i am not even saying McCabe did anything wrong, as there is doubt there too.
What i am saying is 'he said, he or she said' disputes are amongst the hardest cases to get a jury to a conclusion on 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. It almost always requires substantial other fact points or investigations pointing to who is lying, for a jury to get there.
In this case the most substantial fact point we know of is the IG Investigation which basically affirmed Comey's credibly in his account while saying they had doubts over McCabe's.
So when the jury hears that and reads that Investigation report, how that would not give them doubt, seems beyond impossible.