The question is how far he’ll go if he’s asked whether Trump tried to obstruct justice

James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee is a drama within a drama — unfolding both inside and outside the hearing room.

The former FBI director will answer questions from senators about his account of nine meetings and conversations with President Trump in a relationship that quickly soured and ended with his firing. The committee may also attempt to question Comey about the investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election.

Trump’s reaction to the man he called a “nut job” and to the Russian probe he has scorned as “made up” could add more detail to the emerging picture of how this president understands and values the rule of law — or simply doesn’t.

Comey has now given a written statement that recounts meeting by meeting, call by call, his contacts with the president. But it will be difficult for his testimony to meet fevered expectations. In March, he appeared before a House committee and stressed the limits on what he could say publicly about the Russia investigation. He acknowledged its existence but told the House, “I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining.”

Even so, Comey will feel comparatively greater freedom in addressing his personal experience with Trump and perhaps also his view of why he was fired. It is now Comey’s turn to give his version of the dismissal, and it is an ap- propriate subject for congressional oversight.

The key question is whether Comey’s testimony will lend support to concerns about whether the president attempted to obstruct justice. The firing is the last of a series of steps that have given life to that charge.

Comey’s statement to the committee confirms that Trump asked him to declare his “loyalty,” to end the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn (conveying to Comey his hope that “you can let this go”), and to “get out” information about Trump’s own legal status.

Lawmakers may ask Comey to elaborate on why, as he said in his statement, he felt compelled to resort to the highly unusual practice of creating written records of each of these contacts. Comey will almost certainly refrain from expressly judging the legal question of obstruction. He will, however, supply the material for others to form their own judgments.

Viewers hoping for a striking new revelation in Comey’s public testimony might or might not be disappointed. There will be strong pressures to read as much as possible into the former director’s words. But whatever Comey says, this hearing is part of a story that is already extraordinary. It is about the faithful execution of the law in this administration, which depends on respect for legal processes and institutions.

It is, so far, a sad story.