I agree with Alan, unless of course, it is proven that Flynn committed a crime, like say violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

He could have legally pardoned Flynn, yes, but he didn't because that would be admission of his crimes on Trump's behalf and with his knowledge. Because he didn't pardon Flynn, it's obstruction to interfere with the investigation.

...or subversion for making international deals contradicting current policy before administrations changed.....on tape.

I think what Alan is trying to say is that every prosecutor has discretion. Comey isn't guilty of obstructing justice because he decided Clinton wasn't guilty with her email server. He's not guilty of obstruction because he didn't investigate Seth Rich's murder as it related to the DNC and wikileaks. These are all judgement calls. And he's saying as President, Trump has the ultimate authority in judgement calls in what to investigate, and it's completely legal to say investigate this, don't investigate that, or fire someone to stop an investigation. Furthermore, congress has the unilateral power to impeach him if they think any behavior of his is improper. It doesn't need to be illegal and isn't reviewable by a court. They could impeach him for putting katsup on his steak and that would be legal.

Basically you don't need any codified legal basis for impeaching a President.

He has not been charged with a crime yet. How can you be pardon without being charged with a crime?

Moving this video to bobknight33's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.