That is what Barr testified to regarding Mueller. His testimony is that Mueller stated that if the evidence was enough to indict, then the OLC ruling could be challenged but that this case did not warrant challenging the OLC. I am not ignoring it at all, obstruction is the only thing on the table. Mueller didn't exonerate Trump for colluding with Russia, but he also clearly stated that the case wasn't there to indict. Obstruction is where Mueller was more obtuse. He stated a bunch of bad stuff but then failed to reach a determination. This puts the onus on Barr, and unless refuted by Mueller, Barr's testimony will stand.
Obstruction seems very difficult to prove judicially (as a not-lawyer). Intent is a requirement for conviction, and the court of public opinion isn't enough for say that the person had intent to obstruct. That is where this case gets in the weeds it seems. Trump said/did a lot of things that could very easily be obstruction, but you have to prove intent. Common sense simply isn't enough.
Just because it makes sense that an action would be obstruction: Trump "I want to fire Mueller"
Doesn't mean it is obstruction...could just be Trump is erratic and fires people and says stupid stuff all the time.
I mean Trump recently took sides with psychopath Kim Jong-un to criticize Joe Biden. It is an almost impossible task to try and determine what Trump's intentions are. He is a complete loose cannon at all times. That is why this proves to be a difficult judicial case, and that is why impeachment is the obvious answer, but the House leaders don't have the stones to do it because it will in all likelihood backfire on them politically.
ETA - thank you for not throwing a needless insult my way when making a comment. It was downright refreshing.
