Amid recent accusations from an anonymous source, President Trump has apparently obstructed justice, and, in light of former FBI director Comey’s “memo,” put himself in the position to be impeached.

Now I, like CNN, The New York Times, and every other journalist, have not seen these memos. In fact, the Senate has not even seen the memos (but they have called for them to be handed over). The story that broke is all based off of the New York Times article in which an unnamed source apparently read anecdotes from Comey’s memos -- so of course that means it is absolutely true.

Am I saying that there are no memos? Absolutely not. I have no clue if there are or there aren’t. What I do know is that people are taking this way out of proportion, considering the hard proof that CNN is reporting on comes from one account from an unnamed source who did NOT let the New York Times read the memo themselves.

The journalistic standards shown by the New York Times is disgusting. They write “The documentation of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.” It is only vital for one to dig a little deeper into what this quote means, and why it is so important.

First of all, the article concludes that, “The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo” which, if you ask me, is ridiculous. So the New York Times does not get to see this “hard evidence” that is worthy of impeachment but decides the best thing to do is dedicate an ENTIRE article off one account from an apparent Comey associate without seeing and analyzing the report themselves? Really?

On top of that, the information that apparently warrants Trump to be impeached is that he supposedly insisted to Comey that Michael Flynn was a “good guy” and hopefully Comey could let that go. In no way am I condoning collusion between Flynn and Russia, but if that is what was actually said between Trump and Comey, is that really worth impeachment? People are suggesting that that is clear evidence of obstruction of justice, but let's take a minute and look at what exactly is obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice is a broad term with no clear guidelines. Given that these reports regarding Trump and Comey are simply a matter of hearsay, as of now, there is not one person that can give a definitive answer on whether or not this was an obstruction of justice. Andrew McCarthy, who writes for the Conservative National Review, gave an example of a criminal statement versus a statement that is “inappropriate”, saying “For example, if the President said to Comey, ‘Listen, I’m not telling you what to do, do what you think is right, but I really hope you can let this go on Flynn because I think he’s a great guy,’ there’s a lot of people who think that would be an inappropriate statement…” McCarthy goes on to further note that proving obstruction of justice is difficult given that you have to prove intent. A clear example of the difficulty of proving the obstruction of justice would be when Trey Gowdy slammed former FBI director Comey on proving Hillary Clinton’s intent, which is exactly what democrats are calling for now regarding Trump. Just as Comey apparently could not prove that Hillary Clinton intentionally used a private email server, thereby obstructing justice (but miraculously Gowdy was able to raise excellent points to in fact prove she had intent), the Democrats, especially right now, can in no way prove that Trump had intent, thus leading to his potential impeachment.

I am ashamed that we have politicians that legitimately hate Trump so much that they are this quick to make rash accusations calling for Trump’s impeachment despite not having seen the evidence themselves, nor realizing what an actual obstruction of justice constitutes as. Representative Al Green, in a speech on the House floor says that he “call[s] for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America for obstruction of justice.” Now, Green has been calling for his impeachment prior to this story breaking, however it was this ‘story’ that created a pivotal moment in his movement to have Trump impeached. As a politician you would hope Mr.Green would know that until the House reviews the memos and further determines the nature of them, you can't just go and impeach a president on hearsay. Furthermore, if they were to impeach Trump on obstruction of justice they once again have to prove the intent was there, which, like we realized, is a difficult matter to do.

I mean, it’s not like Trump had the Justice Department monitor phone records of journalists. It’s not like Trump enacted operation Fast and Furious which armed Mexican drug dealers, or had one of his cabinet members held in contempt of Congress. Trump didn’t have the IRS target political groups. Trump didn’t have the government shut down, because wouldn’t that be an obstruction to just about everything?

If we’re going to talk scandals, impeachment, and obstruction of justice, let’s play fair. Republicans were livid when Obama got away with all of the above, plus many more not mentioned. However, the second ONE news outlet reports on hearsay, it's suddenly detrimental and the worst thing to happen.

If the accounts in Comey’s memo do prove that Trump blatantly stepped out of line and did engage in some type of criminal act, I wholeheartedly agree with impeachment procedures. However, until anything is proven, who am I, who is CNN, and who is the New York Times to report on such a matter with so little information?

This is what Trump meant by a biased media.