Remember, obstruction requires a showing of intent. If I have a document which is evidence against my friend Xavier, and I shred it, I might be guilty of obstruction. If I knew a prosecutor was investigating Xavier, and destroyed the document for the purpose of making it harder to convict Xavier, then yes, I'm guilty of obstruction. If I had no idea Xavier was under investigation and didn't know that the contents of the document were likely to incriminate him, then I haven't obstructed judgment. The document is shredded all the same.

And recall that the standard of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

So is there a plausible reason that Trump asked Comey to exonerate him that isn't trying to prevent an investigation of illegal campaign contacts with Russian nationals? If this were the only thing that Trump himself did, one might argue "He did it because he wanted to preserve or improve his political capital." In other words, make himself look good, step out from under the cloud of the investigation.

Where I think Trump has a real problem was asking Comey to "back off" Flynn. Especially with what we've learned about in Fire and Fury and from previous leaks about the meeting his son, Bannon, and Kushner had with that Russian lawyer, it's pretty clear that Trump knew full well that Trump knew Flynn was armpit-deep with Russians. And so once he is President, saying "back off investigating my close associate who I know full well to have committed a crime, Mr. FBI Director," is not a request or a plea, it's an order and therefore a use of government power to cover up a crime committed to advance his own political candidacy.

That's obstruction of justice. And we know it happened, from Comey, and from Flynn, and from Bannon.

Comey was a stooge. First he went against the norm by going after Hilary. Then he tried to do the right thing with tRump. Is this the kind of person we have running the FBI. I guess they got their inspiration from J Edgar the biggest idiot of them all.

Peter principle: Observation that in an hierarchy people tend to rise to "their level of incompetence." Thus, as people are promoted, they become progressively less-effective because good performance in one job does not guarantee similar performance in another. Named after the Canadian researcher Dr. Laurence J. Peter (1910-90) who popularized this observation in his 1969 book 'The Peter Principle.'

In the military a person job description is a number.letter (mine was 33C30). 33 was a field - electronics, C was a specific item in that field (recorders) and 30 the skill level - intermediate. There was a letter Z which was for the leaders who knew enough about the previous letters to lead but not to actually do the work (usually a high level sergeant).

Does anyone still have enough credibility to make a difference any more?

Cautious optimism..

Keep digging, I’m sure there is more.

I was watching too.