It's understandable for you to want to rush to judgment. Let's wait and see how our system works this time. To me the issue is not as much about the appropriateness of the firings but how the AG and the Administration responded to the accusation that they were politically motivated. Did they lie and cover up? That (as you know) is the issue.

I caught MTP this morning. Russert read USA Inglesias op ed piece in the NYT about why he was fired. It seems clear on the face of it, that he refused to succumb to pressure from Republicans in his state to pursue corruption charges against Democrats before the November election. What is really not clear is "how" or "if" this resistance got him fired. In a perfect world, the most obvious grounds for dismissal would be his negligence in reporting the imprudent questioning by his state officers.

On to US Attorney McKay:

----------------
MR. McKAY: That’s correct. I, I was able to go into the White House in a meeting with Harriet Miers and her deputy Bill Kelly, and the very first question that I was asked was, was in reference to the 2004 governor’s election.

MR. RUSSERT: And did they ask you why you did not go forward with an investigation or with indictments?

MR. McKAY: No, they actually asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me.
----------------

To me, this shows that McKay's attempt to equate his firing with punishment for not trying harder to remove Christine Gregoire from office is at this point, nothing more than conjecture on his part.

Politics don't belong in the courts. It would be naive to assume that political pressure never influences the actions of appointees. If wrong doing is proven I hope guilty parties will pay the price of loosing our trust. If no wrong doing is found, it's just politics as usuall...