Nixon's gap was 18 minutes.

Bush's is 18 days.

(T)he emails released by the Justice Department seem to have a gap between November 15th and December 4th of last year. ...

The firing calls went out on December 7th. But the original plan was to start placing the calls on November 15th. So those eighteen days are pretty key ones.

I would say this comparison is priceless, except it's just not funny. To be clear, this controversy is largely of the administration's own device. A Gonzales resignation or firing would have quelled it, and though the AG's base of support has eroded to a single person, it's the only one that counts (The Decider). And the talking points for the VRWC include personal attacks on Charles Schumer, but that's simply a smear that will fail to gain traction any place but FreeRepublic.com.

Even Howard Kurtz, long the sycophant to the Bushies, is getting off:

Some anchors and commentators described Bush at his brief news conference yesterday as "angry," but I thought he was trying to sound reasonable. Of course Karl Rove and Harriet Miers will be happy to chat with Democratic investigators, but no troublesome details like transcripts (so the rest of us can find out what was said) or being under oath (to avoid any Scooter Libby problems). And no "partisan fishing expeditions" (unlike the high-minded approach that congressional Republicans took with Bill Clinton, when Dan Burton fired shots at a pumpkin to test his Vince Foster-was-murdered theory.) And please, no Stalinesque "show trials."

Not angry, not defiant. The president was screechy and unhinged yesterday in his press conference regarding the prosecutor firings. Candidly, it frightens me that this man is making decisions about wars, ongoing and imminent. Bush badly needs a diversion, and I hope it doesn't involves bombs.

Update: Anna succinctly provides the looming constitutional crisis.

Update II: Make that "nasty and bumbling".

Why is the prosecutor purge a scandal?

GONZALES: I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.

When asked on Meet the Press yesterday morning if he "had any evidence that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation," Sen. Chuck Schumer said he does and that the evidence is "becoming more and more overwhelming."

This is why the prosecutor purge is a genuine scandal. Former AG John Ashcroft had a standard spiel for new U.S. attorneys: "You have to leave politics at the door to do this job properly." Maintaining that independence without fear of repercussion is the bedrock principle at stake here.

As the top law enforcement official in each of their jurisdictions, these federal prosecutors have the power to destroy reputations, careers and even lives. They're political appointees, but they're supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without fear or favor. Not only is there clear evidence that the firings were unprecedented and purely politically motivated, but Alberto Gonzales lied about it under oath (see the video entry for January 18) and the White House keeps changing its story.

What conclusion can we draw from this other than they have something to hide?

Namely, that these eight prosecutors were selectively fired because they did not sufficiently politicize their offices -- nor did they succumb to pressure to do so -- only later to be fired for "performance-related" reasons despite receiving exemplary evaluations.

Scooter Libby should have thought to remind Gonzales that it's never the offense but the cover-up that gets you. Every. single. time.