The appropriately named crazylibertarian (although emprical evidence from the last 20 threads or so would seem to indicate that this is a tautology) claims first that

It seems Greenwald is incapable of recognizing his own intellectual dishonesty. While Yoo may seem to be an ardent supporter of Bush, he does an excellent job of distinguishing between Clinton's impeachment and Bush's assertion of executive privilege. I would encourage open minded readers who are interested in this topic to read the Wall Street Journal editorial before reaching their conclusion.

Having a notoriously open mind, I decided to follow crazylibertarian's suggestion and read Yoo's op-ed, only to be confronted there by an argument that would not even earn a gentleman's C in any constitutional law course. For this is the argument the Yoo presents:

Firing U.S. attorneys and any other executive officers, including those requiring Senate approval, rests beyond the constitutional powers of Congress, and totally within those of the presidency.

Yoo then tries to bolster this by quoting from a 1959 Supreme Court decision to the effect that

"Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one or the other branches of the Government."

However, were Yoo to actually read the Constitution of the United States he would find that Congress does have the constitutional power to remove US Attorneys or any other executive officer:

Article II Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I Section 2 Paragraph 5:

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Article I Section 3 Paragraph 6:

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

So, as I read the Constitution, Congress does have the authority to remove officers of the executive from office and hence by compelling the executive to reveal what may be evidence of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", is acting within its constitutionally granted authority and the executive, by withholding such evidence, is interfering with the constitutionally granted authority of the legislature.

I can't really believe that this guy teaches law at a prestigious American university.

whether shooter cares more about dead Americans or dead Iraqis.

From everything shooter has said, it seems fairly clear that shooter doesn't much care who gets killed in Iraq as long as it isn't him.

shooter says:

But let's be clear here. Eavesdropping, wiretapping, listening to conversations is NOT datamining. Hayden makes the distinction clearly no matter how much Glenn wants to not look foolish. We've already had the datamining conversation. Nobody seems to think that linking telephone numbers is illegal.

But Hayden says that NSA wasn't doing any data mining.

But the NYT says on the basis of anonymous government sources that the NSA program that Gonzales was talking about involved data mining not warrantless wiretapping so Gonzales may not have been lying when he said there was no disagreement about the NSA's warrantless wiretapping because the disagreement was about the NSA's data mining program. But Hayden says the NSA wasn't doing any data mining.

So at the minimum, either Gonzales is lying or Hayden is lying (it's possible, of course, that both are lying and that NSA was doing data mining and that Comey and Ashcroft's objections were in fact about warrantless wiretapping — but they can't both be telling the truth unless there is a third, still more heinous program that Comey and Ashcroft [and Mueller] were objecting to).

Apparently shooter favors taking Hayden for the liar, since shooter has previously called Hayden a liar in this forum.