separate crime. the elements of that do not require you to show that the underlying crime was committed or that you could prove the underlying crime. the most prototypical worst case of obstruction is one where you could prove that because of the obstruction, because of the destruction of documents or the hushing up of a witness or intimidation of someone not to come forward, for that reason that obstruction is the thing that causes you not to be able to charge the underlying serious crime. in that case everyone would understand why an obstruction case would be important and resonate with people because it showed that there was a real thing that was obstructed. even though you couldn't bring the underlying crime, but for the obstruction maybe you could have. i think the president is making a political argument saying even at the end of the day if you can't show that the obstruction is what caused the underlying crime not to be charge but if there was no underlying crime to begin with, and that may be so, he thinks he should be off the hook. politically i leave it to others to decide whether or not that's