Why are federal prosecutor firings important?

In my previous post, I discussed the meaning of the Unitary Executive Theory ("The President is the Law") with the use of secrecy (Executive Privilege) and how the courts ruled on these questions. Combining the unitary executive theory with executive privilege gives rise to certain queries. Can Bush be charged with the same Articles of Impeachment as Nixon? In 1974, the House voted "yea" on the crimes of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress. Is Bush a criminal? Did he obstruct justice? Did he lie to Congress? Did Gonzales lie to Congress? What does Patrick Fitzgerald know and when did he know it? Does Fitzgerald have any of Karl Rove's secret RNC/private domain e-mails? Did the White House and cronies weave an illegal conspiracy? Let's put some activities together: the outing of Valerie Plame, a top-secret CIA covert operative, for which Lewis (Scooter) Libby was found guilty of perjury even though the chain of events obviously began with his higher-ups; the firing of federal prosecutors to be replaced by loyal "Bushies"; the Power Point presentation of Rove's aide to the head of the General Services Administration about how the GSA can help undermine Democratic candidates nationwide and insert Republicans; the Republican-led pursuit of "voter fraud" despite the lack of proof that it occurs; "Voter Fraud" as a code word for disenfranchising the elderly, poor and/or minority voter by creating fear and requiring expensive and time-consuming applications for Voter IDs; the expunging of so-called "felons" from the voting rolls in Florida in 2000, a tactic still in use and many, many more items. Remember push polling?

David Iglesias, the former New Mexico federal prosecutor, was ostensibly fired because he did not bring enough cases of voter fraud. The partisan nature of this firing is proven by actions taken by Republican congresspeople shortly before the 2006 elections. Heather Wilson, a New Mexico representative, called Iglesias to ask him about a case under sealed indictment at the time. Iglesias felt surprised and uneasy. He doesn't (or maybe, cannot) discuss pending indictments under seal. Then Wilson's mentor, Senator Pete Domenici, Republican from New Mexico, called Iglesias at his home. He asks Iglesias if he's going to bring charges against some Democrat before the elections. Iglesias says no. Domenici answers, "That's too bad," or some such phrase, and hangs up on him. What's wrong with this picture? A Senator does not call a federal prosecutor at his home to discuss a case. It's against protocol, it's unseemly, it's threatening (but is it illegal)? Domenici was obviously leaning on Iglesias to use his post to win one for the team at the cost of justice. Then Domenici goes back to Rove, Gonzales, Bush, Sampson, whomever in the obscured chain of command, and complained about Iglesias. A major New Mexico Republican campaign contributor also complained about Iglesias. Iglesias was fired with the other prosecutors on the date that will live in infamy: December 7, 2006, right after the mid-term elections.

Iglesias is going to protest his firing. He was a member of a branch of the military (either the National Guard or the Army Reserves) for whom the law states that the employer must leave a position open when the member returns to civilian life. The Justice Department claims now one of the reasons he was fired was because he was out of the office too often. That's because he was in Iraq. These prosecutors were fired because they weren't loyal "Bushies"; that's the only conclusion one can come to after examining the evidence. Federal prosecutors are often purged at the beginning of a President's first term, but very rarely in the middle of his second term. It's just part of the master plan of Rove, Bush, Cheney, et al to replace Democrats and liberal (if there are any), moderate, centrist or even ordinary conservative Republicans with radical Republicans of the "Bushie" stamp. What is the "Bushie" type? They're easy to distinguish. They are members of the Federalist Society. They have the correct stance on Roe v. Wade. They've done fundraising for the Republican party. They've attended Regent University, a school founded by Pat Robertson of the 700 Club.

At least 150 graduates of Regent's law school have served in the Bush administration. Before 2001, it was rare for Regent graduates to get government jobs. However, the Bush administration's appointment of the Dean of Regent's Government School, Kay Cole James, as Director of the Office of Personnel Management, caused "the doors of opportunity to be thrown open to Regent alumni." Although the Regent Law School is accredited by the ABA, it is ranked in the fourth tier (the lowest tier) by U.S. News and World Report, tied for 136th out of 170 law schools surveyed. It is ranked lower than the typical alma mater of Department of Justice employees. These Regent graduates have less experience in (among other things) civil rights.

This is all part and parcel of the conspiracy to wed church and state throughout the three branches of government, replacing the Founding Fathers' vision with Pat Robertson's vision, "There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the left and we are not going to take it anymore" (November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice). The marriage of the Bush administration and Robertson's evangelicals is mutally beneficial. Bush gets loyal, unwavering proselytizers who toe the company line. The "Bushies" get jobs and treasure during this lifetime. They don't have to wait for Judgment Day to get their due.

The question is not so much, why did Rove, Bush, Gonzales, Cheney et al get rid of those prosecutors. They got rid of them because they were not reliable "Bushies". The question is, who did they put in place as loyal "Bushies"? What are these prosecutors doing? What kind of cases are they pursuing? I remember the federal prosecutor in New Jersey bringing corruption charges against Senator Menendez right before the midterm elections. Menendez was in a close race and with the corruption charges tacked on, the race got even closer. This is a typical Rovian tactic, to slash-and-burn right before an election. Remember the push poll question about John McCain right before the South Carolina primary in 2000? "Would you vote for John McCain for President if you knew he fathered an illegitimate black child?" Does everyone tied in with Bush et al share this vision of a permanent Republican majority? Who needs "democracy" when you can put in place the building blocks to wield power in perpetuity? (If you're a Regent University-trained lawyer, look up "perpetuity". It means "the rest of us are in deep do-do.")

Back to the fired federal prosecutors and the missing and redacted emails. The administration (or the Justice Department, or both) admits that it told one soon-to-be-fired prosecutor he was to be replaced by a Rove protege. The parties involved probably thought that pseudo-nepotism was better than blatant partisanship covered up with obvious lies. To sum up, is what they did wrong and if so, is it illegal? Can we prove it? It's not illegal to fire a federal prosecutor. As their talking point goes, "They serve at the pleasure of the President." Is it illegal to put machinery in place to sustain your dominion forever? Is it legal to wipe your opponents off the face of the earth? If the Bush administration exists to install a permanent Republican majority and rape and pillage the taxpayer-supported government, if Bush, by virtue of the "unitary executive theory" promulgated by the Federalist Society, is actually "the Law", do we not live in a kingdom not of God, but of avaricious men headed by the smirking face of a true amoral leader?