Wrong, he is not being punihed for removing the attoneys that he did when he took office he is being investigated for the reasons why he removed attorneys that he appointed after they showed "disloyalty" and then his administration provided false testimony as to why they were removed.
But again you are making that statement with 1) not knowing if its true and 2) after the fact. When this investigation started the only thing that congress knew is that some US attorneys had been fired. Thats it. Thats the only thing that Dianne "contracts" Feinstein and Schumer had to go on. If this were a police matter, there would be no PC, no reasonable suspicion or anything of the kind. This thing started as a political witchhunt.
Wrong again. They looked into it after e-mails and other information that directly contradicted the administration's stated reasons for firing them. Like lying about performance evaluations. A few of the attorneys fired had some of the highest performance rating in the country but had been involved in prosecuting the Duke and others. Even though they had such high rating the administration claimed they had poor ratings.
But again, why were they looking into it the first place. Why was Gonzales called to testify in the first place. When this whole thing started the only information that existed was that a handful of attorneys were being replaced and the reason for the firing did not include race, sex, national origin or religion. Subsequently a bunch of high ranking democrats started rooting around. Thas political. Spin it all you want, but its purely political.
Wrong again. If evidence can show that the adminstration fired these people for fear that they would not refuse to prosecute republican law breakers than the law has been broken. That is obstruction of justice and abuse of power.
But the mere firing of these people isn't evidence. You need something more than simply a terminated USA to have obstruction of justice. You need to show that the executive actively engaged in some action to obstruct an investigation or something of the kind. You don't have any evidence of that here.
So you consider requiring the president to obey the law "pissing" on him? There is no doubt now that they have broken the law with the e-mails. Now we need to find out what they felt was important enough to not only violate the law but then delete the evidence of afterwards.
Let me be perfectly clear. If the whitehouse broke the law with regards to emails, or anything else then the guilty parties should be punished. That said, anyone here who thinks that the motivation of the people leading this crusade is anything other than a political hit is just delusional. Its kind of like making an illegal search and finding a bunch of dope. Sure you found something illegal, but your motive and method is improper.
When senators grill the attorney general and demand to know why these people were fired, that is pissing on the executive. They have the right to ask and he has the right to tell them to pound sand. When Pelosi travels to a country that we are diplomatically ignoring, and over the objections of the branch of government that is exclusively granted powers of diplomacy, that is pissing on the executive.
The fact that you wholly ignored my paragraph addressing the "reasoning" for this investigation leads me to believe that you know what I'm talking about.