There is NOTHING of any substance in this that indicates that any of the firings were intended to obstruct any ongoing investigations.

Most of the cases had to do with someone NOT investigating something the Administration wanted to have investigated.

Online interview with Stuart Gerson:

Lyme, Conn.: The "Democratic" response to the firing of the U.S. Attorneys is that these actions were political. The "Republican" response is that the Clinton Administration fired all but one U.S. Attorney at the beginning of the Clinton Administration -- so of course, it is all political. What is the difference between these mid-Presidency firings and cleaning house at the beginning of a Presidency, if any?

Stuart M. Gerson: There is a difference, but I do not find it to be an important or material one. It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind. What is unusual about the current situation is that it happened in the middle of a term. However, all of the incumbents had served more than the four years presumed in their original commission and, I suggest, replacing them is entirely the prerogative of the executive, as each deposed U.S. Attorney has agreed. The personnel practices employed, giving inaccurate reasons for terminating them and not giving them the courtesy of notice, are, as the AG now concedes, unacceptable.

Omaha, Neb.: Mr. Gerson, is there not scope here for criminal charges to be brought against Gonzales, Rove and Bush for obstruction of justice? It seems quite obvious that these firings were aimed purely at thwarting investigations into corrupt conduct by Republicans. Surely our system does not permit prosecutors to be fired in order to shield those guilty of criminal conduct, such as Randy Cunningham, from the law.

Stuart M. Gerson: I don't think we can say that any of this activity was intended to "thwart" an investigation, though that avenue will be pursued in oversight investigations in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Duke Cunningham case couldn't have been brought without the approval of Main Justice, which has taken a great deal of credit for the case. Indeed, much of what we have seen suggests criticism of various U.S. Attorneys for not moving quickly or decisively enough. In sum, obstruction is a serious charge and the evidence for such a charge has not emerged, at least at this point.