CY, what happened to my last comment? It contained two hyperlinks with quotations from each. What was your problem with that?

Oh, I dunno... the fact that this comment thread is for folks talking about what they've found in the DOJ emails, and your comments were not?

You post says: "This story has certainly evolved into a scandal, but for all the embarrassment and grandstanding, I still don't see where anything illegal has occurred. Have I just not been following this closely enough?"

My comment was specifically in response to that. The links I provided present a case for obstruction of justice.

Aside from the catch-all of obstruction of justice, the real issue isn't legality, but ethics. It's almost identical to the allegations that Clinton used the IRS to harass opponents; that may not have been illegal, but certainly was deeply unethical and scandalous (assuming ex arguendo it occurred).

Fair enough, Lex. I apologize.

I'm reposting your comment:

"Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired."

--Link

"Four months after the San Diego United States Attorney's office launched an investigation into whether he had accepted bribes from defense contractors, and little more than a month before he pled guilty to those charges, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) signed on to a letter criticizing U.S. Attorney Carol Lam's 'lax' handling of immigration crimes."

--Link

Thanks!

The Dems talk about how the US Attorneys should not be a political issue, but they sure have worked hard to make it one.

Jan 9, 2007 "Recently, it has come to our attention that the Department of Justice has asked several U.S. Attorneys from around the country to resign their positions by the end of the month, prior to the end of their terms without cause."

Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt3-10070319.pdf - pgs 9,10. Starting on page 12 are Feinsteins statements and news articles starting Jan 16, 2007 to make this a political issue.

All of the "fired" USAs had expired terms, the latest one being Carol Lam whose term expired Nov. 18,2006. See pages 20-28 here : http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt2-5070319.pdf

All were notified Dec 7, 2006 that they would not be continued. They were not told to "resign by the end of the month" as Feinstein and Leahy contend. Most of their resignations take effect between late January and early March.

Cummins left because he had indicated (April 06) he would not stay for the entire second term.
Also within these pages are some of the reasons (just cause) DOJ did not want to continue with these USAs.

Issues listed:
- Management
- lack of energy
- judgment
- case management system not used
- morale has fallen
- use of time management
- focused too much time on personally trying cases than managing USAO
- pattern of insubordination
- temperament issues
- extensive focus and travel outside of district
- most fractured office in the Nation

Of course, according to the Dems, the USAs do serve at the pleasure of the Executive and the President can replace USAs at will - but apparently "at will" means "by and with the consent of Congress". I thought that only applied to nomination confirmations....

I lost track of which document, but in some of the emails, it looks as if at least the Senators of the States where these USAs are were notified at around the same time as the USAs - early December, 2006.