Second, obstruction of justice cases do not require that the most prominent underlying crime being investigated — in this case conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia — be proven. To the contrary, the report states that “obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal conduct falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment.” As the report repeatedly details, the motivation behind Mr. Trump’s obstructive conduct seems most likely to have fallen into one of these categories.

Indeed, someone seeking to obstruct justice may be looking to avoid detection of conduct he knows to be wrong, whether or not prosecutors ultimately conclude there was a criminal violation — which may explain the revelation that the president reacted to Mr. Mueller’s appointment with an expletive and the statement “This is the end of my presidency.”

And while the report also details some exculpatory considerations, including the fact that the president, in his campaign, did not engage in an explicit or implicit conspiracy with the Russian government, the document paints a picture of a president who repeatedly tried to impede an investigation that he knew would be damaging to him, his family and his associates.

Although Mr. Mueller operated under different rules from Leon Jaworski, who investigated President Richard Nixon, and Kenneth Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton, he ultimately reached the same judgment as they did: that Congress, a body composed of elected representatives, is better placed than a prosecutor to determine whether to initiate proceedings that could result in an official’s removal from office.

Congress is also well equipped to make determinations that the special counsel decided were beyond his purview. Because Congress has the power only to remove, not indict, a president, it does not need to worry, as the special counsel appeared to in the context of a potential criminal prosecution, that its actions will hamper the ability of a president to continue serving as a chief executive. If Congress votes to impeach and convict, it is ending, not hampering, a presidency.

Congress, a coequal branch of government, is also well suited to consider whether exercise of a president’s constitutional powers — including firing or directing subordinates for the purpose of impeding an investigation — amounts to obstruction of justice under the Constitution. The fact that Mr. Mueller explicitly did not resolve whether the president engaged in criminal conduct only reinforces the need for Congress to consider whether Mr. Trump violated his constitutional obligations to the American people.