Leahy: Bush Not Involved in Firings

It is interesting how we tend to focus on the parts that either interest us, or support our positions.

I'd pick

Quote:

as the interesting part.

parados wrote:

Attorney Generals serve at the pleasure of the President.

The argument has been made repeatedly that Bush can fire the AGs whenever he wants to...

Now we find out Bush did NOT even know they were being fired.

And somehow this makes their firing OK?

Has anyone made that claim, or are you just wishing?

I want you to listen to me. The president can fire any US attorney he wants. They work for him. He has the Constitutional authority. What the hell is this debate all about?

So, Leahy finally admits that Bush was NOT involved in the US Attorney firings.

If Bush wasn't involved in the firings then there is no executive privilege, is there?

Or are you arguing that executive privilige extends to every action that the executive branch does. I don't think the courts have agreed with that.

Also, I do NOT think that any of the people involved should be allowed "executive priveledge" as a defense or as a way to get around testifying.