0
0

[–] p0ssumsAlt ago 

See, you bringing up Watergate makes my point. There was no need for a special prosecutor then. We have a unitary executive. Article II is pretty clear on the point. He was free to fire Archibald Cox. The issue was then taken care of by Congress threatening impeachment and Nixon resigning. There was no need for a special prosecutor.

It was the evidence that was collected by the special prosecutor that brought everything about. You seem to be leaving that our of your little history lesson. Why is that?

0
0

[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago 

Because the point is that Congress should do its job, or not. Deep throat's leaks in a parking garage in Rosslyn had nothing to do with a special prosecutor. The solution was for the executive and the legislative branches to go to institutional warfare if they believed it was called for. The harm done to the executive function (and frankly, the legislative branch, too) continue to hobble the functioning of the system to this day.

0
0

[–] p0ssumsAlt ago 

The solution was for the executive and the legislative branches to go to institutional warfare if they believed it was called for.

Come now, that's just fucking stupid. We don't need co-equal branches of Gov't battling each other, that's just silly. You may want to believe that's what the founders had in mind, but I find it patently absurd.