Defining "strictly political"

Who knows what to believe anymore? Apparently Sen. Leahy has set up a confrontation with the White House in promising (threatening?) to subpoena Karl Rove among others-- executive privilege and all that. Bravo, Sen. Leahy-- and good luck.

If it comes to a court challenge over a claim to executive privilege, an NYT article today states:

When Congress and the president have not been able to resolve fights over executive privilege, it has sometimes been left to the courts to decide — most notably during the Nixon administration and the legal battle over the White House tapes. But the courts have also tried to steer clear of the wrangling over executive privilege when it is deemed strictly political.

Is White House & GOP partisan interference and pressuring of US Attorneys a "strictly political" matter? Hmm. One might hope that even this Supreme Court would find that such to be an unwarranted assault upon the administration of justice. Might.

And then in the same article there is Sen. Cornyn accusing Sen. Schumer of pursuing a partisan agenda in the Senate in his pursuit of the GOP's DOJ pursuing partisan agendas in New Mexico, California, and Washington state. Got that? Sounds like Sen. Cornyn is setting a pick for BushCo's case against overriding a claim to executive privilege. It's all "strictly political", isn't it? Well, no; it's not quite the same, Senator.