NYT: White House actions led to firing of eight prosecutors

What is stopping Democrats from subpoenaing the following Administration officials?

• Karl Rove
• Harriet Miers
• Alberto Gonzales

All of them played a role in the sudden firing of eight federal prosecutors, according to this morning's New York Times:

Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans  that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici,Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complaineddirectly to the president, according to an administration official.

...  In early 2005, Harriet E. Miers ,then the White House legal counsel, asked a Justice Department officialwhether it would be feasible to replace all United States attorneyswhen their four-year terms expired, according to the Justice Department.

The story this morning follows the White House's admission yesterday that Karl Rove was involved as well.

This is outrageous.  Why?  The careers of eight federal prosecutors were ruined simply because they were not partisan enough for the Bush Administration -- even though at least six of the eight prosecutors received positive performance ratings.

It is unprecedented.  Think what would have happened if President Johnson had pulled this same stunt on U.S. Attorney Jim Garrison.  Mr. Garrison took Clay Shaw to trial for his involvement in the JFK assassination.

So what's the point?

Federal prosecutors are important because they are supposed to be independent of the Oval Office.  And at times, like in the case of Jim Garrison, they are even allowed to oppose a sitting president.