I don’t know how to ask this without seeming snide, but did you actually read the email ABC wrote about? (I don’t know if the link to the email was there when they first posted the story).

Rove basically asks, do you guys at DoJ have a plan to fire everyone, some, or none? Oh, and an answer is not urgent.

To turn that into “Rove as behind the plan to fire everyone”, as ABC did, is one extreme interpretation.

Another view, equally plausible in my opinion, is that someone else (oh, let’s say Miers) raised the question of what might be done with the US Attorneys and suggested firing them all; Rove figured he might want to arm himself with a few facts before opining on this, so he sent off an email.

And to be clear – Ms. Miers may have spoken at a meeting, or at the water cooler; Rove may have talked to her directly or heard from another (e.g., Andy Card) that Miers had an idea for the Attorneys – not every WH chat is documented by email. But since Rove is the domestic political guru, and since the appointment of US Attorneys is quite political (e.g., Senators opine on replacements), I can see why he would be dragged into the discussion.

And that seems to be the White House story as well. Oh, well, I thought of that even before I read their response, for what that is worth.

I think that Gonzales will resign and everyone else involved, including Rove, will then hide behind his, well, I can’t use the word sacrifice in this case obviously, so let’s say surrender to the inevitable.

I am not making excuses for their conduct or defending it, I am just asking if anyone thinks the law was broken, and if so, by whom and how?

Recall the discussion over this here at TMV the past few days. The view of critics of Bush: Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to fire all the US attorneys at the start of a term…as did Clinton…the outrageous thing here is the Bush fired late in his term.

Yet now, in the story above, the outrage is that Rove wanted to fire all the attorneys at the start of the second term.
And this is the kicker…the NEW reason why this is an outrage:
“What has made the issue a political firestorm is the White House’s insistence that the idea came from Miers and was swiftly rejected.”

Folks here have disagreed about this issue, but this was NOT the reason raised in any discussion here.

As Joe notes, Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters is one of the most respected bloggers on the Net…mainly, I think, because of his strong core
principles. He clearly has a point when he says we should not be using Clinton as anyone’s core of ethical practice.

This is very true. But as Charlie Gibson puzzled about this on ABC World News Tonight…where is the illegality here? What laws were broken (other than possibly Gonzales’ testimony to Congress)?

Personally, I feel strongly that US attorneys should be hired on a non-partisan, competence basis. The administration of justice should not be partisan.

My prediction: The Democrats will try to get a scalp…Bush defended Gonzales, now it is Rove or Miers…but there will be NO change in the partisan nature of the hiring process.

The Democrats do NOT want to make these positions non-partisan…they have lots of their own hacks to be hired.

I only hope people will be consistently outraged, and call for investigations into the role and emails of WH aides, when President Hillary or Obama fire ALL the Bush-era US attorneys in 09.

I think Iraq is the biggest boondoggle we have ever taken on as a nation, but I still would value my representatives honest vote over a vote in the name of party unity.

From Salon, LOL. Makes great use of the “thumbing nose” photo you have;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDaRFf7Cd6M

Kaaaaarrrrl…Come ouuuuut…we’ve got subpoenas…