Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin

Russian Once Tied to Trump Aide Seeks Immunity to Testify Before Congress

Senate Intel Committee demands Trump campaign to turn over all docs

It's really hard to keep track of the news these days.

President Trump has excellent lawyers. They have a challenging client.

In a series of Twitter posts Monday morning, Mr. Trump may have irretrievably undermined his lawyers’ efforts to persuade the Supreme Court to reinstate his executive order limiting travel from six predominantly Muslim countries.

Saying he preferred “the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version” he had issued in March, Mr. Trump attacked both the Justice Department and the federal courts.
[...]
Last week, lawyers in the solicitor general’s office filed polished briefs in the Supreme Court. They urged the justices to ignore incendiary statements from Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign, including a call for a “Muslim ban.” The court should focus instead on the text of the revised executive order and statements from Mr. Trump after he had taken the inaugural oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” the briefs said.

The closest thing to obstruction claimed is Trump saying "Flynn is a good man and I hope you can let this go." which it wasn't. As a result Comey kept his people investigating away from Trump and didn't inform the investigators of Trump request out of frustration. He also made clear that Trump wanted Comey or the FBI to tell the media that he himself wasn't under investigation. Pretty much confirmed by the hearing that it wasn't obstruction, but you'll have lawyers on both sides beating their chest over it and ultimately doing nothing. So no chance of impeachment for obstruction, as no obstruction took place.

(18) And under "Obstruction by Intimidation, Threats, Persuasion, or Deception (18 U.S.C. 1512 (b)), Trump DID "attempt to persuade" Comey.

Oh you'll also have stories about "Trump expecting loyalty from his administration and the US govt" is bad, if they aren't up already. Despite it being pretty expected for a president to want his workers to be loyal and not seek to undermine him at every turn. Nothing out of line about that, but I'm expecting "loyalty" to be a bad word  for the next week just from the way things like to swing in US news.

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland sued President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

But D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) say Trump has broken many promises to keep separate his public duties and private business interests. For one, his son Eric Trump has said the president would continue to receive regular updates about his company’s financial health.

The US Supreme Court has partially lifted an injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban. America's highest court also granted an emergency request from the White House allowing part of the refugee ban to go into effect. The justices said they would consider in October whether Mr Trump's policy should be upheld or struck down. The Supreme Court said in Monday's ruling: "In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]."

The court said it could not uphold lower court injunctions barring enforcement of the ban against foreigners who have no connection to the United States at all. "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national," the court said. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch wrote in the ruling that they would have allowed the travel ban to go into full effect, pending a review.