directly engaged with the government officials, there was no evidence to establish that there was collusion between the campaign and the russian government. yeah. is enough for them to say, well, then the president could not have obstructed here because there was no crime. from your reporting do you know who disagrees with this approach? bill barr. i was going who disagrees with bill barr is bob mueller. because he prosecuted mike flynn for obstruction crimes lying to the fbi. full stop. there may have been other stuff but the notion as a prosecutor when somebody obstructs i m not saying the mueller report says that. all we know is that it leaves the question open. which is itself interesting. mueller chose to do it that way. exactly. when flynn obstructed, mueller went to court and then ultimately won a convict then through a plea by saying the crime is lying, nothing else. we have to remember that barr is the one who wrote this 20 page memo outlying why the obstru