Obstruction of Logic

We’ve now all seen Robert Mueller on TV. I, for one, still haven’t read his report. But I have been thinking about Attorney General Bill Barr’s argument that Trump couldn’t have obstructed justice because there was no underlying crime, or at least not enough evidence of an underlying crime.

I’ve tried to think of a simple example to explain this to myself (keep in mind, I’m not a lawyer, so I have about as much insight into these matters as Rudy Giuliani does.) Here’s the hypothetical I came up with. 

Let's say the police in Bedford Falls have a confidential informant who knows that some guy, Brad, has 3 pounds of heroin under his bed. This CI (or "this rat", as Donald Trump would call him) tells the police, as confidential informants do. The police get a warrant to search Brad's apartment. Brad sees them coming, quickly bars his reinforced steel door, refuses to answer the police’s pounding on it, while his girlfriend, Beverly, flushes the heron down the toilet. Brad successfully prevents the cops from entering the apartment until all traces of the smack are gone. Whew, that was close! 

Voilà! Brad did his damnedest to delay the police searching his apartment, but he didn’t “obstruct justice” because, at the end of the day, the police found no evidence of a crime. No evidence of a crime means no crime, means no justice to obstruct. Perfectly logical, I guess.