Obstruction?

We are now going to spend a lot of time trying to get the full Mueller report released.  One would think that since Republicans are saying it exonerates the President, they would want it out there.  Well they don't.  This is not because they have read it themselves, at least most of them, simply because they are concerned about what is actually in it.

The fact that actual collusion between the campaign and Russia wasn't found doesn't mean there aren't lots of other embarrassing details in it.  The difference between acting badly and acting criminally is more important in a courtroom than in the realm of public opinion.

More significantly is the area of obstruction of justice.

The conclusion in the report was that the call was a difficult one and it left it to the Attorney General to determine.  As a Presidential appointee, you might argue this is a foregone conclusion, although it could be legally sound also.

Part of the logic though is at best questionable.

One of the conclusions was that since the crime of collusion was not found, what was he obstructing?

Well the simple answer would be the investigation when he obviously was afraid that a crime might be found.

I believe the crime is obstructing Justice, not obstructing if guilty.  Take a similar charge such as resisting arrest.  If the police attempt to arrest you, even if they have the wrong person, and you resist, you are guilty of resisting anyway.

Similarly, if you obstruct, even if it turn out you didn't need to, well, you still obstructed.