At this point, the question is no longer why did Rove, Bush, Gonzales, Cheney et al get rid of the federal 8. They were not reliable "Bushies". The question then becomes, who did they put in place as loyal "Bushies"? What are those prosecutors doing? 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. Typical Rovian tactic: the slash-and-burn right before an election. Memorably, the push pull question right before the primary in 2000: "Would you vote for John McCain for President if you knew he fathered an illegitimate black child?" Do all loyal "Bushies" share this vision of a permanent Republican majority? Who needs "democracy" when one 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 doo-doo.")
Back to the fired federal prosecutors and the missing and redacted e-mails. The administration admits that it told a soon-to-be-fired prosecutor he was to be replaced by a Rove protege. The parties involved probably thought by that time 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 the talking point goes, "They serve at the pleasure of the President." But, 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 radical 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 then live in a kingdom of avaricious men headed by the smirking face of a true amoral leader?