Obstruction of Justice in Salem?

Instead of a witch, how about a mafia boss who gets all his acolytes to understand he wants them to say or do whatever it takes to protect him? And to that end, they one by one fall on their swords and the boss still stands up untouched. One or two realise the error of their ways and as soon as they do turn against the boss and tell the truth he turns on them.

That's the million dollar question, I.e., whether he "corruptly" intended to impede an investigation.

Barr seems to think that the fact that the President (or Salem leader) didn't didn't conspire (or wasn't a witch) should have some impact on the question of whether he corruptly intended to obstruct.

I've yet to see any legal support for his novel legal theory and existing case law seems to contradict it.

On its face, it seems absurd and frivolous, except, that in this case the accused is the President of the US.

You can't obstruct a nothing.

No; it would be a defense. [b]But...[/b] if the witch who claimed he was not a witch and really was based on factual evidence, then yes, it would be. And, all the self-admitted liars who attempted to defend that in-denial witch, well... they would be accomplices to the crime.

You have yet to meet a false equivalency you didn't love.

Yes