Saturday, March 17, 2007

Bush's dilemma: Firing attorneys was illegal unless Bush did it

Mary2002 on Kos makes an interesting point: If these US Attorneys were removed without Bush's knowledge, then removing them was illegal, since only the president can remove them. But if they were removed with the president's knowledge, that puts Bush on the hook for removing a US Attorney for purely partisan reasons.

There is a lot of debate in the comments section of the post about whether the fact that the attorneys were asked to resign makes a difference, and whether Bush can delegate his removal power. I don't understand it.

What certainly seems clear is that Gonzales lied his ass off to Congress, which as I understand it is a crime even when you're not under oath.

And what's this about Gonzales' Chief of Staff not resigning, but instead getting reassigned?

Certainly, I echo the calls for getting rid of Gonzales. I think he is one of the more despicable members of this administration, with his pro-torture views and dictatorial notions of presidential power. But the fundamental problem isn't him. The problem is Bush. And Cheney, of course. But Cheney wouldn't be such a problem if Bush was a decent president. Even if Gonzales and Rove and Cheney go down in flames, what sort of person is going to fill their jobs? I think it's time we get to the heart of the matter and get rid of this president. Everything else is small change.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Internal Monologue home