Why would you assume that the Democratic memo wouldn't also take significant liberties? The problem with your mentality is that you piss on the Nunes memo for "talking liberties," yet you think the Democratic memo might present a real case of obstruction of justice. (BTW, no offense, but I don't think you know what obstruction of justice is if you think either memo would reflect on the issue. However, that's a side issue.)
Like I mentioned earlier, this stuff is all partisan talking points. It's not evidence. I supported releasing the memo because I err on the side of open government, but I never considered it evidence from which you can formally judge the FBI, Trump, or anybody else. The same would be true of the Democratic memo.
Who said taking anybody at his word? The purpose of the investigation is to gather evidence that would either disprove or corroborate what Trump says. The whole point is that we're not (and shouldn't) take him at his word. That's why there is an investigation.
And hell, you may be right. Mueller may uncover all kinds of dirt, but if your interest is really the discovery of the truth and the pursuit of justice, you'll wait until he's done and then judge the case based on the evidence he finds. Anybody who doesn't do that is an unprincipled partisan.
You do realize that 3 out of 4 of these have nothing to do with collusion with Russia, right? And you voted for Hillary Clinton, right? You sound like a stripper complaining about the liquor stores bringing down the neighborhood.