Presenting: The Non-Denial, Denial By: Mark W Adams

I suspect the following will, in the next year or so, be boiled down to four words: "Not Guilty, Your Honor."

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse: "We have stated numerous times that no U.S. attorney was removed to retaliate against or inappropriately interfere with any public corruption investigation or prosecution," he wrote. "This remains the case and there is no evidence that indicates otherwise."

It's subtle, so I can forgive Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor of McClatchy Newspapers for missing it. Their coverage of the U.S. Attorneys scandal is beyond compare -- much like what the Washington Post used to be.

Notice the interesting, truthful yet misleading verbs. Yes, they "stated numerous times..." and indeed it still "remains the case" that statements were made (just like mistakes were made I'll assume). The fact that there is no evidence (yet) doesn't mean the administration didn't do what they hope to God nobody breaks ranks and busts them for.

And just WTF is Roehrkasse not really denying but hopes you don't believe they did?

Why the accusation that the U.S. attorney's firing may be connected to CIA corruption probe, of course.

Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.

Feinstein, D-Calif., said the timing of the e-mail suggested that Lam’s dismissal may have been connected to the corruption probe.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse denied in an e-mail that there was any link.

Now this could have serious criminal implications -- if provable, and provable beyond a reasonable doubt that justice was obstructed or that Gitmo Gonzales committed (I hope, I hope) perjury.

[Senator Patrick] Leahy also addressed the right-wing talking point that the U.S. Attorney firings are meaningless because there “was no crime." Leahy said that while President Bush has the authority to fire attorneys at will, "if it is done to stop an ongoing investigation, then you do get into the criminal area."

Intentional retaliation is going to be horribly hard to prove, as will be exposing admissible evidence that the U.S. (Bushie) Attorneys the administration didn't fire intentionally retaliated against political enemies.

But one thing is certain, there is an appearance of impropriety here, something a certain Attorney General should at least be disbarred for (notwithstanding the fact that he never showed up for his Constitutional Law classes).