According to Federal statute Mueller has to prove a corrupt mindset to convict on an obstruction of justice charge. Trump's defense would surely be that he was only expressing sympathy for a friend (Flynn) and that his boast to the Russians in the Oval Office about relief from the Russian cloud was only a statement of a consequence rather than an admission of a motive. While probably false that defense is also remotely plausible, so I predict that an actual indictment will depend upon whether or not Mueller can demonstrate that Trump had actual knowledge of criminal behavior by Flynn.
He probably already has. What with the undisclosed payment from Turkey the case against Flynn seems pretty solid, and he might have already flipped against Trump. Here's a big boom, courtesy of the Washington Post, about National Director of Intelligence Dan Coats: "Coats told associates that Trump had asked him whether Coats could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials. Coats later told lawmakers that he never felt pressured to intervene."
The investigation didn't end and he didn't "ask" it to end nor did he order anything to obstruct the investigation.
What did he do that was obstruction? Trump hasn't prevented a single thing. Saying "I hope" is not a question. It is an expression. To rest your case on That is laughable.
Obstruction is not a matter of "prevention". It's about corruptly attempting to interfere with an investigation. I believe that's already been established.
No I just wanted to bait you for your lack of objectivity. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?tid=a_inl-amp&utm_term=.fb25afef558c And. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa.../22/collusion-will-not-determine-trumps-fate/ I mean. It's not like I made up "collusion".