To the party’s members on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the issue of how Mr. Comey performed in his job is distinct from the issue of how he was forced out of it.
WASHINGTON — Appalling. Disturbing. Partisan. Completely puzzling.
Those were among the harsh words top Democrats used to toss around about the actions of James B. Comey during his tenure as director of the F. B. I. Their anger and resentment over his handling of the Hillary Clinton email matter and other issues were so pronounced that President Trump expected applause from them when he fired Mr. Comey. That turned out not to be the case.
Now Democrats are embracing Mr. Comey, a man many of them blame for Mr. Trump’s election, as a star witness in the investigation into Russian election meddling and potentially problematic behavior by the president.
All is not forgiven. But to the Democrats who will do the questioning at Thursday’s Senate Intelligence Committee session, the issue of how Mr. Comey performed in his job is very distinct from the issue of how he was forced out of it.
“I have long disagreed with Comey about surveillance, about encryption, about secret legal interpretations, ” said Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat and Intelligence Committee veteran. “But I continue to believe the timing of the decision to fire James Comey just stinks.”
Democrats do not intend to dwell on the awkward past at Thursday’s hearing, which is conjuring a level of anticipation associated only with that most riveting of Washington set pieces: a televised congressional hearing reaching into the Oval Office. Instead, they say they simply want to determine whether Mr. Trump took steps to thwart Mr. Comey in overseeing an investigation into any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia related to the election.
“I just want to know whether this administration or this president ever tried to interfere with him doing his job, ” said Senator Martin Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat and member of the Intelligence Committee. “I didn’ t always agree with his judgment, but that is different from trying to interfere with his day-to-day operations at the F. B. I.”
Democrats have not always been so restrained in their assessment of Mr. Comey. Many were apoplectic over his announcement — just days before November’s election — that he had resumed a federal inquiry into whether Mrs. Clinton mishandled classified information through her use of a private email server as secretary of state. Some Democrats were already fed up with Mr. Comey after he announced in July that he would not recommend charges against Mrs. Clinton while delivering a stinging critique of her conduct. Lawmakers and many in the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Comey had acted far outside his authority.
Harry Reid, then the Senate Democratic leader, suggested Mr. Comey had broken the law, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, then the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, spoke for many of her colleagues when she called his actions shocking and appalling. Others were even more strident.
The difference in tone was not lost on Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and majority leader, in response to Democratic outrage at the firing of Mr. Comey in early May.
“So what we have now, ” Mr. McConnell said at the time, “is our Democratic colleagues complaining about the removal of an F. B. I. director whom they themselves repeatedly and sharply criticized.”
Democrats say that despite their reservations about Mr. Comey, they see him as a dedicated public servant who performed in a variety of difficult roles and deserved better than his treatment by Mr. Trump.
“The president’s comments slurring Jim Comey in front of the Russians is just inexcusable, ” said Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, referring to disclosures that Mr. Trump called Mr. Comey crazy and a “nut job” during a private Oval Office meeting with senior Russian officials immediately after his termination.
Those who have assailed Mr. Comey in the past say it is perfectly legitimate to now defend his efforts to get to the bottom of the president’s actions.
“It is possible to both think that what Comey did last year is really terrible and that he shouldn’ t be fired for conducting an investigation into the president’s campaign, ” said Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman who has been sharply critical of Mr. Comey.
“Washington always oversimplifies everything, ” he said. “Comey’s good or Comey’s bad. But the reality is more complex. I think what he did last year was a firing offense, but that doesn’ t mean the president can fire him for something different when doing it is potentially obstruction of justice.”
It’s always difficult to predict what will arise at a congressional hearing, particularly when the expectations for cinematic drama are as high as they are for this one. The unexpected release of Mr. Comey’s testimony on Wednesday afternoon may take some of the excitement out of the moment, but Democrats are hopeful that the hearing can begin to unravel the story of what happened.
“If there is a loose string, I will try to pull on it, ” Mr. Heinrich said. “What we are talking about is whether or not the Russians were manipulating our election cycle and what role the president may or may not have had with interfering with this investigation.”
“This, ” Mr. Wyden said, “is an opportunity to get on the record what the status of the investigation was at the time of his firing. The president would do well to remember that in America, the truth always comes out.”
Democrats have a complicated history with Mr. Comey. But in this case, their connection is as simple as this old saying: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
