Digby is worth reading...

Digby ended the week right for me....and gave me plenty to "riff on".

Let's review:The Republican talking point de jour regarding the firing of the US Attorneys is that "it's perfectly normal, legal and common....fercrissakkes...CLINTON even did it." Even some liberal commentators, or perhaps members of the "chattering class" are parrotting the points that the Attorney's "Serve at the Pleasure of the President".

It follows, then, that if those things are true, then this must be just some form of "scandal mongering" from the Democrats.

I have been forced to personnally defend this position a couple of times this week, and, as is my nature, my explanation tends to get lost in the details and overlooks the simple, straight-forward truth of the matter. Digby does much better. Here's how he explains it:

"What they don't expect is that the political apparatus of the White
House will use the Department of Justice as a tool to protect criminal
wrongdoing among their own and trump up charges against their political
opponents. That is not just a different focus or legal prioity. That's
corruption, pure and simple, and may constitute obstruction of justice. (And
believe me, if there had been any evidence that Clionton had such motivations
the Republican congress would have investigated it in 1994 when they took
office. They investigated everything.) ..."

What lead Digby to go through this explanation for the "umpteenth time" is columnist Michael Kinsley at Time Magazines blogspot, The Swamp, who still can't see the problem with the firings....

It's the "obstruction of justice", Stupid! Could be the watchword now days.....

There's something even more ironic in Kinsley's article though, and Digby was quick to jump on it. It was that Kinsley essentially prefers that matters like this be handled through the ballot box as opposed to the "investigation and hearings " process.

The irony should be burning your soul by now.....because,in addition to ridding themselves of U. S. Attorneys who dared prosecute Republicans, the Attorneys were also to be removed for FAILING TO PROSECUTE DEMOCRATS on charges of "election fraud"....you know, like registering voters, or maybe like allowing people of color to vote...or, maybe daring to register voters, you know, THAT kind of "election fraud". The record shows clearly that there were multiple attempts to get Attorneys to file such charges and, with the exception of a few cases, they were almost always FALSE. Kinsley's precious sanctity of the ballot box was in fact the target of the obstruction of justice....irony, indeed.

It isn't a conspiracy theory any more. The Republican party apparatus intends (notice it's not the past tense, "intended") to create a permanent Conservative Majority by controlling the ballot boxes, the election process, and access to voting itself.Of course, Digby writes much better than I so go read him.

He also links to: John Dean at Findlaw as well as Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo.on the same subject....also well worth clicking on...

UPDATE....UPDATE... 5:38P.M.

Evidently McClatchy Newspapers has an update that's brought to us from TALKING POINTS MEMO MUCKRAKER (TPM Muckraker)

from McClatchy:

Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in 2008. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired.

Rove thanked the audience for “all that you are doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the integrity of the ballot is protected.” He added, “A lot in American politics is up for grabs.”...

One audience member asked Rove whether he’d “thought about using the bully pulpit of the White House to talk about election reform and an election integrity agenda that would put the Democrats back on the defensive.”

“Yes, it’s an interesting idea,” Rove responded.