‘Obstruction’ rap is no slam dunk

Ousted FBI Director James Comey’s testimony may have been great political theater, but it’s far from clear whether there’s enough ammo from it to nail the commander in chief on obstruction-of-justice charges, legal experts told The Post Thursday.

Obstruction requires a prosecutor to prove that President Trump had a corrupt intent to impede justice, said Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center.

While the former FBI leader’s testimony before a Senate panel was “riveting constitutional drama,’’ Comey “didn’t say anything concrete to the central question of whether or not there was obstruction of justice,” Rosen said.

This now puts added pressure on Special Counsel Robert Mueller to dig up more facts on Trump’s intent, he said.

Comey said Trump asked him to back off the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, with the president saying, “I hope you can let this go.”

Comey said he took the president’s words as a directive, but Republicans insist that Trump’s words weren’t a clear order.

Dale Carpenter, law professor at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, disagreed with Rosen, saying Comey’s testimony lays the groundwork for a potential obstruction charge.

It doesn’t matter that Trump used the word “hope” instead of “order,” the professor said.

“What matters is whether or not President Trump had a corrupt intent when he spoke to Director Comey about dropping the Flynn investigation . . . whether [Trump] was trying to get it stopped, and it seemed to me pretty clear that that’s what was happening,” Carpenter said.