With the US Attorneys purge coming to a head, I went over to the Washington Post website and read some of the emails between White House counsel Harriet Miers and Gonzales's Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson.  Page 3 stuck out at me.

Page 3 was an email from Sampson to Miers, describing his system for marking which US Attorneys should be kept or pushed out:

----- 

     From: Sampson, Kyle

     Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 5:42 PM

     To: 'Harriet Miers'

     Subject: U.S. Attorneys 

     To be clear, putting aside the question of expiring terms, the analysis on the chart I gave you is as follows:

     bold = Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and the Attorney General.

     strikethrough = Recommend removing; weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.

     nothing = No recommendation; have not distinguished themselves either positively or negatively. 

----- 

Take a good look at that first category, the one where Sampson bolded the names ("strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and the Attorney General"). 

I just took the LSATs back in February, and I spent a lot of time working with those prep books.  Every LSAT prep book, in highlighting the importance of reading every passage closely, makes sure to mention the key difference between the conjunctions "and" & "or" within a sentence. 

For example, if a law says that a rented property can be occupied by 'the renter OR his family,' then the renter's brother could sublet the place, but if it stipulated 'the renter AND his family,' then the person on the lease would have to be in the house.  The difference between "and" & "or" is massive and critical, and any lawyer in America, especially the Attorney General's Chief of Staff, knows that by rote.