Surprise, surprise. The White House can't account for those emails using GOP accounts. They were "mishandled." So sorry.

The evidence shows it was an open secret that if any of the Bush Administration operatives wanted to email each other about stuff they didn't want coming out, they used their GOP email accounts. And now that the Democrats are onto their trick, the emails mysteriously disappear.

People don't give Bush and his people enough credit. They at least managed to ditch the evidence, something Richard Nixon wished he would have done with all those tapes.

They aren't out of the woods yet. Could be some staffer somewhere will get Libby'd, and charged with obstruction for losing these emails. But hey, that's probably better than finding out exactly what they were saying in those emails.

With all the lies he's told over the past few weeks, Gonzo needs to train hard to tell the truth:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has retreated from public view this week in an intensive effort to save his job, spending hours practicing testimony and phoning lawmakers for support in preparation for pivotal appearances in the Senate this month, according to administration officials.

Bud Cummins, the U.S. Attorney for Arkansas who was fired to make room for Karl Rove's deputy, explains in a very non-partisan way the damage this action did.

The president had an absolute right to fire us. We served at his pleasure, and that meant we could be dismissed for any reason or for no reason. And we all accepted that fact without complaint. When challenged by Congress, the leaders of the Department of Justice could have refused to explain. Or, they could have explained the truth. But apparently the truth behind some or all of the firings was embarrassing. So, instead, they said it was because of "performance." We didn't accept that, because it wasn't the truth.

In spite of statements and representations to the contrary, there was no credible performance review process prior to the firings -- at least, not using the definition of "performance" known to most people. There is not one document to evidence such a review. The department's leaders did not consult any of the reports or the people that could have provided information relevant to the performance of the U.S. attorneys they fired. In fact, in the case of my seven colleagues, they actually fired some pretty damn good U.S. attorneys -- and knowledgeable people in those attorneys' communities back home know that to be the truth. Nobody seems to believe the department's explanations.

To this day, we don't really know why we were singled out to be fired. I am not sure Department of Justice managers even know at this point. But you can read the newspapers and watch the congressional hearings and easily conclude that some of the motivations were likely ... unattractive. This was hardly this administration's brightest shining moment. It doesn't appear any laws were broken, so it makes it even worse that there is such a reluctance on the administration's part to simply admit the obvious and move on. It hurts their credibility....

Put simply, the Department of Justice lives on credibility. When a federal prosecutor sends FBI agents to your brother's house with an arrest warrant, demonstrating an intention to take away years of his liberty, separate him from his family, and take away his property, you and the public at large must have absolute confidence that the sole reason for those actions is that there was substantial evidence to suggest that your brother intentionally committed a federal crime. Everyone must have confidence that the prosecutor exercised his or her vast discretion in a neutral and nonpartisan pursuit of the facts and the law.

Did Alberto Gonzales lie when he said he wasn't involved in discussions about the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys? That depends on you definition of "involved."

Watch the video.

First, their defense centers around the mantra "Clinton did it too." Now they are channeling Slick Willy. This scandal even has it's own Monica. If I were a Republican, I'd be embarrassed.

Guess that's why the Pew Research poll found that 50 percent of Americans not identify themselves as Democrats or lean that way, compared to 35 percent for Republicans. Four years ago, those numbers were tied at 43 percent for both parties.

It's only been a couple of months of this new Congress, and already scandals are dropping out of the Executive Branch like candy from a pinata.

I keep hearing Bush supporters whining about how the firing of these eight U.S. Attorneys is completely legal, and that no one did anything wrong. But if that is so, why did AG Gonzales lie under oath to Congress? I'm assuming the nation's top lawyer would not commit perjury on a whim. Either he is a compulsive liar, or he' hiding something rather incriminating to have lied to Congress.

Then, he turned around and lied at the press conference about his role in the firings. Again, is he stupid, or covering up?

Now, one of his officials is taking the fifth rather than testify.

Again, if there is nothing illegal here, why not just tell the truth? My, these people sure are scared.

The right wing machine keeps echoing the same lame excuse over and over, that the U.S. Attorney purge is much ado about nothing, that no laws were broken, that the president has the power to fire political appointees at any time for any reason.

And in the narrow legal sense, they are right. These attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. He CAN fire them, anytime and for any reason.

In the same vein, I have the power to shred every document in my desk if I want. They are my papers, and I can can do with them what I please. But if I knowingly shred a document that impacts a criminal investigation, I can be charged with obstruction of justice. For shredding my own papers. Because it's not the shredding, or the firings, that are the crimes, it's the RESULTS of those actions that could be illegal, depending on what the intent was. If Bush or his people made the decision to fire any of these attorneys in order to hinder any investigation, even if it was only one part of the rational for the firings, that is obstruction.

Just because you have the power to do something, doesn't mean there will not be consequences for that action. Now, it would seem the smart people over at the Wall Street Journal and New York Post could grasp this simple concept.

Take a guess who said this:

Evidently, [the president] wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that [the administration] values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in [the president] will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law.

Glenn Greewald knows. Maybe someone can ask a question of the author of this quote at a certain press briefing in a certain white house on Pennsylvania Avenue, about how this applies to President Bush refusing to let his aides testify about the U.S. Attorney purge.

I've been seeing how right-wing pundits have been reacting to this purge of U.S. Attorneys, and it's a chorus of, "There's nothing illegal here, the president can fire U.S. Attorneys whenever he wants."

And they are right, in a narrow legal sense. And going through the document dump today, I can see how people can try and confuse the real issues here. It's time to keep score of what actually is being done wrong here, and by who, covering the areas of legal, constitutional and ethical violations.

Legal
Perjury: This one is pretty cut and dried. It's pretty clear that Alberto Gonzales and some of his people lied under oath before Congress. Telling Congress that the firings were for "performance" and not political is technically perjury. Gonzales will probably claim that he was misinformed by his staff, but the emails coming out show this to be a lie, too. He might slither his way out of this, but only by blaming his staff.

Obstruction of justice: This is where it can really get interesting. If it can be proved that the firings were done to hinder investigations of Republicans allies, then that is obstruction. The headline case for this is Carol Lam, USA in San Diego. The email from Kyle Sampson talking about the "problem" they have with Lam is pretty damning. As people start talking and making deals to save their hides, who knows what will come rolling out.

Constitutional
High crimes and misdemeanors: While there is no specific law saying that a president can't hire and fire U.S. Attorneys on the premise of prosecuting enemies and helping friends, it goes against the spirit of the Constitution. For there to be a fair and impartial system of justice, you can't have prosecutors who are doing partisan dirty work. This is where the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause in the Constitution comes into play. Could it be an impeachable office? Sure, but with 49 Republicans in the Senate, there is no chance that anyone would be removed from office. It would take something more damning that this for 15 Republicans to ditch their president.

TPMmuckraker is going through the latest document dump on the U.S. Attorney firings

What strikes me about the emails I've read so far is that here you had Republicans firing Republicans, and lying about the reasons to hide the political nature of the act. I read a couple of emails from USA Margaret Chiara, which she is pleading with her superior to tell the real reason for her firing or she will face "financial catastrophe," and will have a hard time finding a job.

Chiara in one email wrote, "Of course, we do need to retain control of the Senate to facilitate confirmations." She would seem to be a loyal Republican to say such a thing. Too bad she didn't know about the Patriot Act provision that made confirmations unnecessary.

The Bush mob has now sunk to the level of eating their own.