Good night.

Having sex with an intern is no crime either- but lying about it under oath and obstruction are. So the cases are very similar, except stonewalling worked much better for Bush/Cheney than it did for Clinton.

I have no problem with the argument that unethical conduct has occurred, and that the conduct is detrimental to good governance, and that any destruction of evidence erodes confidence. My objection is trying to raise that conduct to criminal levels.

You keep referriing to crimes, but that's not the issue. There are, indeed, certain rules in place against the politization of the work done by the various Depatments of Government, and that would be especially important for the DOJ. These ruels even have names, which I can't remember at the moment.. These Departments were never meant to be an arm of the President's political party, whatever that might be at a certain time.
The suspicions in Congress were based on the fact that some firings occurred in the context of ongoing prosecutions, or the dearth of same. Justice and political expediency are not the same thing, and pressure from members of Congress (of the President's party) was also involved.
You give a very broatd reading to the President's legal rights, but don't acknowledge Congress's legal right to conduct oversight. What we have here is the two legal rights colliding.

As I said, the overriding issue here is not what's legal., and cetaily it's not a question of crime. It is the necessity for the people to trust the governement. When checks and balances and oversight are eroded, trust is eroded, and that presents a real danger for a nation's ability to hold together.

IAbove and beyond what is legal is the question of what is right.
That can't be decided by mere asertions of privlege .or legal writhings.
We need to know what happened. If nothing of consequence happened, then we need to know that.
Withholding information, btw, just raises more suspicions. That's not good for anyone.

As I clearly have said, unless someone is advancing the argument that they were fired under protected class violations (race, creed, etc.), which absolutely no one has even hinted at, then no crime CAN have occurred.

It just is not and cannot be a crime of any nature for the President to fire them for purely political reasons. Hell, he could fire them because he doesn't like their wife/husband/dog. He doesn't NEED a reason, and any reason other than race, creed, etc., simply cannot be illegal.

Therefore, it cannot be the case that covering up evidence prevents us from knowing if a crime occurred.

And quite clearly, you seem to want to willfully misrepresent what I have said.

Your aregument seems to be that there was no crime because there is no proof of crime. By that reasoning, then, all the unsolved murders we have on the books never happened?

Granted, the attorney firings are not as compelling as dead bodies, but some dead bodies are discovered by merely following vague suspicions. A person fails to answer the phone. A suspicious package is dumped in the middle of the night; And etc.

Congress , legally mandated to do oversight, has supicions, but they are thwarted in efforts to follow up on the suspicions . Were that not so, they might find evidence that vindicates the executive branch, or they might find something highly objectionable. That 'something' does not have to reach the level of a crime, btw.

To maintain that efforts to unearth what actually happened iare nothing but a
political ploy is to defend the executive, regardless of consequences.
The consequences are huge, however. Hillary Clinton and Obama are learning from this process, I'm sure. Is the legalese argument to continue in perpetuity, then?

What's at stake here is enough transparency to maintain trust in our governemtn.
That's a cause that supercedes your leglistic arguments, IMO.
We need to know what happened, whether that was a crime, a misdemeanor, or a non-event, like you say. We can't know what happened by merely making assertions and legal arguments.
There is simply too much at stake for our future.

Avoiding embarrassment, even from Congress, in the absence of any underlying criminal action that is being covered up is not of itself a crime.

So again, as no one has claimed that the firings were illegal, just perhaps unethical, destroying evidence of non-criminal activity, in the face of a non-criminal (and likely un-Constitutional) investigation, is not a crime.

We should take this discussion over to Volokh, see what the pros think.

If there's an investigation pending and a bunch of potential evidence is destroyed, isn't that the crime?

Even if there is no crime in firing the attorneys, at the least it was unethical and improper on an unprecedented scale in our history. Would you like the next Democratic president to interfere in political corruption cases? So that cases against congressional democrats are slowed, but those against powerful Republicans are rushed to justice before an election? Admit it these are signs that we are becoming a banana republic.

First you concede this is the hallmark of tyranny and corruption. Then you admit that it's a terrible precedent. But you end up saying the President can do whatever he wants, because it's not a crime.

Your own logic seems circular.

Macan–

Plus, when President Obama purges his attorneys (including the by-then Netroots demonized Patrick Fitzgerald) half-way through the term

Your ability to predict the future notwithstanding, it's my understanding that new Presidents traditionally replace the US Attorneys when they first enter office, not half-way through the term. But if the next President were to do what you predict, he would be able to claim the actions of President George W Bush as sufficient precedent.

Conservatives used to respect tradition.

Sometimes the real scandal is what's legal.

But Shaun, again, if no one is even suggesting that a criminal act has occurred (as none has), what right does Congress have to pry into the Executive Branch's legal decision making?

To me, the fact of Congress trying to use subpoena power for a purely political act, over an area that Constitutionally they have NO oversight, is more egregious that the firings. The President was within his rights (even if you don't like the why), but Congress was out of bounds.

I can't see SCOTUS ruling any other way, if it ever gets there, and I say it is a 8-1 or 7-2 ruling, maybe even unanimous.

I, and I dimly regard others (perhaps Shaun as well) here at TMV as well, saying during the latter days of the Gonzo saga that the Left should love him for his dim-wittedness. His machinations were always obvious and heavy-handed.

So now there is a smart A-G, and the Left is confounded.

I agree with AustinRoth…this is really a non-event. There is no there there…the lawsuits would not likely get to trial before Bush's term is over. The Supreme Court would not likely rule until the next Presidential election.

Plus, when President Obama purges his attorneys (including the by-then Netroots demonized Patrick Fitzgerald) half-way through the term for their outrageously impertinent prosecution of his victimized cronies back in Chicago…look for the Democrats to quietly set the whole issue aside…and the Nutroots to toss all digital traces of the debate down the Memory Hole.

(JSpencer…Decaf is the work of the Devil. I get a shipment of the real goods from Brazil every month. Pure caffeinated goodness!!! )

You are indeed correct that U.S. attorneys serve at the president's pleasure.

But if truthful testimony was to be elicited from Bolton and Miers (and pigs will fly before that happens) they should leave no doubt that the firings, in the aggregate, were because these U.S. attorneys were not cooperative enough in the White House's desire to use them as Republican Party functionaries.

(christ, I really have to stop drinking decaf)