Saying “I want to fire Mueller” is also not obstruction when there’s no overt action to actually do the firing or actually interfere in the case.
Via The Hill:
Now that the Mueller report has been released, the spin game begins. Each side has been given sufficient material in the report to claim victory and to attack the other side.
President Trump has said this was a good day. And it was, from a legal point of view. The report concluded that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone in his campaign (or any other American) illegally conspired with Russian operatives who were determined to try to influence the outcome of the election. That is the good news for Trump. It vindicates him legally on his claim from Day One that there was no collusion.
The bad news is that the report contains information – much of which has been disputed by the Trump legal team – of non-criminal, but not very nice, behavior on the part of the president and some of his associates. Such conduct includes repeated misstatements about who knew what regarding meetings and other contacts.
On balance, however, President Trump comes out way ahead on the Russia collusion issue. Putting aside legalisms, it really appears as if there was no actual collusion.
On the obstruction issue, the bad news for President Trump may exceed the good news. Although the report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime,” as it states, it also refuses to “exonerate him.” Already, Democrats are arguing that Congress can revisit the obstruction evidence and come to its own conclusions about whether President Trump’s conduct constituted obstruction of justice. The catalogue of ten instances of possible obstruction provide a roadmap for Congress to further investigate, even if in the end it decides not to impeach.
Attorney General William Barr and special counsel Robert Muller apparently have a fundamental disagreement over whether a president can be charged with obstruction of justice if he merely engaged in an act authorized by the Constitution but with an improper motive.
Barr takes the view – a view that I have argued for many months – that the act requirement of a crime (actus reus) cannot be satisfied by a constitutionally authorized action of the president, such as firing FBI Director James Comey. Mueller takes the view that a constitutionally authorized act can be turned into a crime if it is improperly motivated.