Trump could supposedly be charged with obstruction of justice, a very vague term that Bill Clinton was impeached for, but subsequently found not guilty on all counts. The fact that the best Mueller can do is a "well, sure, I could technically charge him after he leaves office" is a clear indication that he's got nothing on Trump and Trump will never be charged with anything. That this is the very best the media can cling to is great news for Trump 2020 since it means there's nothing more serious floating around.
Considering it takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, Trump could never be found guilty regardless of the crime or evidence.
Also: it shows alot that an innocent president would obstruct justice on an investigation into crimes he didn't commit.
A person hasn't obstructed justice until they have been convicted of doing so in a court of law.
This is just wrong. A person is not legally guilty of obstruction of justice until convicted in a court of law, true, but they absolutely can do it before hand. Which is what the trial is all about. Time doesn't flow backwards. It's not "Verdict, evidence, crime" it's "Crime, evidence, verdict". The crime ALWAYS comes before the verdict.
Also, Trump did not Obstruct Justice. He tried but he his subordinates didn't follow his orders. So it's more "Attempted Obstruction of Justice" which is just as bad, given his position of power.
You don't have sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed anything.
We have sufficient evidence (even Mr. Mueller said so) to say that he could be charged were he not the president and immune to such things. And, as I said above, he tried and failed. But that's irrelevant. I mean, if you prevent police from searching your home (with a warrant) by physically trying to block them and they come in anyway... you failed to obstruct justice but you tried and you're gonna be arrested for it.
The entire purpose of these hearings is to try to convict Trump in the court of public opinion. Luckily, the only people falling for it are people that decided they weren't voting for Trump several years ago. This is more-or-less what Dems tried to do to Kavanaugh. Just replace Mueller with a crying woman and boom, the court of public opinion is ever that much more obvious.
Umm.... duh? Look, I agree that no opinions were changed. This was, as you said, an attempt to change opinions in the public opinions court, but no evidence is going to change the opinion of the Republicans who support him. If the report (and Mr. Mueller) found that Trump had worked with Russia, helped steal e-mails, and lied about everything to win the election... he wouldn't lose a single vote. Because that's what he's done: He has turned the republican party into the fanatical "Party of Trump". Trump can, quite literally, do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters. None. Well... if he took away guns then yes but that's about it.
Personally, I think they should have let Mr. Mueller fade away and not subject him to what was basically hours of one side asking him questions they already knew the answer to and the other side having an internet rant about how wrong he is then asking a related question so they would look like they're actually asking him things instead of just yelling at him.
The Democrats can't stop Trump. There is only one person who can stop Trump, and that's Trump. And the best way to stop Trump is to let him do whatever he wants. He will hang himself just to show he can. And if the Democrats voted and agreed with everything him and Republicans said/did for an entire year, it would destroy him completely. He'd have no enemies to blame. No antagonist to ralley his supporters against. And without that, what is he? Just a normal, ordinary Republican politician. One vulnerable to whatever scandle happens.
Also, with a 2 party system, Republicans would be forced to argue against Democrats(who are agreeing with Republican policies) and who knows what would happen then.