Actually quite a few JB. Not just criminal conspiracy in connection (complicit in the coverup) to Watergate but also a host of illegal fundraising operations in which he was directly knowledgeable.
Knowledge of a crime does not equal accessory to the crime. The bar for a president, OTOH, should be much higher than not being a criminal. Same goes for the AG. "No law is broken" cannot be used as an excuse. Otherwise why would Nixon try to coverup since he broke no law himself (at least prior to the coverup)?
There's ZERO analogy between Gonzalez and Nixon. Bush/Gonzalez can fire anyone they like. Just as Clinton was able to fire 92 Federal prosecutors when he took office. Did Rove need to explain to Congress the dismissal of Brown from his post at FEMA. Or discuss Rumsfeld's firing? Back to Nixon. You're right that knowledge of a crime is not in itself criminal. However abetting a criminal in the avoidance of prosecution is a crime. That's why criminal attorney's prefer to not know the complicity of their clients. If I'm a lawyer and you admit your guilt to me then I'm prohibited from developing evidence in your defense that I know is false.
This is what I responded to, relevantly...thanks for the continuing display of your emerging senility. "What law did Nixon break? Answer: None.
So in your opinion firing someone you didn't hire requires less transparency than firing someone you did hire? The law doesn't care about the difference.....