(12-26-2019 12:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 11:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Third (If almost literally, the biggest crime you've uncovered is the failure to participate in the investigation of the lack of a crime... they're almost ADMITTING its a witch hunt) - this is the one that really drives me crazy. Let's use another analogy. Let's say you have probable cause that that a crime was committed, possibly murder. There is a lot of evidence that John went to Sara's house and a lot of evidence that he never came out. Sara was the only one home when John went over there, but her house cleaner Ronald has been there a few times since John disappeared. There is a lot of evidence and good reason that John really didn't plan or want to stay at Sara's house for very long. But John has disappeared and it has been 3 weeks now and John's family is worried about him. All the evidence is at Sara's house. Sara refuses to talk to police (which is not unusual in a case like this, but is her right and is not a crime). Sara refuses to open her door to allow a search when presented with a search warrant. Sara refuses to allow police on her property to look in her backyard for fresh graves (ditto). Sara refuses to allow searches of her email or text messages (ditto). Sara tells Ronald not to testify or speak to the police and threatens to retaliate if he does, so he doesn't. Now the obvious flaw in the example is that Sara is just Sara, not POTUS, and obviously the crime is different. But Sara is certainly obstructing justice (which is similar to obstruction of Congress when Congress is the investigator). So no, no one is "admitting its a witch hunt". And if it is a witch hunt, Trump is a witch and the witch hunt is actually legitimate. But that is probably not what he (or you) mean.

I assume the bolded parts I inserted were meant by you to be implied, otherwise this does not meet the criteria for obstruction.

Yes on the warrants, and the analogy works better if there are multiple witnesses since I obviously agree that Sara doesn't have to speak to authorities under these circumstances. Again, the biggest flaw to me in the impeachment process was the lack of subpoenas issued for witness testimony by the intelligence committee. Even if they didn't want to litigate the subpoenas after they were refused, they should have still issued the subpoeans. It makes me scratch my head from both a legal and public relations and political standpoint.