Nice powerplay by McNulty. He's telling Rove as well as Gonzales, "You can't fire me; I'm already gone!", which frees McNulty to do whatever he thinks is right, rather than kissing Rove's backside every day.  And when Gonzales comes whining, he can tell Gonzo where to shove it. Nice move.

p.s. ya gotta love the line - stay "until the senate approves his successor..." now THAT'S gonna be a show...!

This remains politics. All politics. The Demos had best be able to find someone guilty of something, or else they are going to look foolish when all is said and done.

In the meantime, the Demos have been able to disupt DOJ just like they have disrupted the war...

From the Wikipedia:

Administration rationale unclear

The actual reasons for the dismissals remain unclear. One commonly suggested motivation is that the administration wanted to replace several of the U.S. Attorneys with personnel more sympathetic to the administration's political agendas and to advance the careers of promising conservatives.[10][11][12] The administration and its supporters say the attorneys were dismissed for job-performance reasons "related to policy, priorities and management", and that United States Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Under U.S. law the President may dismiss a U.S. Attorney at any time. Critics say that the attorneys were fired for failing to prosecute enough Democrats particularly in regards to elections (see also: Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson), or as retribution for prosecuting Republicans (such as the prosecution of Randy Cunningham by Carol Lam or the investigation of Rick Renzi by Paul Charlton). Legal scholars have stated that firing attorneys to block investigations and pursue political retribution could violate the duty of the President to faithfully execute the laws under the constitution and could be construed as "corrupting" a government proceeding in violation of federal law.[13] Congressional investigations have focused on whether the Department of Justice was politicizing the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys.

Administration testimony contradicted by documents

Members of Congress investigating the reasons for the dismissals have found that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials appears to contradict internal Department memos and e-mails, possibly indicating that Congress was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remains unclear despite hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and others before congressional committee.[14][15] The Bush administration has issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.[16][17][18][19]

PPJ, thanks for channeling the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz, but we've looked behind the curtain, and to use an old-fashioned expression, what's been seen is humbug, pure and simple.

Goodling resignation

On March 26, 2007 it was announced Monica Goodling took leave from her job as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House.[71] Goodling was set to testify before Congress, but on March 26, 2007, Goodling cancelled her upcoming appearance at a Congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.[72][73] On April 6, 2007, Ms. Goodling announced her resignation from the Department of Justice.[74] She had helped coordinate the dismissal of the attorneys with the White House.[75] Goodling stating in her three-sentence resignation letter to Mr. Gonzales "May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America."[75] On April 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution,[76] by a 32-6 vote, authorizing lawyers for the House to apply for a court order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony, surpassing the required 2/3 majority, and immediately authorized a subpoena for her.[77]

On May 11, 2007 U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order[78] granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her truthful testimony in the U.S. Attorney firings investigation, stating that "Goodling may not refuse to testify, and may not refuse to provide other information, when compelled to do so" before the Committee.

and folks are contradicting each other:

Sampson testimony

Sampson appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 29, 2007 to discuss the firings. At that hearing, Sampson stated that, contrary to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's prior statements, the Attorney General had been involved in the final decision to dismiss the US Attorneys. "I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate...I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign."[87]

but PPJ, at least one person involved in it has cited politics as the reason, but not your with your dismissive and shoddy attempt at a comeback:

Then on March 21, Iglesias wrote an opinion piece that was published in the New York Times.[129] In that article he stated that "it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters...[M]y name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign -- even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a "diverse up and comer" in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)...[the fired U.S. attorneys] had apparently been singled out for political reasons."[129]

In addition, Iglesias responded to critics about his failure to pursue voter fraud cases: "As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution...After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute."[129]

Keep those fingers in the ears PPJ, you're doing fine and you'll win those Rove points sooner or later.

In the meantime, it is all politics...

I don't think you need either of us to be your secretary in this matter, but if you somehow overlook it because of your busy and important life, I might let you know, can't speak for Sailor as I wouldn't know him from Adam's' off-ox.

Anyhoo, folks can look to the Wikipedia I cited above and not have to rely on you, sailor, SUO, myself, etc. as to their opinion on the matter, etc.

You're fast becoming the Flieger Schultz around here, so have a good yadda-yaddah today, o wrinkled font of wisdom(not).