Maybe you should learn to read. You say
The report was clear: Trump committed obstruction of justice, and Mueller would have charged him with that crime had Trump not been a sitting president.
Only it’s not clear. In fact there’s nothing in the report that actually says that. The report is damnably ambiguous. It’s double-negative pretzel logic doesn’t say what you imagine it says. Mueller says if he had found evidence to exonerate Trump, he would have said so. You are incorrectly equating Mueller’s failure to exonerate Trump with an allegation of criminality against him. There’s a big difference.
If Mueller was going to be clear, he could have said he recommends filing charges of obstruction against Trump after he is no longer President.
If you bother to read the report you find that Mueller gives pros and cons for possible instances of obstruction, but ultimately fails to arrive at a conclusion on any of them. He failed to do his job of coming to a prosecutorial decision, but you are reading imaginary words that say he did. The conclusion you want to see is just not there. Mueller kicked the matter up to Rosenstein and Barr who decided that as a matter of law, none of the acts constituted criminal obstruction of justice.
Sure Mueller dropped lots of hints, but no way you could read the report and say he was “clear” about obstruction. He wasn’t.