Here is what I see, logically speaking:
(1) Mueller clears Trump of conspiring with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, saying there was insufficient evidence;
(2) with regard to the obstruction charge he says they could not consider charging Trump with a crime but if they were confident that he did clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so...
So this implies the following...
(3) Since Mueller was willing to essentially clear Trump of conspiracy with Russia when there was insufficient evidence (meaning less than probable cause, what you would need to indict)--not even getting to the issue of whether a president could be indicted--then by not making a similar statement with regard to obstruction he essentially is stating by implication there was enough evidence to indict Trump for obstruction (but he cant be indicted due to DOJ policy). And his big disagreement with Barr is that he basically implied Mueller did not make a call on obstruction and it was up to him and Barr decided to clear Trump. But it wasn't up to Barr at that point! It's up to Congress. And Mueller has been trying to correct Barr's misinterpretation of his report without getting political about it.
So unless you agree with Alan Dershowitz that a president cannot be guilty of obstruction as long as he is impeding investigations by making otherwise lawful orders (such as firing Comey, which he has the power to do), which is an absurd interpretation because under that interpretation a president could shut down investigations just by firing people left and right...then it would seem there is enough to go forward with impeachment. How can you not go forward with impeachment when Mueller basically is saying that there is probable cause that Trunp committed a serious crime?
(1) Mueller clears Trump of conspiring with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, saying there was insufficient evidence;
(2) with regard to the obstruction charge he says they could not consider charging Trump with a crime but if they were confident that he did clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so...
So this implies the following...
(3) Since Mueller was willing to essentially clear Trump of conspiracy with Russia when there was insufficient evidence (meaning less than probable cause, what you would need to indict)--not even getting to the issue of whether a president could be indicted--then by not making a similar statement with regard to obstruction he essentially is stating by implication there was enough evidence to indict Trump for obstruction (but he cant be indicted due to DOJ policy). And his big disagreement with Barr is that he basically implied Mueller did not make a call on obstruction and it was up to him and Barr decided to clear Trump. But it wasn't up to Barr at that point! It's up to Congress. And Mueller has been trying to correct Barr's misinterpretation of his report without getting political about it.
So unless you agree with Alan Dershowitz that a president cannot be guilty of obstruction as long as he is impeding investigations by making otherwise lawful orders (such as firing Comey, which he has the power to do), which is an absurd interpretation because under that interpretation a president could shut down investigations just by firing people left and right...then it would seem there is enough to go forward with impeachment. How can you not go forward with impeachment when Mueller basically is saying that there is probable cause that Trunp committed a serious crime?