A different emphasis on yesterday's NYT obstruction news - just being a little wary,not DebbieDowner

While I was ecstatic with yesterday's Rachel's headlining that SCHMIDT reported MUELLER has verified COMEY's version of red flags before TWITLER's firing him, in reading the article, I was struck uncomfortably by the paragraphs below, which didn't get much attention. The amount of evidence for obstruction was downplayed, the difficulty of proving was up-played, and a different hypothetical scenario was preferred for success.

I bolded these phrases below, but am also noting the in-between words not bolded: "public" (the evidence known, leaving open there might be other/more not known), "crime" (suggesting non-crime for political impeachment, not MUELLER's for prosecution).


**********QUOTE*********

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/politics/trump-sessions-russia-mcgahn.html

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT JAN. 4, 2017

.... Legal experts said that of the two primary issues Mr. Mueller appears to be investigating — whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice while in office and whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia — there is currently a larger body of public evidence tying the president to a possible crime of obstruction.

But the experts are divided about whether the accumulated evidence is enoughfor Mr. Mueller to bring an obstruction case. They said it could be difficult to prove that the president, who has broad authority over the executive branch, including the hiring and firing of officials, had corrupt intentions when he took actions like ousting the F.B.I. director. Some experts said the case would be stronger if there was evidence that the president had told witnesses to lie under oath. ....

Regardless of whether Mr. Mueller believes there is enough evidence to make a case against the president, Mr. Trump’s belief that his attorney general should protect him provides an important window into how he governs. ... ....

********UNQUOTE*********