1. Your analogies about “just talking” are invalid because they lack nexus to the presumed facts. Trump didn’t “just talk about it” he directed that the firing be done and called back asking for an update. Have you ever directed anybody to commit a crime? Why not, if it’s no big deal?
2. Your analogies to your own work have the same flaw as above, but additionally this incredibly favorable view is not shared by the people who were actually involve at the time, namely McGahn, Lewandowski, and Dearborn. None of them thought this was just a routine business decision. They thought they were being directed to commit criminal acts and they refused. McGahn even prepared to resign over it. It was also something Trump had been specifically counseled not to do.
3. The general idea of “it can’t be a crime because nobody actually got fired” is immaterial to the issue of whether or not a crime was committed under federal law. I said this in my last post. The one that you quoted.
The argument wasnt that Trump didnt fire Mueller and is therefore innocent. The argument is Trump didnt fire anybody who refused. They have that right and responsibility and acted correctly so a crime didnt happen.
Was Trump told by his AGs that it would be obstruction in your presumed facts? That could definitely change Trumps stance. If he didnt know and didnt understand he would be breaking the law. Again no way the president can know the legality of every one of his actions and he needs people to tell him.
Do you really think the conversation went something like:
Dt: fire him.
Ag: no. It's against the law to even suggest that, you need to stop. Here are the sections you are violating.
Dt:fire him
Ag: no it's illegal to even suggest that. Stop.
Dt:fire him.
Ag: *resigns*
I get he isnt the sharpest light bulb in the box. But I doubt you are saying he is that dumb?
I am willing to bet they gave him more generic answers of no. And left it there until Trump pushed the matter.
As far as talking to people about breaking the law, pretty much everyday. Speed, jaywalk, joke with friends about thievery, murder, mayhem. Even at the office I spend a good chunk of my time figuring out ways past/thru/around any number of laws, building codes, and so forth. Heck I can even call up the city and ask about certain options without breaking a law.
There is a difference in doing and talking. Even if the talking is the crime, it's part of the reason it's a protected right. Being able to figure out what is allowed and isnt is important to any modern society.