Whither the unitary executive?

So he had the right to fire the attorneys if they didn't follow his priorities, except if they didn't support his priorities?

I guess I can follow that if you're comparing it to, say, the obligation of a soldier to follow his commanding officer unless the CO is ordering him to do something that is clearly immoral or illegal. Is that the sort of thing you're getting at?

If so, then isn't it incumbent on the person who thinks they're given marching orders that aren't copacetic, to blow the whistle and explain the problem somehow, rather than just drag their heels and hope the whole thing blows over?

And could those attorneys really provide evidence that there was something improper about targeting Democrats (rather than, perhaps, candidates or elected officials in both parties) if potentially it was the Democratic candidates who really were committing illegal acts relating to the elections (in light of the current Acorn scam coming to light, is that so implausible?)

I'm honestly just asking- this has been my gut feeling about the whole "attorneygate" thing all along but I can't claim to have dug into the details of all of the allegations, so I'd like to hear your response.

Scattershot??.

Let's imagine the Democrats take control of government -all branches. Should the FBI and/or other reputable investigative sources come forward as early as January with evidence on everything from Mahoney to Fannie, what Democratic line will be drawn at the Department of Justice? What if the AG should dabble where Dems and the President don't want to go? What if his or her lawyers investigate issues potentially harmful to the President or his Party?

Yet the nation says accountability now. Since Iraq was not a failed war, the cries for that accountability have receded. Will a Democratic AG be free to "target" those responsible for government?s failure, abuses, corruption even if it means altering their chances in 2010? What if certain lines of investigation lead to the Executive?

Somehow I think the two charges above merge in practice if you reject the first charge. It is all about ?improper?, isn?t it? If any lawyer is fired for resisting "improper" pressure in curtailing investigations of Democratic targets (perhaps affiliated with the President), will Liberals rush forward to decry any subsequent Executive firing? Or will the appointees be forced to pass a better litmus test?

Democratic "groups" that can certainly "influence" elections (see this one) openly declared recently their intent to "target Centrists Democrats in 2010" in an effort to achieve "Party? conformity. Now I know this is a bit different that an AG's secret targeting, but would targeting such groups as ACORN themselves be improper? Of course there is also a fine line between charity groups and community groups. What if the AG tells lawyers targeting such groups IS improper?

Preferential treatment (priorities) in law enforcement can easily influence "elections" in many ways, but targeting the third Parties to politicians (ACORN as one example) is just as entangling as nailing a Congresscritter. Who was responsible for the meltdown, pork, influence peddling, partisan politics, corruption the country is angry about? Since I have no doubt Democrats and their proxies will figure in greatly to the full picture, we can only wonder what priorities and targets the new Democratic AG will have should Obama win.

I am not sure all isn't some form of targeting, or all some form of following law enforcement priorities such as enforcing immigration laws. The results of policy can effect elections as much as targeting AND indicting select opposition..