Isn't that an abuse of power?
2007-03-21 09:46:01 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, it is. Any political hire is subject to political firing. So, what is the true motivation behind all of this investigating?
2007-03-21 09:51:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are legal because they serve at the pleasure of the president. The subpoeans are also legal, however.
The issue is, which are ethical and which violate oaths of office. And which actions are potentially an abuse of power.
In the case of the 8 US Attorneys, the claim is that Gonzales may have violated his oath of office and his ethical duty as an attorney, based on the claim that the attorneys were removed solely on political grounds. Both of which are grounds for removal as AG.
In the case of the subpoeans, the claim is that Congress shouldn't be investigating the executive branch for any reason, and that Congress is only playing partisan politics.
In both cases, what was done is legal. But the question is, was it proper and ethical? Or did either Gonzales or Congress abuse their power for unethical purposes?
2007-03-21 16:50:03 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is absolutely legal. Even firing them for purely political purposes is absolutely legal. However, congress can subpoena anybody for anything they want. It's more political posturing by the left. After the Plame scandal they realized that their gullible liberal voters will latch onto anything they try and pretend is a crime. Next they'll be claiming that presidential pardons and executive orders are illegal in some way.
2007-03-21 16:54:27 · answer #3 · answered by VoodooPunk 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Am I wrong? Didn't all the attorney's get fired during Clinton's Presidency? Maybe this is just what Presidents do to clean house. You tell me.
2007-03-21 16:51:31 · answer #4 · answered by Silly Girl 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole point is to find out whether or not the firings were appropriate.
What's the problem with asking Rove and Miers to discuss it under oath if nothing was wrong with firing these attorneys?
2007-03-21 16:49:28 · answer #5 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why don't you ask that of Clinton sense he fired 93 attorneys? I don't see you complaining about his firing them.
2007-03-21 17:18:57 · answer #6 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My eyes are bleeding from reading this title.
ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!
2007-03-21 16:50:16 · answer #7 · answered by soulravah 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋