If Comey has a "memo" that he wrote as evidence, how in the hell can such a one sided observation be enough to indict Trump for anything? I am under the impression that at best it is hearsay but of course I am no lawyer by any means. I suppose if some liberal judge hears the case it might stick until moved up the feeding chain and wouldn't a rational Congress have to abide by the same basic rules as our justice system? Conviction on hearsay without hard evidence is a long reach.

The memo would be hearsay only if I or someone read it and then tried to introduce that as evidence of what transpired in the conversation between Trump and Comey. It’s not hearsay if Comey himself is saying that it’s a record of what transpired. Such memos are important only from the standpoint of helping establish later that he doesn’t misremember what occurred.
“Are you certain, Mr. Comey, that you recollect correctly what President Trump said?”
“Yes. I immediately went to my office and prepared this memo which is a complete and accurate record of what he said.”

Without the memo his later claim could be more easily challenged on the basis of a faulty memory.

This is exactly the same thing that happens when a police officer refers to a report or a ticket he wrote to refresh his memory about something that may have happened months before. If he’s written scores of tickets during that time, it would be unrealistic to expect him to remember a specific traffic violation, so courts recognize that fact and permit officers to say, “I recorded the details of the offense at the time while they were fresh in my mind and my record is therefore a true and accurate description of the event.”

Why start yet another thread when you can post this in the existing thread?