Itemized assessment / riposte to each of the 10 points of potential Obstruction APNews have put out an article examining the 10 individual points of potential Obstruction cited in the Mueller report https://apnews.com/e0d125d737be4a21a81bec3d9f1dffd8?fbclid=IwAR13Lf6KdORzIGi94UITVILexbQtrowRgmvKxNwZp5XZ0vab7l94vq3qh2Y For a bit more padding, Judge Napolitano also has recently ‘turned’ on Trump and provides some similar Obstruction arguments here - the most salient being examples where Obstruction has been charged where the underlying crime wasn’t proven guilty. He also cites point 8 below as the strongest argument (which I agree with, though I dont agree with all his reasoning as im unclear as to the strength of the supporting evidence) https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=593&v=yzyEi4TtIrA APNews seems to be acting as a functionary of the Soft Coup plotters, so lets examine these 10 points and provide a critique and relevant counterpoints I’ll do this assessment ignoring the vast and continually mounting evidence that the Mueller Investigation was, from the outset, a PARTISAN weaponization of the Department of Justice commenced without a Good Faith argument in that the primary justifying evidence used - the Fusion GPS dossier - was not sourced from independent Intelligence operatives but was a purchased product developed by Trumps political opponents and was therefore Exculpatory.  Lets ‘presume’ there were reasonable grounds to commence the Mueller investigation, what might we make of these 10 points: 1 PRESSURE ON COMEY TO END PROBE OF MICHAEL FLYNN When Trump told Comey: “I hope you can see your way to letting this go” It was done in circumstances indicating Bad Faith treatment of Flynn. There was the Entrapment - Flynn did not disclose a Russian meeting in one interview but he was advised that was an informal one not under oath.  This was set up by the hopelessly biased and compromised Strzok whose revealed private correspondence shows such animus towards Trump, a Hollywood scriptwriter couldnt dream up a less independent arbiter of proceedings. We also have the potential tampering of the 302 interview documents - one being signed 7 months after the actual interview took place.  I wont even go into how Flynn has a large amount of dirt on the Clinton Foundation and was thus priority #1 target for the Deep State Weak argument. justifiable alternative motivation = Reasonable Doubt 2 PRESIDENT’S REACTION TO THE CONTINUING RUSSIA INVESTIGATION Re: the president telling then-White House counsel Don McGahn to stop Attorney General Jeff Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia investigation and Trump’s subsequent anger at Sessions. For this argument to have teeth, it needs to be demonstrated that Sessions was biased or compromised or would have assisted in Obstructing Justice. Thats an investigative line that hasnt even started as far as I'm aware. Sessions ended his tenure without flipping the table on Mueller, didnt he? Premature argument 3 FIRING OF COMEY AND AFTERMATH Comey leaked classified information to the press. This clearly indicated Comeys bias and danger to the Presidency. Does anyone honestly argue that Trump should have taken zero action against Comey's unlawful action? How does that look for the FBI in terms of public confidence - that its #1 broke the Law and isnt to be held accountable ? justifiable alternative motivation = Reasonable Doubt 4 APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL AND EFFORTS TO REMOVE HIM Trump reacted to news of Mueller’s appointment by telling advisers that it was “the end of his presidency.” Well, duh. If a Soft Coup attempt looked like it was going to prevail, thats exactly what a POTUS would say. Its not conclusive evidence of guilt or an admission of such, and im unclear how it constitutes Obstruction. Obstruction implies ACTION of some kind. Not simply bemoaning. What sort of disingenuous criteria is that? justifiable alternative motivation = Reasonable Doubt 5 FURTHER EFFORTS TO CURTAIL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’s INVESTIGATION Trump instructed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to have Sessions publicly announce that the investigation was unfair.  Although similar to the ‘bemoaning’ argument, this may have a little more credibility in that he has instructed someone else to echo his rhetoric. However, in the hindsight that there is no evidence of conspiracy/ collusion with Russia - how is this unreasonable ? I also find it quite Kafkaesque to suggest that people subject to investigations are not permitted to challenge the fairness of proceedings. Can Mueller and Strzok just act with total impunity? Is there no level at which their efforts become unreasonable or unlawful, or demonstrative of bias and animus?  If thats the criteria, a corrupt special council could just keep going harder and harder - sending swat teams to break in the doors of 65 yr old to pull them on the lawn in their pyjamas to try and goad Trump into action that could then be cynically construed as Obstruction. Oh - they tried that. Even that didnt work 6 EFFORTS TO PREVENT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE 1) Any argument along these lines has to factor in that we are talking about National Security matters. You must first discount or negate whether there are legitimate concerns about National Security that would best be kept within Muellers office, and not paraded around by the salivating media feeding frenzy. Im unclear whether that assessment has ever honestly been entertained by Collusion narrative sponsors 2) Its not like he tried to prevent Mueller from this information. Just the public. weak argument 7 ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO HAVE SESSIONS TAKE CONTROL OF INVESTIGATION Again, this has no merit unless it is proven that Sessions was Partisan and not independent. As for “The report says there’s evidence that one purpose of asking Sessions to step in was so that the attorney general would restrict the investigation’s scope.” Well, wow - the investigation was already so vast in its scope that Manafort was hauled over the coals for shit he did 4 years prior to working with Trump, and related not to Russia but to a rival nation of Russia - Ukraine. So is ‘limiting the scope’ of the investigation without merit? justifiable alternative motivation = reasonabe doubt 8 TRUMP ORDERS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO DENY THAT PRESIDENT TRIED TO FIRE MUELLER In an Oval Office meeting in February 2018, Trump alegedly told McGahn to “correct” a New York Times story that reported Trump had earlier instructed McGahn to fire Mueller. Trump also asked why McGahn had told Mueller’s investigators about the directive to remove Mueller. McGahn told Trump he had to tell the investigators the truth. If there is evidence to prove this directive was given to McGahn, it would be the single strongest argument for Obstruction. (not withstanding that clearly he didnt follow through with this alleged directive when McGahn failed to execute it, as he could have pushed the button himself. He didnt. clearly.) At this stage I believe the evidence is just a he said vs he said matter. If there is a recording of this it could spell trouble for Trump 9 TRUMP’S ACTIONS TOWARD, FLYNN, MANAFORT AND OTHER POSSIBLE WITNESSES Trump still ‘had warm feelings for Flynn’ WTF?  How is this remotely in the ballpark of Obstruction? Trump wouldnt rule out pardoning Manafort? Whats that got to do with Obstruction? Obstruction is specific to DURING a trial, not after it.  Afterwards, Pardons are his presidential prerogative. This is CONFLATION  10 TRUMP ACTIONS TOWARD MICHAEL COHEN When Trump turned on Cohen and, as Mueller suggested ‘tried to undermine his credibility’ - I’m unclear how that rises to the standard of Obstruction. Is there a single court case defence anywhere, in any jurisdiction, where attempts to undermine the credibility of those testifying against you isnt standard - and indeed expected - conduct of the defense ? Also : look at the double standard between 9 and 10 Trump still likes a witness - thats obstruction Trump now dislikes a witness - thats Obstruction.  Tell me how anyone can evade Obstruction under such  contradictory standards ? Again, its like  any attempt at self defense is reconstrued as evidence of guilt. Thats the definition of Kafkaesque SUMMARY: Lets take stock. Trump provided 1.4 million documents, didnt pull executive privilege, didnt prevent anyone testifying, didnt actually sack Mueller even though he may have pondered /discussed it . These 10 points have little more than ‘Trump complained’ - there’s little by way of actual ACTIONS taken by Trump. So its a pretty weak collection of arguments, all told - with the possible exception of point 8. Do contribute your thoughts .....