According to CNN reports,the Senate Committee has publicly released James Comey’s testimony ahead of Thursday's hearing. It contains thought provoking, “inappropriate” and “very awkward” discussions between the Ex FBI chief and President Trump. But do these conversations infer Obstruction Of Justice?

Let’s analyze this situation. One of the president’s key officials is being investigated, his former national security adviser to be precise. He has been fired, under criminal investigation, and the president tells the FBI director to abort the investigation?

Tell me how that isn’t obstruction of justice? According to Jeffrey Toobin, a CNN senior legal analyst.

Was Trumps intent corrupt?

Other sources say since Trump’s intention was to obstruct an official investigation, legally that is an issue.

Former federal prosecutor said the debate on whether or not the president obstructed justice will be finalized in the court on Thursday. The important question here is if the president’s motives were corrupt, and to determine his motive we have to consider the facts and surrounding circumstances in the case.

The circumstances surrounding Comey’s testimony raises suspicion. Legal experts say two details are particularly problematic. First, Trump told Comey to openly declare that he was not under investigation.

Second, Donald Trump ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions and others out of the room during a February 14 meeting to allow he and Comey speak privately.

Trump orders AG and others out of the room

Former Justice Department official Michael Zeldin said the fact that the President sought privacy with James is worth considering and indicates a mindset.

Discuss this news on Eunomia

He also said it was inappropriate and thought provoking for the president to ask the Attorney General to leave the room. Trump might be indicted, he said.

Justice Department veteran, William Yeomans said he was positive that James' testimony wasn’t looking good for the President. Yeomans also said he felt Comey’s statement could provide substantial evidence for the case, but some believe otherwise.

Former Federal Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said it is explainable that James' could consider this as inappropriate but it did not necessarily make it a criminal case.

McCarthy also said Trump’s reasoning may be irrational but was not obviously corrupt, and therefore couldn’t be considered as obstruction of justice. He did not emphatically order the Ex-FBI chief to drop the investigation. Compelling a subordinate is not obstruction of justice, he said. The president allowed James to use his discretion.