Getting down to the real nub of the story. Here’s a clip from McClatchy’s overnight piece …

In an e-mail dated May 11, 2006, Sampson urged the White House counsel’s office to call him regarding “the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam,” who then the U.S. attorney for southern California. Earlier that morning, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam’s corruption investigation of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., had expanded to include another California Republican, Rep Jerry Lewis.

Cunningham is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence in Arizona. Lewis has not been charged with any crime. Lam was forced to resign.

In a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he wants to know whether Lam was fired for the Cunningham case or because “she was about to investigate other people who were politically powerful.” Lam declined to talk publicly about her dismissal.

I’m going from recollection here. But I think the email they’re referring to is one Paul Kiel and I were reading over together this afternoon. If it’s the one I’m thinking of, the email clearly gave the sense that there was an unspoken reason for Lam’s dismissal. But it was a bit too vague and meandering to really point to any one thing. The date, though, really speaks volumes.

Lam’s firing has always been at the heart of this. I’ve had a lot of people ask me why we devoted so much virtual ink to this story so early. But the truth is that by rights Lam’s dismissal should have sounded alarm bells for everyone on day one.

What people tend to overlook is that for most White Houses, a US attorney involved in such a politically charged and ground-breaking corruption probe would have been untouchable, even if she’d run her office like a madhouse and was offering free twinkies to every illegal who made it across the border. Indeed, when you view the whole context you see that the idea she was fired for immigration enforcement is just laughable on its face. No decision about her tenure could be made without the main issue being that investigation. It’s like hearing that Pat Fitzgerald was fired as Plamegate prosecutor for poor deportment or because he was running up too many air miles flying back and forth from Chicago.

Lam’s investigation (and allied ones her probe spawned) were uncovering a) serious criminal wrongdoing by major Republican power players on Capitol Hill, b) corruption at the CIA — which reached back to the Hill, c) and as yet still largely hidden corrupt dealings at the heart of the intelligence operations in the Rumsfeld Pentagon.

Nothing matters unless the investigation gets to the heart of what happened there.

2008 presidential tie-in question: Can Rudy Giuliani really get away with refusing to comment on the US Attorney Purge story? Rudy made his name as a mob-busting US Attorney in New York. I’m pretty sure he’s the only former US Attorney in the race in either party. And I’m pretty sure he worked at Main Justice early in the Reagan administration before becoming US Attorney. So he’s uniquely positioned to have something relevant and knowledgeable to say. But he won’t answer. How long can that last?

John McKay, the former US Attorney from Washington fired for not pursuing bogus voter fraud indictments, seems to have a knack for cutting to the chase. Says McKay: “My question is, if [Gonzales] fired the guy who fired us, why is he standing by the dismissals?”

Am I the only one who missed this? Gerry Cassidy, one of the power lobbyists in all of DC, has his own blog? I found it through an advertisement at Washingtonpost.com.

Only power lobbyists get to advertise their blogs at Washingtonpost.com.

Below I noted this paragraph in tonight’s article from McClatchy …

In an e-mail dated May 11, 2006, Sampson urged the White House counsel’s office to call him regarding “the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam,” who then the U.S. attorney for southern California. Earlier that morning, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam’s corruption investigation of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., had expanded to include another California Republican, Rep Jerry Lewis.

The timing is well worth noting. But the Lewis investigation wasn’t the only trouble Lam was making. Look what else was happening in the couple weeks before May 11th …

April 28th, 2006 — Cunningham-Wilkes-Foggo “Hookergate” scandal breaks open. Probe grows out of San Diego US Attorney’s Office’s Cunningham investigation. CIA Director Goss denies involvement.

April 29th, 2006 — Washington Post reports that Hookergate’s Shirlington Limo Service had $21 million contract with Department of Homeland Security.

May 2nd, 2006 — Kyle “Dusty” Foggo confirms attendence at Wilkes/Cunningham Hookergate parties.

May 4th, 2006 — Watergate Hotel subpoenaed in San Diego/Cunningham/Hookergate probe.

May 5th, 2006 — WSJ reports that Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, who Goss installed as #3 at CIA, is under criminal investigation as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation.

May 5th, 2006 — Porter Goss resigns as Director of Central Intelligence.

May 6th, 2006 — WaPo reports on questionable DHS contract awarded to Shirlington Limo, the ‘hookergate’ Limo service under scrutiny as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation. Similar report in the Times.

May 7th, 2006 — House Committee to investigate DHS contract with Hookergate’s Shirlington Limo.

May 8th, 2006 — Lyle “Dusty” Foggo resigns at CIA.

May 11th, 2006 — LA Times reports that Cunningham investigation has expanded into the dealings of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), House Appropriations Committee Chairman.

May 12th, 2006 — Federal agents working on the San Diego/Cunningham investigation execute search warrants on the home and CIA office of Kyle “Dusty” Foggo.

Today’s Must Read: two Republicans close to the White House whisper that there’s a “rift” between the White House and the Attorney General.

So what’s the difference between the Attorney Purge and the Clinton firings? Hillary spells it out very simply.

Apparently Fox News’ Chris Wallace is the latest name journalist to get caught spouting the ‘Clinton did it too’ malarkey on the US Attorney firings. Wallace’s bamboozlement came on Imus. We’re going to try to get the transcript for you. But I guess it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise since he works for Fox.

In any case, there’s a short graf in the Post‘s piece today that neatly sums up the real story on this nonsense.

Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.

Simple. To the point: Clinton and Bush both did the same thing, as has every president of a new party when he came into office.

Wallace is just trying to bamboozle his audience.

Creative bios at WaPo?

TPM Reader TS writes in to note that in the Washington Post online chat this morning they have “Stuart M. Gerson, acting attorney general at the start of the Clinton administration and now a D.C. lawyer.” Oddly, for someone in the Clinton administration, his answers seemed quite generous to the Bush administration and the Republican line on the Attorney Purge scandal.

No mention that Gerson was a Bush I appointee until this question came in …

San Francisco: Just to clarify, you were a holdover from the George H.W. Bush Administration during the difficulties Bill Clinton had in finding an Attorney General in early 1993, is that correct?

Stuart M. Gerson: That is correct. I had been the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division during Bush I, and was Acting Attorney General at the beginning of the Clinton administration.

Glad he was there to give the Clinton administration perspective.

From CBS …

Wednesday, appearing on CBS’ The Early Show, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales praised Lam’s efforts, but said Lam focused too much on public corruption cases.

Controversy surrounding Lam’s firing, along with seven other U.S. attorneys, has renewed calls for Gonzales’ resignation, which he has thus far rejected.

“We advised Ms. Lam of these other priorities — that she needed to focus on other issues as well. A U.S. attorney can’t just focus on one particular problem,” Gonzales said. “A U.S. Attorney has to focus on all the needs of the community.”

So true.