Of course, you're right, and that's as it should be. Prosecuting people without proof is not the way we do things, and I hope we don't start now.

I guess my point is that if Trump did obstruct justice (we seem to agree in principle that he did), he probably did so for reasons much greater than that he was mad about having his name smeared. You can object without obstructing, but it's a slippery slope, and any defense lawyer will tell you it's the best idea to keep your mouth shut entirely and let them do what you're paying them to do, which is to make your case in a better way than you could. Then again, what has Trump shown us to make us think he wouldn't speak up against the advice of his attorneys? The fact he's so damned short-fused and loud-mouthed really complicates the matter. His attorneys earn every penny....