This is insane.

The quote from this bit of tripe that has got me going is:

At issue is whether the White House exerted undue political influence in the Justice Department's firing of prosecutors. Leahy's hardening stance is pushing the Democratic-led investigation ever closer to a constitutional showdown over executive power and Congress' right to oversight.

Okay, for starters, the Justice Department, like the Department of Defense, for instance, is part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. It is one of the Cabinet-level agencies. Meaning, the Department is headed by a person selected by the President, and, according to the Constitution, answers to the President. So, the Attorney General, and the various Cabinet Secretaries head major departments of the Federal Government. They are selected by the President. After selection, the Senate has to approve the selection. After approval by the Senate, those people work directly for the President. Certain key officials in each Department are, by law, hired and fired by the President. It is his Constitutional duty to do so. Congress only has the duty to approve the selections. They have, under the Constitution, no power whatsoever to be involved in the selection process that the President uses to select the persons hired, and, also, no input whatsoever on who is fired, and why. This is part of the Separation of Powers delineated by the Constitution.

Keep in mind that the Constitution is the highest law in the land. Congress, except when they follow the procedures in the Constitution to amend the Constitution, cannot pass a law that supersedes the Constitution. In the case of the people that I have described above, no such amendment to the Constitution has been passed. In fact, no such amendment has been suggested.

Cabinet secretaries, Chiefs of Staff of the various military services, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, US attorneys, and various other high government officials are said to "serve at the pleasure of the President". That is, in fact, the legal term for it.

So, to make a long story short, (too late) it is, in fact, impossible for the White House to "exert undue political influence" in the hiring and firing of these officials. Because, it is the Constitutional duty of the President to hire and fire these people. An integral part of the job description of the President.

This is a load of organic fertilizer. If, let's say, that Clinton was still in office, and the Republicans in Congress were assaulting the Constitutional duties of the Presidency in such a way, every Democrat in Congress would be on EVERY news show possible screaming their heads off about the un-Constitutionality of Republican behavior. However, since it is Bush versus a Democratic Congress, not a peep of protest is being heard anywhere in the mainstream media about it. They are just swallowing the Democrat Party's talking points hook line and sinker.

It wouldn't be so bad, but, the Republican party, once upon a time, attempted to impeach a Democrat President for very similar reasons, and failed.

It's ironic. ... or just pathetic, I'm not sure.

What can you expect? Remember your US history, and keep in mind that this is the same political party that brought about such successful ventures as:
1) Secession
2) The firing on Fort Sumter (and, thus, the start of a Civil War they were to lose)
3) Jim Crow laws