What if a local politician did what Trump allegedly did?

Let’s bring it all a bit closer to home, into a context that might clarify the situation and strip it of some of the instinctive partisan loyalties that otherwise have a tendency to blind people.

Instead of President Trump, let’s say that we’re talking about someone like Charlotte Nash, the chair of the Gwinnett County Commission, or Kasim Reed, mayor of the city of Atlanta. Let’s imagine Reed, Nash or the top executive of some other local government calling the appointed police chief into their private office and asking that appointee for a personal pledge of loyalty.

Imagine Reed secretly, repeatedly pressuring the Atlanta police chief to drop her agency’s investigation into possible corruption in Reed’s own administration, involving Reed friends, allies and potentially even family members. Imagine the law enforcement official resisting the pressure, as duty would require. Imagine Nash actually firing the head of the Gwinnett police department after he refuses to end such an investigation, then imagine her concocting some lame excuse for the firing that falls apart under minimal inspection.

What do you think should happen to a chief executive who interferes with a criminal probe into his own actions and those of his administration, and who fires a top law enforcement officer who refuses to buckle under that pressure? Strip the question of party loyalties and personalities, and address the situation: What should happen?

As you know, that’s the far-from-theoretical question now facing Congress and by extension the American people. On Thursday, former FBI Director James Comey is scheduled to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee about his relationship with Trump and the events leading to his firing. Judging from accounts leaked by Comey associates, with Comey’s apparent approval and cooperation, Comey will tell Congress about repeated efforts by Trump to pressure the FBI to cease an investigation into possible collusion with Russian officials. He will cite memoranda written after each encounter, detailing the conversations with Trump.

And he will talk about his firing.

In an attempt to undermine Comey’s credibility, Trump defenders ask a legitimate question: If all that was going on, if Trump was indeed trying to obstruct justice, then why didn’t Comey say something at the time? Why did he stay silent?

If we accept the version of events leaked on his behalf, then Comey was trying to gently fend off repeated improper, unethical, even illegal and unconstitutional demands from a newly elected president. He was “managing up,” hoping to educate Trump on the limits of his authority while trying to avoid a major political and constitutional crisis.

But once he was fired — in Comey’s mind for refusing to buckle to Trump’s demands — then that confrontation became inevitable.

Thursday’s testimony will be broadcast live by cable news and the major networks. The American people will have the chance to assess Comey’s demeanor, accuracy and honesty against that of the president. And if they conclude that Comey is telling the truth, what then?

Do you ignore it? Do you excuse in a president what would be inexcusable in a mayor or county commissioner? Is your loyalty to the man, or to the rule of law?