I remember reading the report on the day of the release and its conclusion was written quite plainly that no American colluded with any foreign government. It was one of the principal conclusions.
As for the obstruction aspect - isn't that now a mere technicality? A man and his team have been falsely accused, he tried to get out of the burden of being politically undermined by the drama of an investigation that would clear him in the end, which it did, but not without massive damage to his political capital, which it did. I am sure other governments were also following this closely, and it most certainly would have had an effect on foreign relations.
That sounds exactly like what any innocent person would do. If the government in my country shows up at my door tomorrow with some incorrect charges, my first reaction is to get rid of the investigation by whatever means necessary because I don't want to go through the nightmarish ordeal.
What's being argued is that he tried to fire the guy who would end up proving he was innocent? Is that the level of partisanship that your country has reached today? It's really not helpful to any society when things get that bad. It's the same "get him by any means necessary" attitude that I referenced in my earlier comment. We couldn't get him on the original accusation so now let's get him on how he reacted when we accused him.
The report states multiple instances where he attempted to fire the special counsel or interfered with the investigation. Being upset does not make obstruction any less a crime; the report specifically states that it does not clear the president of obstruction of justice.
You are literally arguing that if you feel you are innocent, you are able to obstruct an investigation because you know you are innocent. That is not how justice works and is circular logic that empowers officials to cover up their own misdeeds. Obstruction is a crime in itself because it prevents an investigation from proceeding and shows a guilty conscience.
Which is my point - the report's conclusion contradicts a very large number of headlines and stories that the news media spoke of in near-factual terms. We are now in a place where nothing he did impacted the outcome - since the investigation concluded unimpeded, but the fact that he tried is now a new reason to go after him.
This is what I am referring to in my original comment about the quality of journalism and its motivations - it's an endless chase, and to be honest he's right to call it a witch hunt against him specifically.
The investigation was completed though, so nothing was obstructed. The media went from:
he colluded
he didn't collude but he obstructed
he didn't obstruct but he wanted to
That's the point being made here - the media is not doing its due diligence and is generally engaging in predicting the future or misrepresenting facts.
One of the things I kind of knew but has been clearly exposed by the Trump-Russia-Mueller episode is that humans are not nearly as objective or rational as we pretend. Once you start to realize this you begin see it everywhere. It explains a lot, particularly our many failures.
And even worse you start to see people taking advantage of these human weaknesses. Politicians are perhaps the worst offenders but it is also common in advertising, business and even personal relationships. Somewhat depressing.
Trying to make the case for a rational, objective reading of the Mueller Report is futile while the news media, social media and most people you meet are spewing unfounded innuendo (see OP for example) and outright disproven conspiracy theories.
As for the obstruction aspect - isn't that now a mere technicality? A man and his team have been falsely accused, he tried to get out of the burden of being politically undermined by the drama of an investigation that would clear him in the end, which it did, but not without massive damage to his political capital, which it did. I am sure other governments were also following this closely, and it most certainly would have had an effect on foreign relations.
That sounds exactly like what any innocent person would do. If the government in my country shows up at my door tomorrow with some incorrect charges, my first reaction is to get rid of the investigation by whatever means necessary because I don't want to go through the nightmarish ordeal.
What's being argued is that he tried to fire the guy who would end up proving he was innocent? Is that the level of partisanship that your country has reached today? It's really not helpful to any society when things get that bad. It's the same "get him by any means necessary" attitude that I referenced in my earlier comment. We couldn't get him on the original accusation so now let's get him on how he reacted when we accused him.