if one can read between the lines, mueller seems to have said even more:
first, he said the evidence they found was insufficient to justify conspiracy charges.
second, he said there *was* evidence of obstruction, though he couldn't charge that due to doj policy.
third, he noted the obstruction is important to investigate because it can keep them from uncovering the truth.
in short, he's could be seen as rather implying:
a) that there was a concerted effort to obstruct justice
b) that that effort was, at least in part, successful
c) that they might have found sufficient evidence of a broader conspiracy were it not for the obstruction.
so it's not just that he might have indicted him for obstruction were he not a sitting president -- it's that he might have had enough evidence for an indictment for some of the russia-related / electoral crimes as well had he not obstructed justice, successfully, at least so far.
= new reply since forum marked as read
