Amazing that the author of the piece does not see

Amazing that the author of the piece does not see that Comey could very well have concluded that "Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical..." absent any hard corroborative evidence of obstruction.

So, no need to turn anything in unless or until other actions by Trump, like firing Comey, allow a different interpretation of Trump's words.

Remember, Comey was still FBI director as of that dinner. Perhaps Trump's language then has more legal import AFTER a firing of the man heading up an investigation than it did at the time?

I see no 'box' other than the one constructed by the author of the piece. Seems to me I just described the open flaps in that box.

Also, I don't take Comey as stupid enough to not know the FBI guidelines for turning over notes.

Quote:

---

Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.

So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case. If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent. Thus, no crime.

---