One of the main reasons we never should've got to see the "Mueller report", is that Mueller and his team did not have the courage to indict the President. Actually, more than that. By their own admission, they lacked the evidence to even show intent. Again, they lacked the evidence to show intent. That's crucial in an obstruction case. But not only did they lack evidence of intent, there's ample evidence(the documents, access without citing executive privilege, etc) that Trump not only didn't obstruct the investigation he actively aided the investigation while criticizing it. I did not read all of the second report, but reading people's commentaries filled in the rest to allow me to summarize in this way: Is criticizing a DOJ official obstruction? Only in the Special Counsel's world, but in the real world we have to deal with criticism everyday. I deal with it, being the notorious person I am with my controversial views. The key factor is that obstruction, impeding has to have an actual function of obstructing/impeding. Being annoyed by something isn't the same thing as being obstructed in something. The fact of the matter is, Mueller and his frivolous spending buddies were not impeded in anyway, obstructed in anything and it's a hard argument to make they were ever inconvenienced. By contrast, the team was able to make such arguments as it relates to Papadoulous's conduct. On this front, the special counsel would lose in court and they know it. So their only gambit left is Trump's remarks to witnesses. These were silly remarks to make, and no defense attorney would advise them. But the actual statements themselves are non-threatening. Let's start with the biggest, baddest one: Trump saying that Cohen's family members were criminals. You could imply this is an indirect threat that he'd have the DOJ open an investigation, but Trump doesn't say it and the Counsel wisely doesn't infer this(if, for example this were in a courtroom and I were Trump's lawyer, I'd submit an objection on the basis of pointless speculation, and it'd likely be sustained.) More likely, a reasonable inference is that Trump was employing guilt-by-association. More shaming Michael Cohen, then actually intimidating him.Comments towards other witnesses were largely disparging comments, but disparging an individual is the furthest thing from intimidation. It's actually the cut-off point. Donald Trump was saying to those various individuals 'You're dead to me'. In the case of Comey for example, it's a publicly known feud between the two. You can't possibly infer intimidation. It's not that "we don't exonerate him", it's that the Counsel would have lost in court and had no desire to bring it to Court. So the Counsel did the next best thing: The Mueller report is now for all intents and purposes a political document. The Democratic Party(except for a few) has still refused to return to the political arena, and to engage in an appropriate manner. The problem is that every Republican House member, except maybe 1 or 2 holdouts will vote no. So it's not an unanimous house, and then when you get it to the Senate, ROFL. Schumer and Warren(and Sanders) not withstanding, most senators are aware of the reputation of the Senate. They're not going to destroy the reputation of the US Senate, just to throw out Donald Trump. So the Democrats can be stupid enough to vote to impeach Trump, but doing so will return the House to conservative hands.