As anyone and everyone would fully expect, @zeb1 has misstated a number of things. Here goes:
Incorrect. This kind of right after the event memo is fully admissible in court on its own merits - meaning, even if the person who experienced the event is unavailable to tell his story, the memo can serve as the exact equivalent of that person showing up and telling the story. And, if that person can show up to tell the story, such a memo buttresses their claims as to its truth (as in, it was close enough in time to help against claims that that person is misremembering). So, it’s anything but “diddly squat”. The memo(s), if they exist, are quite meaningful.
If Zeb knew what the Hell he was talking about - and he doesn’t, of course - he’d know that this isn’t the statutory definition of obstruction of justice in total. Far from it, there’s more than one statute, and the primary one has a bunch of subsections and (more importantly) catchalls that go beyond the narrow language Zeb (mis)represented. In fact, 1503a has such a general provision that criminalizes obstruction/impendiment of “the due administration of justice”:
These kinds of catchalls are designed precisely to make sure shady conduct is captured generally.
(Curiously, Zeb doesn’t provide a cite where he got his definition. I wonder why?)
As for the politics of how to handle the memo, the source hasn’t provided a copy of it, but if it does exist, my guess is that not providing a copy of it was intentional in order to trigger some elected official into officially requesting/subpoenaing it and all other related materials.
It’s hard to imagine Trump being brought up in charges in a court of law, but the court of public opinion is going to inveigh a terrible judgment if this memo exists.
But wherever this goes, operate on legitimate, truthful information - not on Zeb’s (predictable) misinformation.