Dahlia Lithwick over at Slate.com has an interesting perspective:

http://www.slate.com...

The Gonzales fracas may have helped to take attention away from the substantive point, at least temporarily--that the U.S. Attorneys should never be fired in this way, and without providing a coherent legal justification. 

However, Gonzo's resignation would have only a marginal impact on resolving the core questions at stake here (although it could go a long way towards restoring the credibility of the department).

Further, the "unitary executive" theory has not really been put to the test yet.  It's seems that, if the GOP refuses to push equally hard on this issue, that the Bush precedents could become settled precedents--which would be the worst outcome in my view (I don't want to see future Democratic presidents exercising their power in this way either).  But in the context of court battles and Constitutional battles, the White House is extremely vulnerable right now.

I think Gonzales's performance was a success in terms of avoiding a perjury charge.  However, he failed to provide a coherent, credible explanation for the reasoning behind the firings, so the inquiry continues.

But every week and every month that these "Mayberry Machiavellis" ("Mayberry Mafia" might be more accurate) bob, weave, dither, obfuscate, and ignore Congressional subpoenas will turn out to be another week and month that they have avoided criminal indictments.

Next thing you know, it will be January, 2009, and on the eve of leaving office W. can issue blanket pardons--even before convictions--to all of his key apparatchiks for any crimes that they may have committed in his service. The incoming president, of whichever party, would proclaim the need to "heal the wounds" and would not pursue any criminal case against W. himself.

So your key question is an important one. What precedents will the Bushies succeed in establishing? Will they manage to perpetuate a "unitary executive," our century's equivalent of "absolute monarchy?" Have they already packed the Supreme Court sufficiently with Roberts and Alito to succeed? Will they establish an Orwellian state? Will Democrats display enough spine to stop them? Will enough Republicans in Congress wake up in time to join Democrats in resisting the "unitary executive?"

The answers--yes or no--are not obvious to me.

The clock though will continue ticking even after Jan. 2009--it's really a question of political will and public pressure after that.  Will the American people understand what is at stake, and continue to push for a full accounting?  I hope so, but I really don't know. 

As far as pardons go, Bush can only do so much.  He can't pre-emptively issue pardons.  And if push comes to shove and the most egregious offenders in this case are impeached and convicted by the Congress in 2008 or 2009, there is absolutely nothing that the president can do (the president's pardoning powers are trumped by the Congress's impeachment powers).

I too am hopeful, but skeptical that congressional Republicans will show a little bit of institutional pride in this one, because the long-term consequences of these actions go beyond political party.  If these type of actions become settled precedent it's bad news for pretty much everyone. 

Tom Tancredo (R-CCC, KKK): "Gonzales' legacy at the (Justice Department) has been one of misplaced priorities, political miscalculation, and a failure to enforce the laws which he has sworn to uphold," Tancredo said in a statement Tuesday. "I think that it is time for him to move on."

http://www.foxnews.c...

Adam Putnam (R-Florida): "Congressional confidence in his ability has eroded severely," said Rep. Adam Putnam, of Florida, the third-ranking House Republican leader, who Friday became the latest to call for Gonzales' resignation. "This has now reached the point where it's larger than any one man."

http://seattletimes....

It seems like lots of Presidential appointees are having bad memory days lately.

As the man who oversaw a state, Huckabee said there comes a point, as a chief executive, when "you need to start asking is this becoming a large distraction that's keeping us from doing the important things that we need to be getting done."

"It seems that a growing number of Republicans in Congress say, yes, it is a distraction," he said. "For reasons I don't fully understand, the president hasn't quite seen it that way yet."

I found the part at the end sad, about Rich Little.  As Gene Weingarten of the Post said yesterday ion his chat, he was quite funny once, but he was at his peak 30 years ago.  It's too bad they picked him for that job.  I'm sure the Bushies insisted upon it.  Disturbing when they want to control the humor too.  I remember Little as not only doing good current impressions (Nixon, etc.) but making some nice political points.

If these various investigations prove out, I think some big DOJ names could be facing jail time.

http://www.tpmmuckra...

As midterm elections approached last November, federal investigators in Arizona faced unexpected obstacles in getting needed Justice Department approvals to advance a corruption investigation of Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, people close to the case said.

The delays, which postponed key approvals in the case until after the election, raise new questions about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or other officials may have weighed political issues in some investigations....

Investigators pursuing the Renzi case had been seeking clearance from senior Justice Department officials on search warrants, subpoenas and other legal tools for a year before the election, people close to the case said....

...the investigation clearly moved slowly: Federal agents opened the case no later than June 2005, yet key witnesses didn't get subpoenas until early this year, those close to the case said. The first publicly known search -- a raid of a Renzi family business by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- was carried out just last week....

Renzi has now resigned from all his committee assignments.

Anyone from Tom Davis' office reading this?