Ummm, what does that mean when there is no justice being obstructed?
Seriously, you generally have to interfere with a criminal inquiry or
proceedings in order for it to be considered obstruction of justice.
Refusing to give testimony is not obstruction. Using a lawyer to present
a challenge to the oversight panel/judge is not obstruction. Oddly
enough, the 5th amendment does apply to Presidents as well. He didn't
refuse to give testimony, didn't burn any evidence, and didn't kill
off any of the witnesses. So it's hard to see what's got your panties
in a bind there Greg -- too much free time on your hands? ;)
An awful lot of people are just taking Starr's claims as verbatim and
not bothering to think like a Judge. Starr is a prosecutor in this case
and is applying for the maximum he can obtain without being repremanded
for harrassment. But they are just claims, not proof, and most would
just be dismissed by any Judge (including Starr himself). The knot is
that the normal rules of inquiry do not apply to Congress, so we are
left with the infamous Judicial Committee of the House to decide what
should be dismissed or carried forward to vote, and another six months
of political posturing by both sides regardless of the outcome.