Incidentally: We Don't Know Much About The Obstruction Question

At first I was convinced that firing Comey was obviously obstruction of justice. Then I realized that I don't actually know what obstruction of justice is. I know what obstruction and justice are, roughly. But, obviously, I am not a lawyer. So, though I've been saying that my guesses are:

Collusion: no.

Obstruction: yes.

 That latter really means something more like: I think it's more likely than not that he did something that a reasonable layperson would call "obstruction of justice." But I don't know what a reasonable legal judgment would be like. 

   Also, that thing by Andrew McCarthy drove home the point that I don't know what collusion is, either. So the only thing I can really say is: I have no idea what I'm talking about. 'Criminal conspiracy' (McCarthy's narrower meaning) sounds really bad though, right? Like, super bad. So I don't think that! Whatever it is, I think he probably didn't do it. Also, I have some reasons in the vicinity that seem probably relevant.* 

   What about McCarthy's broader, informal sense of 'collusion'? Well, in that sense, Trump and the Rooskies may have "colluded" just in that they were both trying to beat Hillary... So maybe. I guess we'll find out.

   Now I kinda think: it'll turn out that Trump didn't collude in the narrow, legal sense, but did do something that can non-ridiculously be seen as colluding in the wide, informal sense. That way this pissing match can go on forever. But that's probably largely my depression about our current political situation talking... 

   Also: given the current state of the left, anything that can be spun as collusion-in-the-informal-sense will be seized upon and spun as obvious collusion no doubt about it it can't possibly be anything else there is no other explanation. The red team sucks, too, and isn't above such things, but they just aren't as crazy as the blue team right now, and aren't as dogmatically locked into a vast fairytale of their own telling. But the blues are still trying to make that email joke out to be collusion, so...

   Did I have a point?

* He's not nearly as awful as most liberals/progressives think he is; he's not nearly as dumb as most liberals/progressives think he is; at the very least he's got a high degree of low cunning: he has survived as basically the world's richest con man for fifty years or whatever; he simply can't be as stupid and reckless as most people in my rough (former?) region of the political spectrum think he is.