Again, using news articles as evidence is not valid.
The report did not use news articles to detail Trump's efforts to have McGahn falsify documents - it relied on in-person testimony to that effect from an eyewitness, McGahn himself. Do you consider eyewitness testimony to be valid? If so, how do you feel about the fact that Trump ordered his subordinates to falsify documents in order to obstruct a criminal investigation? Should he be prosecuted for this?
Then why didn't Mueller and his report say they have sufficient evidence of that obstruction charge? Even when the Dems tried walking through each of likely obstruction charges,
This indicates you've never even read the report and have gotten your news about it from conservative media. This is a bad idea because conservative media lies to you constantly.
The report is crystal clear as to why Mueller did not say they had sufficient evidence of that obstruction charge. I will quote it from page 213:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
Because the OLC says Mueller was not allowed to indict Trump no matter what he found, Mueller declined to make a judgment either way. It had zero to do with the evidence.
Mueller didn't agree with their conclusion.
This is false, he said he wasn't going to make any conclusions, not that their conclusions were wrong.
Volume II was a lot of summarized news stories about likely obstruction charges.
Irrelevant.