>>While Mueller was weak in his obstruction findings, I found Barr’s wording almost a slap at Mueller, ...<<
It probably was a slap of sorts. I think Mueller put his conclusion that way (or non-conclusion) to signal that the entire report contains statements that the Dems can use to continue harassing President Trump. No doubt the MSM and Nadler and Schiff, etc., will pull those statements out and use them without context to continue to paint Trump as an obstructionist.
AG Barr, however, made it quite clear that none of the three requirements for an obstruction charge were met, and all three of them have to be met to bring such a charge.
The most interesting statement by Barr in that regard is at the beginning of the third paragraph of the obstruction section. Essentially, in that paragraph he’s saying that since Trump and his campaign did nothing wrong they’d have no reason to corruptly obstruct an investigation into a conspiracy, so why would he do so?
On the other hand, he could, as Chief Executive, say the entire matter was a waste of time and shut down the investigation. That wouldn’t be obstruction because he would lack corrupt intent. He would just be saving the taxpayers money, knowing the charge was bogus.
Essentially, in that paragraph he’s saying that since Trump and his campaign did nothing wrong they’d have no reason to corruptly obstruct an investigation into a conspiracy, so why would he do so?Exactly. No Collusion = No Corrupt Intent = No Obstruction Freepers have been saying this since day 1. You can't have obstruction without a crime.