 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. “He said, ‘I hope.’ ” Mr. Comey responded with a brief lesson on the power of the presidency. 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." 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 took it as this is what he wants me to do," Comey said. 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. Trump shifted explanations but at one point said the FBI director was axed for "the Russia thing."
– 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?"