No fucking charges of obstruction.
No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.
Obviously it is.
If obstruction actually took place, he would have been charged, post haste.
No he wouldn't. He officially wouldn't. The report, which I'm guessing no one has read, clearly states that his investigation is adhering to the justice department guidelines that they can't indict a sitting president.
And if the report "clearly states," a sitting president "can't," be indicted you would provide the exact page number where that is written.
Volume 2, page 1.
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.”
[/Quote]
For obstruction to take place, something legitimate needs to be going on that can be obstructed.
[/Quote]
This is the logic the AG made. But that's dangerous to say. Because it means that... Lets say me and a friend are at a protest against Trump and we're loud and screaming mean things. Trump then calls the cops and the cops start arresting people, including my friend. I jump in the way and together, we escape.
No crime was committed, according to the AG, as being loud at a protest isn't a crime. Thus, I couldn't obstruct justice.
Here's another. Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice BUT no crime was committed. Thus, he should never have been impeached, right? No crime, no obstruction of justice.