Isn't Bush legally obligated to put Rove on a "Leave of Absence"?

[drbtg1]

I'm aware of the political appearance if Bush did this, but this is a legal investigation? Isn't there plenty of precedent for people to take leave of absences during an ongoing investigation?

Particularly when Rove may have access to people in sensitive positions, evidence, and the possibility of future illegal actions, doesn't Bush have a preeminent responsibility to put Rove on leave or else Bush is being derelict in HIS duties as leader of the executive branch?

Has anyone in the press asked this?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

1. Who is going to

run the country then ?

[joanne]

2. Crashcart has been running it since 2001 anyway

from his "undisclosed location"

[insane_cratic_gal]

3. Not Cheney he's still

being fitted for his Tin Man heart. I guess Condi will have to be his handler.

[drbtg1]

4. LOL!

I don't mean to scare you, but they have a very deep bench on the PNAC team.

[shraby]

5. He should because who knows how many more

state secrets Rove has passed on, maybe to other countries. We know Chalabi was supposed to have passed to Iran the fact that we broke Iran's communication code. Did that go from Rove to Chalabi?

[drbtg1]

6. Good point, and the longer Bush tries to ignore this...

...the more Bush become an accomplice to this.