Yep, that’s how you obstruct justice.
A public official, impeding an ongoing investigation of his office...offering up statements that indicate a "corrupt” intention…
...plus the “action” in furtherance of the criminal intention (as reflected in the suspect’s statements.)
There was a lot of media focus on “the statements themselves” (the “I hope you can drop this,” then the statement in the Holt interview.) And of course you have his other statement, about Comey himself -- calling him a “nutjob.” That’s also evidence of a corrupt mindset in firing Comey: continuing to try to discredit the investigator and his investigation, after the fact of the firing.
But I believe that it’s the “act of firing Comey” itself (in light of the Trump statements) that constitute O of J.
Why is that distinction important, if you want a conviction? Because it’s so effing easy to prove that he took that particular action. Proving “the action of firing Comey” is a slam-dunk, and it’s a no-brainer that “firing Comey" "impeded Comey’s ongoing investigation." The only thing missing for a conviction is proof that Trump’s motive for the action was “corrupt”...
...and Trump himself has handed that missing element to us, with his two statements revealing his motive.
Of course, we can’t assume that the two Trump statements referenced in the script … are *all* the statements Trump ever made regarding his motive for firing Comey. The way to bet is: Trump discussed his reasons for wanting Comey stopped with any number of White House staffers and confidants. So the chances of other Trump "corrupt motive” statements being revealed, rises…
...as the Special Counsel’s investigation gathers material, interviews personnel about their conversations with the President--and subpoenas their contemporary records and correspondence.
But I think that right now — even before any other Trump motive statements come to light — we already have a prima facie case of obstruction of justice, in the firing of Comey and Trump’s public and private statements about his motive. And I think that lawyers already know this. That’s why so many elected leaders in D.C. were talking about “O of J” last week: a lot of those guys are lawyers, ya know. Even the ones eager to defend Trump were probably scurrying around to find the relevant statutes.
If I were the President’s lawyer right now, I’d already be “lawyering up, myself.” Ditto Pence and Sessions… Trump’s conversations with them regarding Comey, pre- and post-firing, should be very interesting.