Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony on Capitol Hill set off immediate debate over two questions with potential legal consequences for President Trump.

Did Trump merely express “hope” that Comey would halt an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s Russian contacts in a one-on-one meeting in February, or was it actually — as Comey testified Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee — an order to drop the investigation?

…

“There is no evidence of corrupt purpose, which is an essential element of the crime — only evidence that Trump thought Michael Flynn was ‘a good guy’ and that the only basis for firing Flynn as national security adviser was his false statements to the vice president, which are not criminal,” Michael McConnell, a Stanford law professor and director of the school’s Constitutional Law Center, said after Thursday’s hearing.

…

Stanford Law Professor Robert Weisberg said Comey’s testimony Thursday “moved the needle” toward a finding of obstruction of justice, potential grounds for impeachment. If Trump, as Comey recounted, asked for a promise of loyalty, ordered others out of the room before discussing Flynn, and made it clear he wanted the FBI to drop its probe of Flynn, Weisberg said, it could add up to a corrupt effort to interfere with an investigation.