Sorry you must have missed the qoute on the summary, it says the report doesn't clear Trump from obstruction. Mueller gave the final say to both Barr and Rosenstein they are the ones who said he didn't commit obstruction.
The requirements for proof of obstruction are pretty clear. It may have been to close for Mueller to call. Ether way Mueller being the the investigator it's not on him to prove yes or no,he just gathers infomation and presents it and make suggestions on how and why the infomation was collected.

The law statement was made to show what has to be proven for an obstruction charge. And how it can be used to allow the charge to continue.
In the last statement I mentioned that the entire case was based on how the actions are interpreted. That is why the court and those who are appointed are required to follow a set procedure. It is a two fold reasoning coverage one you are trying to prove that someone has acted in an unlawful manner. Second you have to have your facts and proof solid. Yes the whole thing may have been setup because of the h**e. When Trump made that statement that Russia should find the lost emails. Any statement made while running for any office can haunt you. It doesn't matter if it was made in jest or not. It would always be enough for some to start. If Mueller did find enough infomation to consider that obstruction is a good possibilty, then the possibility is there.
Since the released report was redacted , the results have to wait and have Mueller explain what he found.

The objection itself doesn't lead to obstruction but some of he's decisions can be considered as attempt to obstruct. The following elements are ;
There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.
Since some decsions were made with reasons for making the decision, some of them could be interpreted with reasonable doubt ,that he was attempting to obstruct.
The actual codes are as follows;
Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521. Federal code identifies more than 20 specific types of obstruction, including "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees" (18 U.S.C. § 1505), the specific code section cited in the Nixon and Clinton articles of impeachment.

Other incidents are;
Influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally (18 U.S.C. § 1503)
Obstruction of criminal investigations (18 U.S.C. § 1510)
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1513)
Destruction of corporate audit records (18 U.S.C. § 1520).

Now as with everthing that can be done you interpret the infomation as you want, which both conservatives and liberals have done.
This info came from the Findlaw.com so yes it was possible that he did obstruct, it is not on the investigator to make the decision he just provides the
facts or some may call them non facts.

May not make a difference if the court is to maintain its standing as the third arm of government. The Justices can't been v****g along party lines , the reason we have three branches is to have check and balances. So one arm dosen't get to much out of control. It doesn't mean that the court will make the correct decsions they have come up with some bad ones.

Considering that that Roe vs Wade was started in 73 , there have multiple attempts at reversing it. The first attempt was by Reagan using his office to change the law. This attempt politicization the case , as the right to birth groups started to oppose the law they in turn became more powerful. Then continued attempts at changing it using constitutional amendment. Then came the people outside of clinics trying to keep the people from going in. That worked to some extent, but not enough it then turned to violence. The bombing and doctors k*****g started to close down the clinic. Then reducing public funding was the next target. In 93 Clinton was able to reverse the gag rule which didn't allow staff to give infomation on a******n. Then Informed consent was started which gave the person who is looking for a a******n the different problems , alternatives and an requirement to inform parents if needed. In 2016 Justices in the case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, struck down the two-part Texas law which required clinics providing a******n services to meet the same building standards as walk-in surgical. Of course In 2015, California lawmakers signed a bill into law requiring crisis pregnancy centers -- counseling centers that don't offer a******n services -- to provide notice of public programs that cover additional family planning services, including a******n. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law in a 2018 decision (NIFLA v. Becerra), citing First Amendment free speech protections.
This info came from Findlaw.com. When your beliefs are attacked you have to defend. So it no wonder that this subject causes so much h**e and discontent. At the moment most laws being submitted are by conservatives and liberals are counter punching.

Sanders offered as many as Trump one tax return once in 2016 and again for
the run in 2020.

When he was starting his run at the presidency, that is when he made the first promise . That as soon as the IRS finish the audit he was going to show them.
This is a recent article ,

Reuters
Politics
January 31 2019
'SHALL FURNISH’
As the Republican p**********l nominee in 2016, Trump broke with decades of precedent by refusing to release his returns, saying they were being audited by the IRS. Many tax experts have replied that an IRS audit does not preclude their release.

As president, Trump has retained ownership of extensive hotel interests and other business ventures. For this reason, House Democrats say his returns would be a linchpin for oversight investigations of potential ties between the president and Russia and other conflicts of interest.

30 other countries do the birth to citizenship, and no the number of denials is closer to 80 % but it also depends on how many other approvals that were made for your country.

When teaching is used at anytime it will upset some. Civics is being taught if the instruction is based on what options are available within the constitutional framework. At the moment Trump is in office if Obama was in office his support would be just as upset. As far as closing college's and lawsuits being brought against them. The lawsuits maybe ,but closing I have to disagree colleges are in it for the money just like any other business, will only close when there isn't any money. Being that both the conservatives and liberals have people with enough money and a large need to control, the money will be available.

Isn't it what civics is about at least something that needs to be taught is being taught. The rest no arguement maybe wrong. To teach it helps to have examples at the moment some of Trump's actions can be used as a teaching tool.

If your answer was directed to me yes I have also been to Thailand, Philippines, Korea, Africa and also Beruit. So yes I have seen what can happen to countries that have a decent type government and those whose governments are screwed up. Also in a direct result to what happened after a decision made by our government. Yes a country would flourish if their governments would have been left alone. Capitalism is only good until the people who are put in charge don't get greedy.

It just means that people who support Trump are being profiled. The same way others have been profiled. The result is a visible example of what happens when you judge by stereotypes.

Jesus would say have compassion for both the homeless here and abroad. The problem seems to be that the persons that are put in charge by the v**ers,have their own ideas and are allowed to run with them without anyone holding them accountable. Mostly alot of people have forgotten what has been taught along religious lines. The immigrants are coming here to try and get a better life. Which is not available any longer because of some this countries policies which have caused problem in the parent countries. Like the statement made that you get what you v**e for. If you v**e to advance yourself and not to advance country then you may be considered to be part of the problem.

I have to agree on some points but both parties have their share causing the immigration problems. Bills have been submitted but shot down because nobody wanted to do anything about it. Because it is such a hot topic it will stay in the forefront as the go to reason not to approve anything.

Because of the individual definition of quailty is so personal, that is why the conversation has to be held by every individual with the person who may be in the position to make the decision. It will always be a hard choice to make, the guidelines will help by being there to follow as needed.