Reply #4: The principal officer argument is absurd on its face [View All]

[alcibiades_mystery]

They are essentially asking the court to believe that a party with a conflicting interest should have day-to-day oversight of the very investigation into its affairs.

Here's what grates on the neo-cons the most: they would have very much liked to have pulled the trigger and simply fired Fitzgerald. They craved that act. But they knew the people wouldn't stand for it, that it would reek of cover-up, which it certainly would have been, in fact. So they couldn't do it, even though they desperately, desperately wanted to. This was a check on their power, the thing they hate the most, and it came from the population, the citizens, the group they hate the most.

They COULD fire Fitzgerald in principle, but they COULD NOT fire Fitzgerald as a matter of politics. So, now they attempt to invert the argument by claiming that they COULD NOT fire Fitzgerald in principle. Needless to say, this is nonsense. What's truly bizarre is that they are arguing that any check on their power - even that accomplished through public opinion - is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.