posted by gut
I already summarized it. Lieu laid out what he said are the 3 elements (he omitted intent) of obstruction. Mueller ended by saying he disagreed with what Lieu claimed to prove.
Mueller would go on to acknowledge whether a number of these examples are actual obstruction when it is powers granted to the POTUS is a matter of debate. Basically before you even go another step, you have to determine whether intent even matters with respect to the statute. But then what Mueller refuses to discuss (which Barr did address) is the matter of intent - there's no underlying crime. How can it be a criminal intent when there's no underlying crime?
You're not going to prove Trump committed a crime. I'm sure if he did Mueller would have said so, LOL. The entire document, by a partisan investigative team, is a one-sided case for impeachment.
On your last point no. He would not have said so, because of the current policy. But, he did say once he left office he could be...so he left the door open. I also do not get this argument that it is a partisan hack job. It is Robert fucking Mueller. He picked the team, so I trust his judgement based off of his years and years of FBI expereince.
On the other point, I just disagree as it seems so does Mueller. Even if there was ultimately no crime, if a person still instructors others to illegal acts to try and stop or limit the investigation, that is obstruction. But, hey, I'm not a legal expert.