You quoted a response that I posted to someone, you, who was arguing that Bush is guilty of obstructing justice. Your rhetorical point that a President is not allowed to obstruct justice is as close as one can get to explicitly saying he did obstruct justice. I was merely pointing out that before you can assert as much as fact you have to establish it. I was chiding you because you essentially argued that he had, in fact, obstructed justice.
And, no, I haven't characterized it as a "witch hunt."
If you're so hard for an investigation why are you strongly iplying that he had obstructed justice?I personally have explained it twice in this thread already. See post 33 and 76. You seem to have a problem with selective reading. Don't pretend the explanation doesn't exist simply because it's more convenient for you to ignore it.