Quote:
As for your second post, we can go with The Hill: Ties go to the President:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...rofessors-cant
"But Tribe strays much too far in the other direction. In a criminal trial, it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump dismissed Comey with the intent of hindering or obstructing an investigation. "
Satisfying the reasonable doubt condition depends a lot on the relationships that're revealed between trump, flynn and russian actors through the meuller investigation. It all comes down to how suspicious the activity is.
If you're working on the assumption that it's all a fabrication and nobody has done anything unsavory (and that the investigation will reveal as much), then of course it won't look like obstruction.
There is, though, whether dishonest people want to admit it or not, a lot of pieces to the puzzle that are cause for suspicion, and if there is substance to it (not saying there is) the meuller investigation will likely reveal juicier details. Enough to indict for collusion/treason? Hard to say.
But the evidence required to indict for collusion or treason is probably far greater than what would be necessary to impeach for obstruction. Because even if you weren't sure that he was guilty... the appearance of impropriety goes a long way in proving motive. If it comes to that, i think everyone is going to have an interesting time interpreting the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt".