....is just the most recent example of what has been going on for quite some time--This conservative hostility to the courts/legal system, and their desire to control it, intimidate it, neuter it, or own it.

... they hate it because their normal talkingpoint-PR nonsense doesn't work there, and so they lose on the facts. Thus, the huge hostility to the whole judicial branch.

That's why it was enjoyable watching ID fold in the Dover case, and that's why it was enjoyable watching the facts aired in the Libby case in a forum where they could not be spun away with irrelevancies (because in court, irrelevant evidence is excluded).

Karl Rove can't defend himself in a perjury prosecution by complaining that the press didn't give more coverage to Sandy Berger's pants or to $90K in a freezer. And that just infuriates conservatives.

There is a wonderful sentence in Edward Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall' that illustrates WHY this particular scandal is so important, and why reducing the U.S. Dept. of Justice into the law-enforcement arm of the GOP is so dangerous. In describing the corrupt magistrates of late medieval Rome, he writes, "[T]heir justice was perverted by the interest of their family and faction; and AS THEY PUNISHED ONLY THEIR ENEMIES, THEY WERE OBEYED ONLY BY THEIR ADHERENTS." [Ch. 69; emphasis added]

Prior to the so-called Reagan/Republican Revolution, the question of which political party appointed an American judge or prosecutor was of minor interest, and only to academics. In these degenerate times, a citizen and litigant would be foolish NOT to consider (and perhaps weigh heavily) the partisanship of those individuals in whom his or her fate rests.

Has stated that if the democrats think something really stinks in this firing of the attorneys matter to go for an independent counsel. I say go for it.

......"Only five of almost 500 attorneys have been fired midterm in the last 25 years. Can we stop saying what Bush did is just what every president does?"

This is typical. It's like "Al Gore claims he invented the internet". Some talking point comes down from on high, some radio loudmouths repeat it, and then all of a sudden everywhere you turn you hear it.

The liberal media. Yeah right.

To compare the customary replacement of an entire staff of U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a president’s term (yes Clinton did it; so did George H.W. Bush and Ronald Regan), with the eight targeted firings of those attorney’s who were successfully prosecuting corrupt Republicans and not moving fast enough in prosecuting Democratic elected officials is disingenuous at best.

For example the removal of San Diego based U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, who had just successfully prosecuted and convicted Representative Duke Cunningham (R) in the biggest congressional corruption case ever, is disgraceful. Just as she was about to move on Republican congressman Jerry Lewis linked in the same defense procurement scandal, Karl Rove had her fired. Remember Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he didn't have anything to do with it. George Bush hasn't taken responsibility either.

But "mistakes were made." What they were and who made them; they won't say.

Ronald Reagan appointee Peter Nunez, who served as the U.S. attorney in charge of the San Diego offices from 1982 to 1988 summed it up best when he said. "I was in a state of shock. It's just like nothing I've ever seen before in 35-plus years. To be asked to resign and to be publicly humiliated by leaking this to the press is beyond any bounds of decency and behavior. It shocks me. It really is outrageous!" http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/16/news/sandiego/1_04_311_15_07.txt

Perhaps the more important question is not "What did they do to get fired?" but rather "What did the others have do to keep their jobs?"

Only five of almost 500 attorneys have been fired midterm in the last 25 years. Can we stop saying what Bush did is just what every president does?

Ms. Walsh, I do not mean to disagree, but you are asking the wrong question. The actual question should be:

Can the lapdog, media whoring, gang of 500 pre$$titutes stop saying what Bush did is just what every president does?
()

With the exception of Mr. Kieth Olbermann, I can say with complete certainty that the answer is NO.

To attempt to get the gang of 500 to stop doing he said/she said reporting is like trying to teach a pig to fly. It waste your time and annoys the pig.

Could somebody please clarify for me what this is about?

It's obvious that Bush did a partisan thing. It's obvious that it's completely unprecedented. Everybody everywhere knows it's wrong.

But as far as I can tell it's not illegal. These attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

What does Congress hope to get out of putting Rove on the stand? Maybe they can get him to say, "Yes, we fired them because they were our political opponents and I hate Democrats." And then there's a whole lot of "See! We told you!", followed by nothing whatsoever, since no crime was committed.

So can somebody please explain why this is such a big deal? Are we just hoping that one of Rove's spins verges into lying so that we can put him on trial for perjury?

If the truth comes out that not only were the attorneys fired for failing to be "loyal Bushies," but also because they were investigating Republican corruption, then it becomes an Obstruction case.

If the administration can prove that this is not the case, they should say so.

Under oath. Because if they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear.

The point of the hearings is not, I gather, to try to Perry Mason one of the Bushies on the witness stand. It is to have them try to justify their public reasons in light of their private plan; i.e., to get some more obediant cronies in those USA offices. And while it is true that USAs serve at the pleasure of the President, and it is hence not illegal to fire any or all at will, it is also true that appointments of USAs had to go through Senate confirmation (at least, with the exception of those few months that confirmation was made unnecessary under a hidden provision in the Patriot Act).

So really, the Senate Justice committee is just having the hearings that they are suppsoed to have in the first place, only now they want to ask not only why someone should be hired, but why someone else was fired. And from the looks of yesterday's committee hearing, a few of them are mighty pissed about it, and ready to demand the Administration try to sell their bullshit lines under the glare of the kliegs. Remember, in governement the best disinfectant is sunlight; Lord knows the White House could use a good fumigation..