Democrats have charged that the dismissals of 7 to 10 United States attorneys amounted to an effort to make room for favorites of the Bush administration by ousting independent-minded prosecutors, all Republicans appointed by President Bush.

One disputed case involves H. E. Cummins III, a United States attorney in Arkansas who was asked to step down last summer although his office had increased drug and firearms prosecutions and he had helped organize a multiagency counterterrorism council.

To temporarily replace Mr. Cummins, the Justice Department named J. Timothy Griffin, a former military and civilian prosecutor who was a political director for the Republican National Committee and who once worked as a deputy to Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser.

At the hearing, Mr. McNulty was asked by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, whether it was accurate to say that Mr. Cummins had not done anything wrong to justify his removal. Mr. McNulty replied, "I do not dispute that characterization."

Had Mr. Cummins ever received a poor performance evaluation, Mr. Schumer asked.

Mr. McNulty answered, "I'm not aware of anything negative."

Mr. McNulty said that because the attorneys are presidential appointees, they can be replaced at any time without a specific reason. ....(and) the appointment of Mr. Griffin was a chance for "a fresh start with a new person."

NYT

McNulty went on to say that although Griffin didn't have extensive experience as a prosecutor, he was in fact qualified for the job, and that many past appointees had similar ties to political activities and Griffins past should not disqualify him.

Schumer and others were quick to disagree. "I can't even see how Mr. Griffin would be better qualified in any way than Bud Cummins, who had done a good job, who was well respected, who had now had years of experience," said Schumer. Arkansas Democrat, Mark Pryor said, he would not support Griffin's nomination and that as the former State Attorney General he knew many lawyers in Arkansas but, "knew little" of Griffin's legal background.

Tuesday hearing comes after weeks of speculation about the dismissals and the replacements.

ePluribus Media has been following the story of the Gonzales Seven and is continuing to try to get to the bottom of the it.

On the ePluribus Media Journal

The Gonzales Seven, Jan. 29, 2007

...and here on the Community

The Gonzales Seven: Spotlight on US Attorney Daniel Bogden's Resignation, Feb 04, 2007

The Gonzales Seven: The Replacement U.S. Attorneys, Feb 6, 2007

The Gonzales 7: Part III (The Denial) Feb. 7, 2007

It's pretty obvious that despite all the protestations from the Administration, there is a strong political component behind the turnover.  

So far a few theories as to the ultimate reason for the action have been floated around, and it might be beneficial to recap where we are right now.

We know that in some of the cases, those forced to resign had been part of major investigations of top Republicans ...like the Duke Cunningham case, so there could be retribution component to the dismissals.    

Also riling Democrats is the case of former San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, whose pursuit of public corruption cases included the government's case against Randy ''Duke'' Cunningham, the former Republican congressman who pleaded guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes.

McNulty denied Lam was fired in retaliation for Cunningham's conviction, calling Lam's pursuit of the case ''a very good thing for the American people and the Department of Justice to accomplish.''

''We are proud of that accomplishment,'' McNulty said.

AP

 Then there is the question of the timing of the whole thing. One theory put forth by ePluribus Media's  Aaron Barlow is:

"They did this after the election because, for the first time, they realized they are probably going to lose the presidency as well.  And, with loss of control of Congress, their access to patronage is further limited.  So, all these people who'd been told "Wait your turn" suddenly saw no turn coming.  I'll bet each replacement is someone owed a debt for political activities.  And I'll be this is happening in more places than the Justice Dept.  In fact, this is fallout from the change of view necessitated by proof that the "permanent majority" is only a myth."

Another angle on the story looks like it might be an attempt by the Administration to place as many friendly partisans into positions from which they can launch future political careers.  Sort of a "bench" or "farm league" for future Congressional, Governor or Senatorial candidates.

This leads us to where we are today. ... and in the end it might be that the motivation for the moves are some combination of all these theories.

• 1.The people who are getting the boot are viewed as not being team players, are somehow future liabilities, or at the least don't hold enough promise for the future.
• 2. The people who will replace them are either owed political favors and/or have close ties to the administration
• 3. The Administration is placing these allies in positions from which they can further advance in the future.
• 4. They know that their ability to shape future events will be limited for the next few cycles and are looking set the stage for the next Republican revolution by having allies already in place.

Given that there is a fair to good chance that 2008 will cause a major implosion within the Republican party with the McCain/Giuliani/Romney camp vs the "real conservatives" and Christian Right, with Tancredo, Hunter and the far right thrown in for good measure,  it would behoove the Bush wing of the party to set up as many friendly faces in positions of power without drawing major attention as they could. A little coup in the Justice Department could just be the start of such a plan.... A small massacre, before the blood bath that might be 08.