Among other things, these communications discuss the wisdom of such a proposal, specific U.S. Attorneys who could be removed, potential replacement candidates, and possible responses to congressional and media inquiries about the dismissals.
Which happens to be all the things that Gonzales, McNulty, Goodling and Sampson just didn't seem to know when they all testified before congress.
Whatta coinkydink?
If the real reason these USA's were fired and summarily replaced with "Loyal Bushies" was to facilitate the implementation of a vast voter suppression scheme for the 2008 elections - ladies and gentlement we have a very massive criminal conspiracy implement and directed out of the White House.
Congress would have great latitude to fully investigate such a crime as has been pointed out by Columbia University law professor Michael Dorf...
the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon that, "where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, [executive privilege] must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution."
It also should be noted that the courts decision in US V Nixon was unanimous.
In both the NSA and DOJ purging cases, there is ample and compelling evidence based on existing Congressional testimony and documentation that multple crimes may have been committed by various White House personnel and that in a manner similar to US V Nixon, the claim of executive privilege should be voided and the relevant documents provided to Congress without delay.
Vyan
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
