Froomkin On Point

Writing at washingtonpost.com, columnist Dan Froomkin keeps his eyes focused amidst the distraction:

The key question, that the White House continues to duck: Did Rove approve of -- or perhps even conceive of -- the idea of firing select attorneys? And if so, on what grounds? The latest e-mails certainly indicate that he was involved very early on.

Right now, Washington is engaged in feverish speculation about whether Gonzales is in his last days, or even moments, as attorney general. But as I wrote in my Wednesday column, Gonzales is a diversion.

The mainstream media was slow to get hot on the trail of this story. As Paul McLeary writes for CJR Daily, the liberal blog Talking Points Memo's dogged coverage is what kept the story alive.

But now, the mainstream media is in danger of getting distracted by the White House razzle dazzle -- and, quite possibly, by the spectacle of Bush throwing Gonzales, one of his oldest friends, overboard.

Keep your eye on Karl Rove, people.

Looking for Clues

There's been speculation that U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico was fired because he didn't file corruption charges against New Mexico Democrats in time to help Republican candidates in the 2006 election.

There's been speculation that U.S. Attorney David McKay of Washington State was fired because he didn't file voter-fraud charges in the wake of the 2004 elections, after Republicans narrowly lost the gubernatorial election.

There's been speculation that U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego was fired because of her aggressive pursuit of corruption charges against two Republican congressmen.

Now Richard A. Serrano writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Still uncertain exactly why he was fired, former U.S. Atty. H.E. 'Bud' Cummins III wonders whether it had something to do with the probe he opened into alleged corruption by Republican officials in Missouri amid a Senate race there that was promising to be a nail-biter.

"Cummins, a federal prosecutor in Arkansas, was removed from his job along with seven other U.S. attorneys last year.

"In January 2006, he had begun looking into allegations that Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt had rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts to run the state's driver's license offices. Cummins handled the case because U.S. attorneys in Missouri had recused themselves over potential conflicts of interest.

"But in June, Cummins said, he was told by the Justice Department that he would be fired at year's end to make room for Timothy Griffin -- an operative tied to White House political guru Karl Rove."

The Gonzales tenure death-watch has an American Idol allure, but is just as much a distraction. As is discussion about whether they US Attorneys 'serve at the pleasure of the President' or whether or not Clinton was unprecedented when he replaced all the US Attorneys when he came into office.

Who decided that these particular US Attorneys be replaced when they were, and more importantly, why?