[didn't get past the introductory part and missed the interview.]
wasted my time politely and otherwise warning of consequences. obstruction is a felony. could have spent my time on anything else. that fifty year old bad argument as continuing "policy" doesn't yet amount to legislation much less constitutional ammendment. there was a reason that the few justices dissenting remonstrated against the majority opinion, unsupported by the constitution. it wasn't just, but was possibly out of concern for the consequences of obstructing and the consequences associated with doing so. end of day, even if it were in my immediate interests to obstruct due process, i wouldn't in the position of the officials involved be interested.
possibly because of the constitution, or because of its provisions to ensure due process allowing for equal rights and the specific enumerated and unenumerated right to legal recourse, obstruction is a severe legal concern (similar to perjury before a court). loss of liberty for a number of years is a severe loss of liberty.
the comma means.. and then.