More on the obstruction debate

Politico: Opinions of some legal experts

• Asha Ranjappa -  Mueller would have higher bar than normal case.  Case would be stronger if he can prove the underlying crime.
• Laurence Tribe - Believes Mueller will indict.
• Alan Dershowitz - President cannot be accused of obstruction for exercising constitutional authority
• Norm Eisen - Mueller will not indict. But may treat the President as unindicted co-conspirator or send report to congress with recommendations to impeach. 
• Jennifer Taub - No solid evidence. Probably needs proof of collusion to prove there was motive to cover up.
• Laurie Levenson - Mueller must prove corrupt intent. Firing (or wanting to fire) not proof of anything by itself.
• Bradley Moss - No criminal charge. Report outlining his findings to Rosenstein. Probably will conclude that there is at least some evidence of obstruction. 
• Josh Blackman - Not a federal crime or impeachable offense. Lawyers there to talk clients out of mistakes.
• Robert Weisberg - Possible obstruction. But the alleged incident between Trump and McGahn would be privileged and inadmissible in court. 
• Marty Lederman - Mueller's goal is to spell out the facts. Office of legal counsel concluded bringing charges against a sitting President is unconstitutional.
• Alex Whiting - Case would have to be built on accumulation of separate pieces. No smoking gun, but still believes it could be obstruction.
• Kathleen Clark -  McGahn had legal obligation to prevent firing. Trump followed McGahn's advice.

Of the twelve, one (Dershowitz) considers the matter closed as a matter of executive authority. Three argue that Trump cannot be held criminally liable for changing his mind and following the advice of an attorney. Three suggest that there may not be enough "known" evidence to make a strong case. Three believe that Mueller's ultimate job should be to send a report to Rosenstein (rather than bring charges).  One believes that there is evidence, but doesn't opine as to whether Mueller will indict or send report. One strongly believe that Mueller can (and should based on evidence) indict the President. 

Certainly, there is some crossover opinions. The legal expert who argues that the conversation between Trump and McGahn was probably privileged and inadmissible, says that plans to fire Mueller could have otherwise been evidence of possible obstruction. A couple of the experts who expect Mueller to just file a report make the argument that there is evidence of obstruction. Two of the experts believe that obstruction charges might be tough to prove without finding any evidence of the underlying crime (no motive, no crime).

But what is crystal clear is that there is no real legal consensus on this subject. In order to bring charges against anyone, there has be an honest belief that you can make the charges stand up. For Mueller to indict he would first have to ignore the findings of the office of legal counsel that a sitting President cannot be indicted, then fight off those challenges in court with all prevailing legal opinions and precedent against him. He would then have to fight off a slew of executive privilege, attorney client privilege, and other legal challenges that very well could hamper his ability to make a case. Remember, just because something is leaked, doesn't mean it's true. But even if it's true, it doesn't make it admissible in court.

All just to bring a case to court, where he would have to unanimously convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a sitting President committed obstruction for exercising his constitutional authority to fire someone for cause.  Considering that that lack of consensus within the legal community on the subject tangibly provides reasonable doubt...  that seems to be a steep hill to climb.

Would a "reasonable prosecutor" bring such a case?