"...disgraceful persona..." and "It's an embarrassment to the US." No it isn't! The only people that falsely call it an embarrassment are those who want to control the US president/presidency and Trump won't let them. The left wants the US to genuflect and kiss the asses of America's enemies and detractors and prostrate herself to the whims of their dictates like Obama did. The left would rather slap around America's citizens to loot them and spread America's wealth around the world, but Trump would rather tell them to "kiss America's ass". Look at the leftist media as in they are not interested in what Trump, as a duly elected President, is going to do on behalf of America, they want to TELL HIM what to do on behalf of themselves just like the Neo Communists. Look at the crowd of Stalin's useful idiots in London with the "baby Trump balloon" acting like fools. It wasn't Trump that was the embarrassment, it was the demonstrating idiots.

Edit add: I did not down vote you.

"You don't have one single point of evidence the president committed any crime."
That was sort of my point. I completely reject all this nonsense of about siding with people. I find it to be precisely the opposite of what I take away from Ayn Rand's books.

I do not agree that Muller and Comey were acting politically, but I come to a similar end conclusion. I think they did a thorough investigation and didn't find anything except some possible technicalities. I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand the nature of the alleged obstruction, and until I learn more I see it as a something minor. I do not understand why anyone outside that world (i.e. people involved with the case) would care one way or the other.

Obstruction of justice is not related to President Trump's disgraceful public persona. In my post above, I call obstruction of justice in this case a "technicality".
The public persona is another matter. It's an embarrassment to the US. It would be dangerous if there were malevolence behind it, but I suspect getting attention by getting people fired up is an end unto itself for President Trump. It's like Peter Keating wanting the housekeeper to react when Keating was rude to him. Keating wasn't seeking any dream of his own and using the housekeeper as a tool. Getting a reaction from people was is existence that somehow formed, probably thanks to his mother, in the absence of any selfish (in the Rand sense) desires of his own.

The strongest of the "obstruction of justice" charges is that he tried to fire Mueller. The problem with this argument is that what happened is that he told McGhan to make the case to Rosenstein,that Mueller had a conflict of interest and should not be the special counsel.

Since McGhan was White House counsel and had no authority to fire the Special Counsel, this was not an attempt to do so.

Had Trump actually wanted to fire the Special Counsel as Nixon famously wanted to fire Archibold Cox, he would have given an order directly to Rosenstein. Saying someone has a conflict of interest is making an argument, not issuing a directive.

And, of course, Mueller certainly looks like he has a conflict of interest. He's a long time associate of Comey and hired a bunch of Democratic donors including someone who was at Hillary's 'victory' party. He probably shouldn't have been selected in the first place.

I go with AG Barr's assessment. The President turned over a million and a half documents to Mueller's team; made all the White House staff available for interviews, no exceptions; claimed executive privilege not once. Did he complain, out of frustration, that he wanted to fire Mueller and Rosenstein? Yes, as would have any innocent man so pilloried. No obstruction, by the widest sense of the term.

Compare that to Shrillary, who destroyed 33,000 subpoenaed emails, wiped her server clean, destroyed her cell phones and laptops with hammers. Unquestionably obstruction of justice, yet no charges brought. The excuse for not pursuing such charges was that there was no crime, and therefore no obstruction of justice. However, the finding of no crime required rewriting the laws regarding gross negligence in protection of classified material, inserting a need to find "intent" that does not exist.

"IMHO President Trump is a disgrace to the US for his clownishness, naked bigotry, and authoritarian impulses. It would be nice if it turned out he committed a serious crime. To my non-expert understanding, the authorities thoroughly investigated him and found only technicalities. "

Really, now?

You have learned the mantra of the left well.

You don't have one single point of evidence the president committed any crime.

You simply can't stand him b/c he loves this country and wants to reinstate at least some of the greatness it has been known for before Clinton and Obama did their best to destroy it.

You made your stance clear on these pages by siding with Omar and her terrorist views.

You would be a character in AR's novel that is responsible for driving the country to the ground.

Let me refer to circuit guy comments. As he lay out the Obstruction of Justice charge well.

In response to your comment, I would point out one can commit Obstruction of Justice even if there is no crime to cover up. If you read the Mueller report... you will find examples.

Alleging obstruction doesn't mean there actually is any. Just like alleging "clownishness, naked bigotry, and authoritarian impulses" by constantly repeating the words doesn't mean there is any. Although "clownishness" can be interpreted as having a good sense of humor and a satirical bite now and then, which I'd agree Trump has.

"I do not believe there was a crime identified or charged."
Is this true? Couldn't someone obstruct justice by successfully destroying evidence? In this scenario, there would be enough evidence to prove obstruction but not the alleged crime the destroyed evidence may have pointed to?.

The "lack" of Size Matters. billy bob's obstruction is only large under an electron microscope at max magnification...remember in Deliverance, as the dueling banjos played, it was billy bob that was squealing like a pig! Oh...and the "guy" behind him?... was hiltery!!!

A layer friend of mine (criminal law) told me the following:
"If there is "NO CRIME there can be NO OBSTRUCTION"
I do not believe there was a crime identified or charged. So according to my friend there can be no obstruction. In this case the sixe of President Trumps obstruction = 0.00