SHOCKER: Law Professor: I don’t see obstruction of justice in Comey’s testimony.

Related: Comey’s prepared testimony: Trump is correct, I told him he wasn’t under investigation; Update: “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.”

UPDATE: Jim Comey Backs Up Trump’s Story, But It’s Not All Good News for Trump.

Plus: “If Dems hadn’t wildly overplayed the notion that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016, Comey testimony would hurt him. They did. So it won’t.”

Also: James Comey’s Latest Statement Is An Indictment Of Comey, Not Trump.

While it’s clear that Comey and his allies believe the statement is proof that President Donald Trump acted inappropriately, and perhaps even illegally, the statement itself is a much bigger indictment of Comey’s own behavior over the last six months. Not only does Comey’s statement corroborate Trump’s claim that the former FBI director told him three times that the president was not being investigated by the FBI, it also reveals the Beltway game Comey was playing with the investigation.

In his statement, as my colleague Mollie Hemingway noted earlier today, Comey acknowledges the accuracy of Trump’s claim — included in the letter announcing Comey’s firing — that Comey had on three separate occasions informed Trump that he was not being investigated by the FBI. The corroboration of the claim by Comey himself is by far the most newsworthy nugget from the lengthy statement. But several other claims from Comey also do far more to indict Comey than they do to implicate Trump.

The most damning aspect of Comey’s prepared testimony is his admission that he deliberately refused to inform the public that Trump was not being personally investigated by the FBI. Comey’s justification for this refusal to publicly disclose material facts — that those facts might change — is laughable, especially in light of Comey’s 2016 two-step regarding the investigation of Hillary Clinton.

But hey, the other shoe is going to drop:

Don’t say you weren’t warned. . .