I'm quite certain that it's not 'obstruction of justice'; there's never been the slightest hint that any Bush-43 U.S. Attorney was forced, through fear of firing, to instigate or to stop any ongoing DoJ investigation, prosecution, or litigation.

So that leaves... what?

First, they'll negotiate immunity with Congress. Then they'll spill every possible bean on national T.V. And then when the special prosecutor brings them to trial, they'll insist that it's impossible to get a jury that hasn't been tainted by the news of their Congressional testimony, which was offered under immunity, and although it won't get them an acquittal, it will probably buy them a reversal on 5th amendment grounds. Those pesky technicalities, you know, that conservative Republicans hate so much.

Well, then Rove et al. have nothing to worry about, do they?

there's never been the slightest hint that any Bush-43 U.S. Attorney was forced, through fear of firing, to instigate or to stop any ongoing DoJ investigation, prosecution, or litigation.

Yep. Similarly, WMDs were found in Iraq, Saddam was found to have planned 9/11, and abstinence-only sex ed works! You've been right all along, E-Man!!

Meanwhile, you really need to tell the dozens of administration officials who apparently resigned over nothing at all, that they can have their jobs back.

Elephantman, I assume you are just trying to be funny, but if you are indeed serious about your question then my understanding is its illegal (literally illegal) to have political litmus tests in the hiring/firing process at the DOJ. They refused to hire qualified people that leaned to the left politically and promoted unqualified poeple that leaned to the right. In addition, there is speculation (possibly evidence) of forced resignations due to political agendas. Remember Monica Goodling?

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/07/29/attorney-gate-update-hiring-laws-were-broken-far-and-wide.htm

@elephantman

Well, then Rove et al. have nothing to worry about, do they?

-- marktgarten

As to Rove, Harriet Meiers, President Bush -- yes, indeed, I think they all have nothing to worry about. Or should rightly have nothing to worry about. The DoJ tried once to get Karl Rove, in relation to the Scooter Libby kangaroo court, but failed. I think this is all going nowhere. I could be wrong; I wrongly predicted that there was no way Libby could be convicted, but juries can do amazingly ignorant things sometimes.

Remember, what we are talking about are the firings of the U.S. Attorneys. Who serve at the pleasure of the President. Naturally, the President cannot use that executive privilege to foil a legal investigation, nor to use the DoJ to foment new prosecutions for political reasons. None of you have cited any examples of such executive abuses.

The resignation of Monica Goodling was only tangentially related to the U.S. Attorney firings. Rather, Ms. Goodling resigned under pressure in relation to her involvement in hiring lower-level attorneys at Justice.

The US system of justice, a system you on the right are clearly unfamiliar with

1. The formal role of the Department of Justice is a non-partisan, non-politically influenced one. It and the US State Attorneys in question here exist to enforce the law, regardless of political affiliation. Evidence that political reasons, as opposed to job performance ones, were the cause for the attorneys' dismissal would be evidence of wrongdoing and corruption in the DoJ (itself a violation of US Code), and possibly into the White House, if evidence was provided showing definitively that then Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove was involved, as current evidence suggests. Monica Goodling has admitted that she violated civil service rules about hiring and the role of political factors in them.

3. The White House's practice of using a non-governmental server to conduct government business, then not providing all emails when required by Congressional order, could be a violation of the Presidential Records Act and the Hatch Act.

2. Furthermore, testimony before congress by DoJ and Administration officials was often contradictory, with the administration itself releasing conflicting statements about the timeline of events involved in the controversy. A possible implication of this is that DoJ and administration officials willingly perjured themselves to mislead Congress, resulting in the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate this. When President Clinton gave his infamous statement before Congress about his sexual relations, the Republican Party was demanding his impeachment. Now that there's evidence suggesting that members of the following Republican administration perjured themselves, you're saying it doesn't matter at all. At least be honest about your motives.

When President Obama goes about the business of hiring new U.S. Attorneys, they are going to be politcal appointees, selected because their politics match with the President's views. They will all go through Senate confirmation, and at the end of this presidetial term, he may ask for resignations from a handful, and make new appointments. That is standard operating procedure. Practically all Presidents do it. The DoJ is part of the Executive branch, after all.

Lower-level staff prosecutors at Justice are supposed to be free from political taint, and their civil service rules make it illegal to hire or fire them for political reasons. Karl Rove is not accused of that; I've not heard a single allegation in that regard, hence my original question in the first post in this thread.

We do know that there is a long-standing, decidedly liberal bias within the Department of Justice staff attorneys, taken as a large group. The Bush Administration has been viewed harshly by the DoJ careerists as a result.

But by all means, if someone can come up with a specific crime that Karl Rove appears likely to have violated with respect to the firings of U.S. Attorneys, please feel free to let us all know.

"I could be wrong; I wrongly predicted that there was no way Libby could be convicted, but juries can do amazingly ignorant things sometimes."

Since you have such a strong reaction to the jury in the Libby trial, should we assume that you are a lawyer practicing criminal law and were present in courtroom throughout that trial?