The firing of eight United States attorneys is shaking up Washington. Strong evidence indicates these attorneys were removed for either prosecuting corrupt Republicans or not prosecuting Democrats in a politically advantageous way. Carol Lam, the attorney responsible for the high-profile conviction of Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham, is among the victims.

If true, the Justice Department is not serving to enforce the law, but acting as a political tool of the Republican Party. Such actions are unlawful under the Article II requirement for the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Furthermore, any actions intended to corrupt, obstruct, or impede the proper administration of law is a criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. 1505, with a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Congress must press for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate this matter and seek indictments where applicable.

Extraordinarily, these firings parallel the events that led to former President Richard Nixon’s impeachment. The very act of firing attorneys for politically corrupt reasons recalls the Saturday Night Massacre, in which special prosecutor Archibald Cox was removed.

To determine Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ complicity in these events, Congress requested from the Justice Department documents written in the months prior to the firings. When released, these documents had an 18-day gap between November 15 and December 4. This is reminiscent of the 18-and-a-half-minute gap in Nixon’s White House tapes, as created by deliberate erasure. For his complicity, it is likely Gonzales will resign in the coming months, if he is not first impeached by Congress.

Congress is subpoenaing White House officials, including Karl Rove, to discover the true justification for the firings. To prevent these individuals from testifying under oath, the president intends to defy these subpoenas by claiming executive privilege, sparking a constitutional crisis. Nixon claimed this same doctrine in attempting to block the release of his tapes, an effort that was utterly annihilated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon. The same decision will be reached by today’s Court.

It is unlikely that President Bush, champion of the unitary executive theory, had no knowledge that his Justice Department was engaging in potentially illegal acts. In fact, as attorneys are subject to removal only by the president, President Bush is required to have signed off on these dismissals. This clarifies why the president is attempting to block his associates from testifying—he would be implicated, and the tattered remnants of his failed administration would completely disintegrate, along with his legacy.

President Bush will be forced to apply the vintage argument that when the president corruptly fires attorneys, it is not illegal. That argument was Nixon’s in 1974, and the courts, legal experts, and the American people all found it to be sour. The president will find that some things do not improve with age.