Former FBI director James Comey recently testified, under oath, before the Senate Intelligence Committee. In his testimony, among other things, he repeated his claims that President Trump urged him to drop the investigation into former national security advisor Michael Flynn.
Yesterday President Trump's lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, responded with a statement in which he clearly denied that President Trump suggested that Mr. Comey "let Flynn go".
Furthermore, President Trump personally addressed the media today, unambiguously contradicting the claim that he asked James Comey to end the investigation into Michael Flynn. Additionally, President Trump willingly offered to testify under oath.
Can't they just check Comey's laptop, where he supposedly typed the memos immediately after the meetings with President Trump? If the timestamp of these memos corresponds with the meetings dates, doesn't that at least prove, that Comey isn't making these things up now?
What happens, as it seems to unfold, if President Trump's word stands against James Comey's word (assuming there were not actually recording devices present)?
To me it seems that testimony against testimony, both under oath, is as far as it can go. Unless there are further revelations, I don't see how either President Trump or James Comey can profit.
In order to make the question a bit more answerable and to narrow it down, assume that after both parties have testified under oath, no further revelations are made. There is no hard evidence as to who is right.
The imminent word-against-word situation is already changing, as investigators asked for President Trump's recordings and Comey's memos. I did not know that the memos have not been looked at yet. So this kind of answers my question.