to any communications between Comey and the president." 
 
 "I have my subpoena pen ready," Chaffetz tweeted on Tuesday. 
 
 .@GOPoversight is going to get the Comey memo, if it exists. I need to see it sooner rather than later. I have my subpoena pen ready. — Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) May 16, 2017 
 
 Other lawmakers, grasping the deeply serious twist the Trump crisis took on Tuesday, are also calling for full disclosure. 
 
 Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said that Comey should be called before the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which Graham sits. 
 
 "OK, well, he's got to come in and tell us why," Graham said. "We're not going to try somebody on a piece of paper." 
 
 So far in the Trump presidency, the most important Republican leaders, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, have tried to keep the focus of their troops on implementing a conservative agenda rather than holding an unpredictable President to account. 
 
 But Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich said in a CNN town hall event Tuesday that needs to change. 
 
 "I saw that Speaker (Paul) Ryan said some things tonight about getting to the bottom line," Kasich said. "Frankly, I think he should be more aggressive. I think he should speak out more and hopefully he will." 
 
 A spokesperson for Ryan released a statement earlier Tuesday night, saying: "We need to have all the facts, and it is appropriate for the House Oversight Committee to request this memo." 
 
 JUST WATCHED Comey: We follow where the evidence takes us Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Comey: We follow where the evidence takes us 02:04 
 
 Comey hearing? 
 
 A Comey hearing would instantly become one of the most significant congressional appearances of modern times. 
 
 The practiced, analytical note-taking of a former FBI director who knows how to leave a paper trail would amount to a compelling piece of evidence in the court of public opinion and pit Comey's word against Trump's. 
 
 After all, a Comey memo could approach "smoking gun" significance if it appears to prove that the President could conceivably be accused of obstructing justice -- potentially grounds for impeachment. 
 
 A Comey appearance before a high wattage, televised hearing would mark another extraordinary dimension in a career in which the former FBI chief has found himself at the center of gripping episodes of Beltway drama. 
 
 Ten years ago, Comey, then acting attorney general, rushed to a Washington hospital to thwart an attempt by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and White House chief of staff Andy Card to get a seriously ill Attorney General John Ashcroft to reauthorize a surveillance program. 
 
 That intervention made him a hero for Democrats. But they came to despise Comey for his leading man role in a later drama, the probe into Hillary Clinton's email server. 
 
 Clinton's campaign blames Comey for her defeat last November. He intervented late in the campaign over a new batch of emails found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, the husband of the Democratic nominee's aide Huma Abedin. 
 
 Trump lauded Comey for his conduct. But he soon came to loggerheads with Comey in his own administration, when the FBI director reportedly refused to offer him a vow of loyalty. Tuesday's reports that the President tried to get him to shelve the Flynn probe only thicken the plot. 
 
 Comey's political misadventures may offer Republicans a chance to question his motives should he testify, and the GOP is in a mood to defend its president, whose antics in recent days have sorely tested the patience of his supporters. 
 
 JUST WATCHED The wiretapping saga in 2 minutes Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH The wiretapping saga in 2 minutes 02:23 
 
 Falsehoods, exaggerations and blatant untruths 
 
 But it is also possible that given his administration's history of repeated falsehoods, exaggerations and blatant untruths, on issues from the size of the inauguration crowds to claims that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, the President may not come across as a particularly credible witness in the court of public opinion. 
 
 And there's no guarantee that the White House can get its story straight. In recent days, Trump has repeatedly contradicted his own press team as they work to defuse multiple firestorms in Washington. 
 
 Since Comey would testify from Congress, and Trump can command the bully pulpit, both men, in effect would be vying for victory in the court of public opinion. 
 
 Comey, in the very act of taking notes about his conversations with Trump, seems to have indicated that at the very least he considered the President a problematic character who could embroil him in future controversies. 
 
 Trump has already made clear his deep antipathy to Comey. After firing him, Trump told NBC News that the FBI director was a "showboat" and a "grandstander" whom he had been planning to jettison for months. 
 
 Those unflattering impressions are not likely to be improved if Trump, ever the showman himself, tunes in on cable television to watch Comey starring in a hearing that keeps the rest of the country on tenterhooks. 
 
 But the result of their public duel may go a long way to dictating the fate of Trump presidency. If Trump allies fail to paint Comey as a discredited figure, he could impose deep political damage on the President. 
 
 It was already immediately noticeable in the wake of Tuesday's disclosures that Republicans on Capitol Hill were more reticent about coming out in strong support of the President than they had been on previous occasions. 
 
 A damning performance by Comey could further add to their doubts and leave Trump in deep political peril if his alleged missteps persuade even a Republican Congress to contemplate impeachment proceedings. ||||| We don’t actually know if Richard Nixon ordered the break-in to the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex on June 17, 1972. 
 
 That, to me, is still the most remarkable feature of the Watergate crisis. A president was forced out of office for the first time in American history by a scandal centering on a single crime, and we still don’t know if he actually ordered it. 
 
 In his memoirs, Nixon denies it, though he smugly adds, "I could not muster much moral outrage over a political bugging." Jeb Magruder, a dirty tricks operative for Nixon, revealed three decades later that he had overheard Nixon and his reelection chair John Mitchell planning the burglary. But as historian David Greenberg notes, “Mr. Magruder had [previously] discussed that same meeting without noting Nixon's participation.” Dirty tricks operatives aren’t the most reliable of sources. 
 
 We don’t even know why it happened — if the burglars were looking for evidence that the DNC was receiving money from the North Vietnamese or Cuban governments (as conspirator Howard Hunt insisted), or information embarrassing to White House counsel John Dean (as G. Gordon Liddy, who planned the break-in with Hunt, claimed), or, as another popular theory has it, trying to find out how much DNC chair Larry O'Brien knew about Nixon’s financial dealings with billionaire tycoon Howard Hughes. 
 
 But what we do know, the “smoking gun” that eventually forced Nixon out of office, was that Nixon ordered his chief of staff to get the CIA to force the FBI to abandon its investigation into the break-in. 
 
 That was enough. 
 
 Some Republicans had stood by Nixon through his firing of the independent counsel investigating the matter, through multiple aides and Cabinet officials resigning, through the White House’s effort to resist subpoenas for documents and tapes. But when the “smoking gun” White House tape was released on August 5, 1974, Nixon’s remaining support from Republicans evaporated. Two days later, Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R-PA), House Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes (R-AZ), and former presidential candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) went to the White House and informed the president that he had no support left in Congress. 
 
 They were shocked and horrified that Nixon had personally participated in the cover-up; before then there was still a sliver of a chance that the president himself wasn’t part of the conspiracy. They told Nixon that, now that his role in the cover-up was known, the votes were there to impeach him and remove him from office. The day after that, the president announced his resignation. 
 
 Similarly, there’s a lot we don’t know about Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia. We know that the FBI and other agencies have been looking into any contact Trump's campaign advisers Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone might have had with the Russian government during the election, as well as into White House senior adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s post-election contacts. We know that intelligence agencies suspect those three might have worked the Russian officials to coordinate the release of hacked emails. We know that disgraced former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Kushner, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions all lied about or failed to disclose communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. 
 
 We don’t know how all these pieces fit together. We don’t know exactly what Donald Trump Sr.’s direct involvement is, or how aware he was of his advisers’ efforts, or the nature of his business relationship with Russia. That’s provoked a lot of very valuable investigative journalism, as well as a lot of outright conspiracy theorizing. 
 
 But focusing too granularly on the details of Trump’s personal involvement risks setting the bar too low for him. It risks suggesting that unless we find undeniable proof of collusion between Trump and the Russian government, he’s in the clear. 
 
 The fact of the matter is that without any more information than we already have, we already know Trump’s conduct is at least as outrageous as what Nixon acknowledged in the smoking gun tape. 
 
 In Nixon’s case, what crossed the line, moving top leaders from his own party to go to the White House and tell Nixon that his presidency was over, was Nixon’s attempt to hamper the FBI’s investigation into Watergate. 
 
 And we now know that before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, he asked Comey to stop investigating former National Security Adviser Flynn; Comey confirms as much in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and further indicates that Trump asked him to “lift the cloud” of the Russia investigation more broadly. This is exactly the same kind of FBI investigation interference that forced Nixon out of the White House and shocked his Republican allies out of defending him. 
 
 We also know that Trump asked the Director of National Intelligence and the director of the National Security Agency to publicly deny the existence of collusion between his campaign and Russia — an attempt at interference in the intelligence community that calls directly to mind Nixon's attempt to use the CIA to scuttle an FBI probe. 
 
 This is not a “where there’s smoke there’s fire” situation. We don’t need to know much more to know that the president has committed conduct that was once thought sufficient to warrant removal from office. 
 
 The Comey firing isn’t smoke. It’s fire. ||||| "There is no cover story or obvious response to soft-pedal what Trump meant," said one law professor. | AP Photo Trump's alleged plea to Comey stirs obstruction talk Many lawyers say impeachment is only viable penalty for a president's actions in office. 
 
 The revelation that Donald Trump allegedly urged former FBI Director James Comey to drop a probe into former adviser Michael Flynn fueled speculation the president may have obstructed justice, but any penalty would likely come from Congress and not the criminal justice system, lawyers said Tuesday. 
 
 "When someone at the White House is telling someone at DOJ or the FBI to soft-pedal or abandon an investigation, that's when people start talking about obstruction," said University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 While Trump and other officials have offered a panoply of reasons for Comey's firing last week, the ongoing FBI probe into Russian influence on the 2016 election was cited as part of the reason for Trump's dissatisfaction with the FBI director's performance. 
 
 The disclosure by the New York Times Tuesday, which was confirmed by POLITICO, that an FBI memo indicated that Trump asked Comey at a February White House meeting if he could let go of the probe into Flynn, a former campaign adviser and national security adviser, only intensified allegations the president was trying to rein in the ongoing inquiries into his associates. 
 
 "There is no cover story or obvious response to soft-pedal what Trump meant," Vladeck said. 
 
 "I'm hard-pressed to think of another time that someone has put his finger on the scale as brazenly as President Trump has. If this were anyone other the president, it is classic, vanilla obstruction," said Jeff Cramer, a Chicago-based former federal prosecutor now with Berkeley Research Group. 
 
 Trump aides dispute Comey's reported account of that conversation. White House officials insisted Tuesday that Trump had made no request to end the investigation. 
 
 "While the president has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the White House said in a statement. Even if Comey's version of events proves accurate, not everyone agrees Trump's actions would amount to obstruction. 
 
 Regardless, it would likely be up to Congress to act. While other officials alleged to have sought to stymie investigations would have to worry about criminal charges, there's broad consensus a president can't be charged criminally while he's in office. 
 
 "It's the longstanding position of the executive branch that the president cannot be indicted while in office," said Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, a top Justice Department official under President George W. Bush. "The remedy for a criminal violation would be impeachment." 
 
 As the Monica Lewinsky controversy swirled around former President Bill Clinton, a Senate panel held a hearing on whether the president could be indicted. Most in Congress, including many Republicans, seemed to hold the view that the Constitution sets up impeachment as the mechanism for punishing presidential misconduct. 
 
 When Independent Counsel Ken Starr believed he had "substantial and credible" evidence against Clinton, Starr did not seek an indictment but delivered reams of material to the House of Representatives instead. One of the articles of impeachment on which the House voted against Clinton was for obstruction of justice. The Senate acquitted Clinton on all the charges. 
 
 Breaking News Alerts Get breaking news when it happens — 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. 
 
 Lawyers reached by POLITICO didn't all believe Trump's alleged efforts to influence the investigation would amount to obstruction. Some argued that his broad constitutional authority to direct the executive branch provides a defense against such charges. They also saw ambiguities in Trump's reported language. 
 
 "If it was a polite request saying, 'Oh, you know, he's a good guy, Flynn, I wish you'd back off this thing,' that's not an obstruction of justice," Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said on MSNBC Tuesday. "If it was a command, it would raise stronger problems...I just think it's a very, very high bar to get over obstruction of justice for a president who, in fact, is the head of the unitary executive branch that includes the FBI and the Justice Department." 
 
 Another prominent defense attorney who advised a client facing obstruction of justice allegations said the evidence to make such a case against Trump was still lacking. 
 
 "Did Trump talk like this because he was actually trying to pressure Comey or was he just blowing off steam? ....If you look at the obstruction cases that are brought, they involve coercion, threats and bribes. I don't think we're there yet," said the lawyer, who asked not to be named. 
 
 Still, the lawyer, a veteran of several Washington scandals, said Trump's alleged comments to Comey were unwise. 
 
 "It's just bad judgment. Of course, if you're trying to give him counsel, it's not anything you would want him to do or say," the attorney said. "Since Watergate, the most surefire way to blow yourself up is to attempt to pressure someone lower-down in the chain....It Just doesn't work." ||||| Multiple news outlets are now reporting that James Comey wrote in a memo that Donald Trump asked him to drop the FBI’s investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Here’s the New York Times story that started it all: 
 
 President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting. “I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. 
 
 The Times does not have a copy of the memo and claims instead that a Comey associate read excerpts to a reporter: 
 
 Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of the memo to a Times reporter. 
 
 The Trump administration is denying Trump made the request, writing in an unsigned statement: 
 
 “The president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end an investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn. . . . This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey.’’ 
 
 The analysis here is pretty simple. If the memo exists, then there is compelling evidence that the president committed a potentially impeachable offense. Here is the alleged chain of events: First, Trump asked Comey to drop an investigation of a close former associate and a former senior official in his administration. Second, Comey refused. Third, weeks later Trump fired Comey. Fourth, Trump then misled the American people regarding the reason for the dismissal. Each prong is important, but it’s worth noting that the fourth prong — Trump’s deception regarding the reason for Comey’s termination — is particularly problematic in context. Deception is classic evidence of malign intent. 
 
 If true, this is a serious abuse of power, and a Republican Congress would certainly impeach a Democrat if the roles were reversed. But — and this is vitally important to everyone at DEFCON 1 on Twitter — we don’t know yet if the New York Times account is true. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr raised reasonable objections: 
 
 “I actually believe the director might have told us that there’d been a request like that and it was never mentioned by him,” the North Carolina Republican told reporters. “So somebody’s going to have to do more than have anonymous sources on this one for me to believe that there’s something there.” 
 
 Lindsay Graham — no fan of Trump — also raised a legitimate point: 
 
 “If this happened, the FBI director should have done something about it or quit,” Graham said. “If the president asked the FBI director to do something inappropriate, the FBI director should have said no and quit.” 
 
 The bottom line is that Americans need to see the memo, if it exists. The gravity of the accusation demands immediate Congressional action. Burr’s committee should subpoena that memo and every memo or other document reflecting the content of conversations between Comey and President Trump. Do it today. Burr told reporters that the “burden is on the New York Times” to produce the memo, but that’s absurd. The Times doesn’t have the ability to compel its production. House and Senate committees do, and they need to do their job. 
 
 There is no good outcome here. Either there is now compelling evidence that the president committed a serious abuse of power, or the nation’s leading press outlets are dupes for a vindictive, misleading story. Either outcome violates the public trust in vital American institutions. Either outcome results in a degree of political chaos. If the memo is real and as damaging as the Times claims, the chaos is likely greater, but don’t underestimate the cultural and political damage if our nation’s most prestigious press outlets run a story of this magnitude based on a malicious fiction. It’s time for facts and documents, not anonymity and allegations. It’s time for the truth.
– President Trump is no stranger to scandal, but reports that he asked former FBI director James Comey to halt the investigation of Michael Flynn may have taken things to the next level. The report may have been the last straw for congressional Republicans, who appeared to be shifting against Trump on Tuesday night, Politico reports. House Oversight Committee Rep. Jason Chaffetz says he has asked the FBI for Comey's memos on the Trump request and other interactions with the president and he is ready to issue subpoenas if necessary. Some legal analysts say there could now be an obstruction of justice case against Trump, though it could be tough to prove. The latest: Obstruction of justice. The New York Times describes obstruction of justice as a "murky" charge, the exact definition of which was being hotly debated on Capitol Hill Tuesday night. Experts say it could certainly cover asking the FBI director to drop its investigation and then firing him. Any criminal case would probably have to prove that Trump had "corrupt intentions," though if Trump is tried, it will be by Congress, not the courts. "If this were anyone other than the president, it is classic, vanilla obstruction," former federal prosecutor Jeff Cramer tells Politico. The showdown. It now appears certain that a "theatrical showdown" between Trump and Comey looms, with Americans having to decide whose word they trust more, CNN reports. Comey is expected to be called to testify before Congress about the Feb. 14 meeting with Trump. Reasons for Trump to worry. The Times' sources say Comey kept detailed memos about his meetings with Trump, which "should strike fear into the White House," according to the Washington Post. The notes may describe other times Trump allegedly crossed the line—and courts in previous cases have considered memos from FBI directors to be credible evidence. "Reasonable objections." The National Review notes that while there is "no good outcome" here, it is premature to say Trump is doomed to face impeachment proceedings: The allegation has not been proven, and the "reasonable objections" include Sen. Lindsey Graham's observation: "If this happened, the FBI director should have done something about it or quit." GOP reaction. Republican lawmakers including House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Frank Meadows are calling for an investigation of the "disturbing" allegation. Some have signaled that their patience is wearing out. "This weekly scandal, this weekly controversy is unhealthy for the country. It’s a major distraction for the country and it’s just bad for the psyche of every American," said Florida Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo, per Politico. Nixon comparisons. There are many comparisons to the Watergate scandal being made. Vox notes that what ended Richard Nixon's presidency wasn't the Watergate break-in itself—his involvement was never proven—but his attempt to force the FBI to abandon its investigation. Prison for the press. CNBC notes that amid the Flynn uproar, another allegation has been overlooked: Trump also allegedly asked Comey to consider imprisoning members of the press for publishing classified allegations that had been leaked.