James Comey’s first post-FBI appearance in front of the Senate on Thursday turned out to be a political anticlimax, with no major revelations about the alleged Trump-Russia nexus or the President’s supposed attempt to derail the investigation. But nearly three hours of testimony did expose the methods of the highly political former FBI director. 
 
 To wit, Mr. Comey is trying to have it both ways. He worked to leave the impression that Mr. Trump had committed a crime or at least an abuse of power, even as he abdicated his own... ||||| Former FBI Director James Comey went to Capitol Hill Thursday with an explosive tale of political impropriety: How President Donald Trump tried to influence the FBI's Russia investigation by putting pressure on Comey to back off from aspects of the case. 
 
 We believe Comey. He was a straight-talking witness who gave credible testimony to the Senate intelligence committee. He relied on detailed note-taking to describe Trump's unsuccessful efforts to draw him into a cooperative relationship that should never exist between a president and FBI director. 
 
 The president crossed a line. 
 
 But about that line: Did Trump inadvertently cross the line from appropriate to inappropriate behavior? In other words, did Trump the neophyte president unwittingly test the FBI director's autonomy? Or did Trump go all the way to illegal behavior by directing Comey to tamper with a criminal investigation? 
 
 Comey wouldn't answer the question of whether he believed Trump committed obstruction of justice by attempting to shut down parts of the investigation. Still, Comey's response made Thursday a watershed day of defeat for the president: Comey said he expected that special counsel Robert Mueller, now conducting the Russia probe, would decide whether to accuse Trump of that. Comey, fired by Trump on May 9, said his notes of his interactions with Trump are now in the hands of Mueller's investigators. 
 
 Thus it appears Comey's firing, and Trump's dealings with Comey before that, are now part of the broader investigation of Russia's meddling in the 2016 campaign. 
 
 Former FBI Director James Comey appears before the Senate intelligence committee on Capitol Hill on June 8, 2017, in Washington, D.C. 
 
 Here's how Thursday hurts Trump: Comey said one of Trump's complaints to him was that the Russia probe, though not focused on the president, constituted "a cloud" impairing his ability to pursue his political agenda. Trump wanted Comey to lift that cloud. But now that cloud over Trump is a gathering storm. As long as Mueller's work continues Trump will operate under the specter of a criminal investigation. 
 
 How bad is this for the president? Trump now has a private attorney, Marc Kasowitz, who issued a denial Thursday, saying the president "never sought to impede" the Russia inquiry and never directed or suggested that Comey stop investigating anyone. The president's Twitter feed was uncharacteristically silent. How that must have frustrated Trump the social media fiend. It was left to his spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, to refute Comey's dramatic claim that Trump lied about his reasons for firing Comey. "I can definitively say the president is not a liar," she said. Not a great companion slogan for "Make America Great Again." 
 
 Remember that the original focus of the investigation was Russia's efforts to meddle in American politics. Comey told senators the Russians purposefully interfered in the election and "they will be back." Comey wouldn't discuss details or any evidence that people in Trump's orbit colluded with the Russians. 
 
 Beyond those issues, Comey's tale focused on Trump expressing undue interest in the investigation, using the power of his office to ingratiate himself with Comey and seek his loyalty. In a Feb. 14 one-on-one encounter in the Oval Office, Trump asked Comey to lay off Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser who is one subject of the probe. "I hope you can let this go," Comey said Trump told him about Flynn. 
 
 Comey described his dealings with Trump as awkward and disturbing because the president was trying to influence a criminal investigation. Talk about meddling: Comey was especially unnerved in the Feb. 14 meeting when Trump cleared the room to be alone with Comey. Even Comey's boss, the attorney general, was kicked out. Comey said Trump didn't issue a direct order to Comey to release Flynn from the investigation, but "I took it as a direction." 
 
 The way Comey described it, when the president gets you alone in the Oval Office, looks you in the eye and expresses his wishes, you understand you're being given an order. Comey felt intimidated. Who wouldn't be? "This is the president of the United States with me alone saying, 'I hope this.' I took it as this is what he wants me to do," Comey said. "I didn't obey that." 
 
 Comey thinks he was fired in due course because of the Russia investigation. Trump shifted explanations but at one point said the FBI director was axed for "the Russia thing." If Trump's intent was to punish Comey for not reshaping the Russia inquiry, that would add to the evidence of wrongdoing. 
 
 Comey's testimony damaged the president's credibility. But complex investigations take twists and turns and don't conclude quickly. In time the country will learn enough to render judgment. Were Trump's actions permissible, inept or nefarious? 
 
 Join the discussion on Twitter @Trib_Ed_Board and on Facebook. 
 
 What to read next: 
 
 Donald Trump's behavior suggests he never wants the truth to come out 
 
 'Vindication'? Not so fast, Mr. President 
 
 Trump is a profoundly incompetent president 
 
 Become a subscriber today to support editorial writing like this. Start getting full access to our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks. ||||| FORMER FBI director James B. Comey, testifying under oath Thursday to the Senate Intelligence Committee, painted a picture of a president grossly abusing his executive authority. According to Mr. Comey, President Trump pressured him to declare his loyalty, pressured him to drop an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and then fired him in an effort to alter the course of the FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion by the Trump campaign. However Mr. Trump and his allies may spin the testimony, these are serious and disturbing allegations. Also disturbing is the revelation that Mr. Trump showed little concern about the underlying offense — Russia’s efforts to subvert American democracy. 
 
 Disappointingly, Republican senators at the hearing for the most part tried to play the part of Trump defense lawyers, challenging or playing down Mr. Comey’s testimony. Their efforts for the most part boomeranged. Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho), for example, implied that Mr. Trump’s pressure regarding the Flynn investigation was no big deal because he did not issue a flat command. “He did not order you to let it go,” Mr. Risch said. “He said, ‘I hope.’ ” Mr. Comey responded with a brief lesson on the power of the presidency. “I took it as a direction,” Mr. Comey said. He added that it was “very significant” that the president asked everyone else to leave the room before expressing his “hope,” saying that an investigator would note what this indicated about the president’s intent. 
 
 Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) minimized Mr. Flynn’s misdeeds, arguing it is unlikely he would be charged with breaking the Logan Act. Mr. Comey pointed out that Mr. Flynn may have lied to government investigators — as well as to the vice president, exposing himself to Russian blackmail — which would be no small lapse. 
 
 Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) suggested that firing Mr. Comey was probably not a good way to end the Russia inquiry, implying that the president could not have meant to obstruct the probe. Yet throughout, Mr. Comey cited the president’s statement that he had the Russia matter on his mind when he fired Mr. Comey. The ousted FBI director explicitly drew the conclusion the facts suggest: “I was fired in some way to change, or the endeavor was to change, the way the Russia investigation was being conducted.” 
 
 Overall, the Republican effort to minimize the president’s transgressions served only to make those senators look small. Mr. Comey, a man of integrity, explained over the course of his testimony that the president’s requests breached a barrier that must be maintained between the president and the FBI, “shocked” career law enforcement officials and were unprecedented in his long experience. He described the president as a man law enforcement could not trust, an unusually irresponsible politician who he feared would “lie” to the public and who dishonestly defamed the FBI. That, he said, is why he kept such careful notes of his meetings with the president. 
 
 (Adriana Usero/The Washington Post) 
 
 Finally, Mr. Comey reminded senators that no one, least of all the president, should be uninterested in investigating and responding to the Russians’ hostile activities. “It’s not a Republican thing or a Democratic thing. It really is an American thing,” Mr. Comey said. “They’re just about their own advantage. They will be back.” ||||| President Trump appears to have had good reason to be angry at James Comey. 
 
 Comey and the FBI he ran were clearly happy to make all sorts of things public through various means, but what they refused to say out loud was that Trump was not under investigation. Comey's reasons for declining to make the truth public don't hold up, especially in the midst of a flood of FBI leaks that harmed the president. 
 
 From the moment it become known publicly that federal investigators were looking into Russian meddling in the election, suspicion rained down on Trump. But in January, Comey told him he was not the target. In March, Comey confirmed to a Senate committee that the FBI was investigating possible Russian coordination with the Trump campaign. Afterward, Trump called Comey and implored him to make public what he had confirmed to the Senate leadership, that Trump wasn't a target. 
 
 On May 3, Sen. Richard Blumenthal asked Comey if the FBI has "ruled out" Trump "as potentially a target of that criminal investigation," and Comey refused to answer. Blumenthal followed up, saying, "So potentially, the president of the United States could be a target of your ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's involvement with Russian interference in our election, correct?" 
 
 "I don't want to answer that," Comey replied. 
 
 Shortly thereafter, Trump fired Comey. 
 
 Why wouldn't Comey tell the public what he would tell senators confidentially and had repeatedly told Trump? 
 
 In his prepared statement for Thursday's hearing, Comey explains that he didn't want to say publicly that Trump was not a target "because it would create a duty to correct, should that change." 
 
 Comey reaffirmed that reasoning twice in Thursday's hearing. The idea is that if he stays mum about Trump not being a target, it would be proper to stay mum if Trump became a target. If he revealed that there was no there there, that Trump was not a target, then he'd have to go public if that were to change and Trump became one. 
 
 If you accept this standard, which had compelled Comey to announce in late October 2016 that he had found new Hillary Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop, then Comey's decision not to go public on Trump looks entirely political rather than legal. His reason was simply that complying with the president's request and declaring that Trump was not being investigated might require an embarrassing correction later. 
 
 But embarrassing for whom? Obviously, the principal embarrassment of a later correction would have been Trump's. So, surely it was appropriate, if the president was willing to take that risk, for the FBI director to comply with his boss's simple request. What was Comey doing making the decision to deny the president this declaration, especially with every other piece of information about the investigation being leaked. Every bit that could appear to inculpate Trump was made public. The one crucial detail that suggested the president's innocence was kept a closely guarded secret. 
 
 Why should the FBI director care about protecting Trump from potential bad press in the future? 
 
 He hinted another reason was that he wanted to avoid a repeat of the wounds he suffered the previous October from his public declarations about Hillary Clinton's emails. When Sen. Marco Rubio asked why he wouldn't clear Trump's name, Comey said, "It creates a duty to correct, which I've lived before." Later, on a similar question, Comey made a similar comment and an exasperated eye roll, as if to say, "Man, that sucked." 
 
 No doubt the experience was terrible. Clinton blamed Comey for swinging the election to Trump. Comey testified in May that the possibility of his influencing an election made him "mildly nauseous." 
 
 Avoiding the risk of a relapse into that mild nausea (or whatever other unpleasantness might come Comey's way), however, is not a good reason to refuse to say publicly what was true and what he would say privately — that Trump was not a target. 
 
 After Trump fired Comey, the press treated it as impossible that Comey might have told Trump he was not a target. An Associated Press story called Trump's claim "questionable" and quoted federal prosecutors saying it "wouldn't happen." 
 
 The media speculated on an investigation into Trump and laughed off his claim that Comey told him he was no target. But Trump has now been shown to be right. Comey has not shown any good reason for withholding the truth. Trump had good reason to be angry.
– President Trump may feel he's vindicated after James Comey's testimony, but opinion outside the White House is not so clear cut. Here's a sample of editorials on the subject: Washington Post: Comey "painted a picture of a president grossly abusing his executive authority," write the editors. "However Mr. Trump and his allies may spin the testimony, these are serious and disturbing allegations." It also called out Republicans who sought to minimize the "transgressions." That only makes "those senators look small." Wall Street Journal: Comey "is trying to have it both ways," complains the editorial page. "He worked to leave the impression that Mr. Trump had committed a crime or at least an abuse of power, even as he abdicated his own obligations as a senior law-enforcement officer to report and deter such misconduct." That is, if he believed Trump was obstructing justice with his requests, why didn't he do something then? It feels like his motive now is "more revenge than truth-telling." New York Times: Comey "deftly recast his confrontation with the president as a clash between the legal principles at the foundation of American democracy, and a venal, self-interested politician who does not recognize, let alone uphold, them." Specifically, the editorial board faults Trump for being seemingly unconcerned about Russian meddling in the election. Washington Examiner: It focuses on Comey confirming that Trump wasn't personally under investigation. Previously, "the media speculated on an investigation into Trump and laughed off his claim that Comey told him he was no target. But Trump has now been shown to be right. Comey has not shown any good reason for withholding the truth. Trump had good reason to be angry." Chicago Tribune: Let this play out. "Comey's testimony damaged the president's credibility. But complex investigations take twists and turns and don't conclude quickly. In time the country will learn enough to render judgment. Were Trump's actions permissible, inept, or nefarious?"