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.

While the jury for the Libby Trial deliberates into next week, there is an emerging story forming from seemingly disturbing actions taken by the U.S. Justice Department that could pan out to be far more damaging and long-lasting than any potential result of Libby's trial.

Strong public evidence suggests that the U.S. Department of Justice engaged in a concentrated, coordinated effort to bolster conservatism and GOP loyalty among our U.S. Attorneys- public servants who make a living from our tax dollars, government lawyers who are strictly supposed to stay above politics. This latest coordinated campaign of patronage goes beyond the standard cronyism we have come to expect from the Bush Administration- these actions are immoral, illegal and arguably treasonable to the American public who deserve a U.S. Justice Department unscathed by today's partisan political warfare.

Eight well-respected U.S. attorneys- most recieving high marks on their job evaluations- were fired and replaced by partisan loyalists of the Bush Administration. It turns out that the Patriot Act dismantles American liberties, rights and principles outside the War on Terror. A provision of the Patriot Act allows these "interim" appointees to serve indefinitely and without Senate approval.

David Iglesias, the departing attorney in New Mexico and the inspiration and basis for Tom Cruise's character in A Few Good Men, is the most outspoken of the fired prosecutors as he "said that two members of Congress attempted to pressure him to speed up a probe of Democrats just before the November elections." The Libby Trial touches on the possibility of retribution against Joe Wilson and his wife. Congressional and legal action taken as this story gains ground must explore the likely retribution against Iglesias and his fellow public servants.