AG Gonzalez in trouble

[ElHombre]

Y'all may recall a story a while back about certain US attorneys getting canned. It got a few Congresscritters curious and Gonzalez testified that a)they were all fired for poor performnce, and b) the White House was not involved.

Guess what? He lied.Story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/congress_prosecutors;_ylt=AqthYLl5TMWRP0F.toOndNLMWM0F)


Attorney General Alberto Gonzales rejected growing calls for his resignation Tuesday as scores of newly released documents detailed a two-year campaign by the Justice Department and White House to purge federal prosecutors.

Gonzales acknowledged his department mishandled the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys and misled Congress about how they were fired. He said he was ultimately to blame for those "mistakes" but stood by the firings.

[Firetxmi]

Beat ya to it by 20 min! :D

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=107336

[ElHombre]

Aw, Hell... :lol:

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Hey isn't one of the newly hired attorneys the one who slammed the border agents down in Texas for doing their job?

[Dakota435]

When the Dems did it they did it big...

Of course the current government being Republican this goes right down the memory hole.

From TIME magazine



ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS

By DAVID JOHNSTON,

Published: March 24, 1993

Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.

Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a “critical decision” in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.

While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno’s order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover.

Says He Won’t Resist

At a news conference today only hours after one by Ms. Reno, Mr. Stephens said he would not resist the Attorney General’s move to force him from office, and he held back from directly accusing her of interfering with the Rostenkowski inquiry.

But Mr. Stephens left the strong impression that Ms. Reno’s actions might disrupt the investigation as he moved toward a decision on whether to seek charges against the Illinois Democrat, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

“This case has been conducted with integrity,” Mr. Stephens said, “and I trust the decisions in this case will not be made based on political considerations.”

Nonetheless, lawyers who have followed the investigation have said that Mr. Stephens has been concerned that the Democratic Administration might try to upset his investigation.

Has Denied Wrongdoing

Mr. Rostenkowski has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, and he has not been accused of any impropriety. But if he is indicted, he would be forced by House rules to relinquish his chairmanship, a development that some lawmakers have said could seriously jeopardize Mr. Clinton’s efforts to steer his economic and health-care proposals through Congress.

Mr. Stephens and his prosecutors began the investigation that led them to review Mr. Rostenkowski’s activities in mid-1991, focusing initially on low-level employees at the House post office who absconded with money. There have been several guilty pleas as prosecutors have worked their way up the ranks at the mailing operation.

Mr. Rostenkowski has been under scrutiny since last year, when his office records were subpoenaed in an inquiry into whether someone in his office used his expense account fraudulently to obtain cash from the post office. Since then, some of his aides have testified to a grand jury and investigators have examined his use of campaign funds. Denies Any Connection

In announcing her order at her first news conference as Attorney General, Ms. Reno denied there was any connection between her action and the Rostenkowski case and said Mr. Stephens had been treated like other United States Attorneys.”

Ms. Reno said United States Attorneys “are absolutely integral to the whole success of the Department of Justice,” and her aides said today that she did not intend to immediately remove any whose presence was required to complete an investigation.

One official suggested that even Mr. Stephens might be asked to stay on until a successor is named, saying Ms. Reno had made no decisions about who she may choose on an interim basis.

All 93 United States Attorneys knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican holdovers, and 16 have resigned so far. But the process generally takes much longer and had usually been carried out without the involvement of the Attorney General. Battles of the Past

Ms. Reno is under pressure to assert her control over appointments at the Justice Department. She was Mr. Clinton’s third choice for Attorney General and arrived after most of the department’s senior positions were already filled by the White House.

The comments of Ms. Reno and Mr. Stephens evoked the pitched battles of the past, when independent United States Attorneys resisted removal by new administrations.

In 1969, for instance Robert Morgenthau, now the Manhattan District Attorney, resisted efforts by the Nixon Administration to replace him as United States Attorney in New York until he was given what he called an “ultimatum” by President Richard M. Nixon to leave office.

In 1978, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell removed David W. Marston as United States Attorney in Philadelphia, provoking charges, never proved, that a lawmaker under scrutiny by Mr. Marston’s office had urged President Jimmy Carter to remove the prosecutor.

Four-Year Terms

United States Attorneys are appointed to serve four-year terms at the pleasure of the President. It was unclear whether Ms. Reno initiated the request for resignations or whether it was pressed on her by the White House. The Attorney General said it was a “joint decision.”

Ms. Reno said she wanted the resignations “so that the U.S. Attorneys presently in position will know where they stand and that we can begin to build a team.”

Some Administration officials dismissed Mr. Stephens’s veiled assertions about the Attorney General’s motives as “absurd,” as one put it, saying that what was surprising was that it had taken so long before the Justice Department could begin putting its own appointees in place. Abortion Clinic Violence

On other topics, Ms. Reno said she would work with Democrats in Congress to prepare legislation to give Federal agencies a larger role in protecting abortion clinics.

Her comments came after she had ordered a review of current law, which she said was inadequate “to prevent or to help prevent physical interference with access to abortion clinics.”

She also ruled out a Federal inquiry into the death of Dr. David Gunn, a physician who was shot to death as he entered an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Fla., apparently by a man who said he was an anti-abortion activist. “Florida law on this subject is more effective than Federal law,” said Ms. Reno, a former Florida prosecutor.

Ms. Reno also said she had not decided whether to replace William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who has been found to have violated ethics rules.

[dedgod]

That doesn't change the fact that this is wrong and to me very depressing...

[Dasein]

When the Dems did it they did it big...

When Clinton, and Regan before him did it, they did it as part opf the normal housecleaning that occurs when administrations change. That is normal and expected.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

When Clinton, and Regan before him did it, they did it as part opf the normal housecleaning that occurs when administrations change. That is normal and expected.


Same thing here, Gonzalez said, the firings were done on a excellent performence, mediocre performance, and poor performance platform over the 4yr term, those who were fired were fired for their poor performances.

This is just another case of the liberals and media trying to make something outta nothing.

[Dasein]

Same thing here, Gonzalez said, the firings were done on a excellent performence, mediocre performance, and poor performance platform over the 4yr term, those who were fired were fired for their poor performances.

In the sense that poor performance means not investigating enough Democrats or investigating too many Republicans.



This is just another case of the liberals and media trying to make something outta nothing.

If that were the case, why is Gonzales now admiting he made mistakes with the firing? This response has become so predictable: first deny any wrongdoing and blame the liberals and media for making somthing out of nothing, then try and deflect blame with the b-b-b-b-b-but Clinton defense, then apologize for making mistakes and eventally resign/get fired. I give Gonzales 3 weeks, tops.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

In the sense that poor performance means not investigating enough Democrats or investigating too many Republicans.

uhhh hey buddy, the democrats are no different.




If that were the case, why is Gonzales now admiting he made mistakes with the firing? This response has become so predictable: first deny any wrongdoing and blame the liberals and media for making somthing out of nothing, then try and deflect blame with the b-b-b-b-b-but Clinton defense, then apologize for making mistakes and eventally resign/get fired. I give Gonzales 3 weeks, tops.

If he didn't, this would turn into another Libby type, circus hoopla, the democrats would never leave this alone. Hey buddy, you wanna talk about denying and then blaming on certain political elements, how about Berger, Lewinsky, White Water and many other things that democrats have done and gotten away with.

Vast Rightwing conspiracy right?

[Dasein]

uhhh hey buddy, the democrats are no different.

No, the Democrats and previous Republican administrations are different - what the Bush administration did was the exception, and hence cause for concern. If Bush had simply fired all of them at the beginning of his term, no one would have said much. Selectively firing a few, especially those involved in some high profile investigations of Republicans is highly suspect.


If he didn't, this would turn into another Libby type, circus hoopla, the democrats would never leave this alone.

So Gonzales really didn't do anything wrong? He's just a victim of liberal persecution?


Hey buddy, you wanna talk about denying and then blaming on certain political elements, how about Berger, Lewinsky, White Water and many other things that democrats have done and gotten away with.

And here we go with the b-b-b-b-b-but Clintons. Like watching a well rehearsed play.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

No, the Democrats and previous Republican administrations are different - what the Bush administration did was the exception, and hence cause for concern. If Bush had simply fired all of them at the beginning of his term, no one would have said much. Selectively firing a few, especially those involved in some high profile investigations of Republicans is highly suspect.

Cause for concern? Why? Because he claims to be a republican?



So Gonzales really didn't do anything wrong? He's just a victim of liberal persecution?

Yep. Same old story, look man, I don't see any rightwingers coming out and complaining about him, its the same old liberals, Hillary, Schumer, etc...




And here we go with the b-b-b-b-b-but Clintons. Like watching a well rehearsed play.


Liberal tactic #54 - When forced into a corner, always change the suject back to other topics.

Those are you and your liberals buddies tactics.

[akd]

Cause for concern? Why? Because he claims to be a republican?




Yep. Same old story, look man, I don't see any rightwingers coming out and complaining about him, its the same old liberals, Hillary, Schumer, etc...






Liberal tactic #54 - When forced into a corner, always change the suject back to other topics.

Those are you and your liberals buddies tactics.

How is bringing up past administrations not changing the subject?

[Firetxmi]

C

Yep. Same old story, look man, I don't see any rightwingers coming out and complaining about him, its the same old liberals, Hillary, Schumer, etc...


So you are telling me that he admitted guilt, even when he was not guilty, because some "liberals" came out against him? Hasn't he stood up in the face of so called "liberals" before- even when he wasn't necessarily right? What made him cower this time when he had the "truth" on his side?

[Mr. JOSHUA]

How is bringing up past administrations not changing the subject?


Its not, Dasein said the firings on Clintons part were normal house cleaning, I said so is this, I gave the basis on which they were fired as stated by Mr. Gonzalez, Dasein then proceeded to say that the AG denied and then eventually admitted wrongdoing, I merely pointed out the striking resemblence of what he said, to the people he stated first, as normal people, with no agenda, that "clean house" and admit when they are wrong, from the very get go and every single time that they admit they are wrong period.

This is not changing the subject, this is showing the parallel on how liberals always attack the opposition, but when the people doing the wrongdoing are in the same boat, its a slow news day.

[name already taken]

uhhh hey buddy, the democrats are no different.





If he didn't, this would turn into another Libby type, circus hoopla, the democrats would never leave this alone. Hey buddy, you wanna talk about denying and then blaming on certain political elements, how about Berger, Lewinsky, White Water and many other things that democrats have done and gotten away with.

Vast Rightwing conspiracy right?
And who did impeach Clinton for a blue dress ?

[Mr. JOSHUA]

So you are telling me that he admitted guilt, even when he was not guilty, because some "liberals" came out against him? Hasn't he stood up in the face of so called "liberals" before- even when he wasn't necessarily right? What made him cower this time when he had the "truth" on his side?


Guilty of what? What is he on trial for?

He said the JP could have executed this better than it was, not that he intentionally fired this person and that person for political reasons.

Witch Hunt.

[Dronetek]

And who did impeach Clinton for a blue dress ?

Sigh, another history noob.

Clinton was impeached for telling lies under oath during a rape and ****** harrasment investigation.


This whole thing is a media/democrat manufactured scandal. Yet another case where democrats have some magical explination for why it was ok when they did it.

[name already taken]

Sigh, another history noob.

Clinton was impeached for telling lies under oath during a rape and ****** harrasment investigation.


This whole thing is a media/democrat manufactured scandal. Yet another case where democrats have some magical explination for why it was ok when they did it.
I don't think the present "unitarian" president would ever answer to any investigation.

Not even did he to the 9/11 investigation.


And BTW, the blue dress was OK, but all the rest is witch hunt and manufactured scandal.

[Dasein]

Normal housecleaning of the sort Reagan did basically involves firing all the previous administrations appointees shortly after taking office. This is expected by anyone who works in Washington, and really, government officials at that level don't expect their careers to last beyond one adminsitration, or even one term of a multi-term president. Bush's actions differ in that it was selectivefirings done during the middle of the term. Now, if these people were obviously incompetent or currupt, this would be a non-issue, but instead, they were all involved in investigations of Republicans. This makes the firings highly suspect, and as infomration emerges, it is becoming more clear that these were very targetted firings. Now, so far Bush has not exceded his authority as President, but at the same time, such actions do not lend his adminsitration any credibility.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Sigh, another history noob.

Clinton was impeached for telling lies under oath during a rape and ****** harrasment investigation.


This whole thing is a media/democrat manufactured scandal. Yet another case where democrats have some magical explination for why it was ok when they did it.


Yeah, they even had their buddies in hollywood make a movie about to spin it in a positive light and to deflect attention from a certain lil war.

[Dronetek]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784


As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.


Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

The democrats would have you beleive that this is a scandal, but notice how the Clintons magicaly avoided scandal. The democrats and most of the media work hand in hand folks.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Normal housecleaning of the sort Reagan did basically involves firing all the previous administrations appointees shortly after taking office. This is expected by anyone who works in Washington, and really, government officials at that level don't expect their careers to last beyond one adminsitration, or even one term of a multi-term president. Bush's actions differ in that it was selectivefirings done during the middle of the term. Now, if these people were obviously incompetent or currupt, this would be a non-issue, but instead, they were all involved in investigations of Republicans. This makes the firings highly suspect, and as infomration emerges, it is becoming more clear that these were very targetted firings. Now, so far Bush has not exceded his authority as President, but at the same time, such actions do not lend his adminsitration any credibility.


Dasein, yes it is standard to fire all prosecutors at the beginning of a term, if Bush had done that, he would most likely be receiving the same flak for doing it then that he is receiving now.

This is just a witch hunt plain and simple, the democrats always complain that the republicans should do more to reach out to the democrats when in reality the democrats hate the republicans and everything they stand for, they only seek to destroy their political opponents and nothing less.

Since day one of Bush's term, they have seeked nothing less than to destroy his and the republicans credibility and to regain power.

The citizens of the US are not the peak interest of the democrats, power and political influence are.

This is just another instance of the left trying to chip away at whats left of Bush credibility.

[name already taken]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784




The democrats would have you beleive that this is a scandal, but notice how the Clintons magicaly avoided scandal. The democrats and most of the media work hand in hand folks.
Why does the Wall Street Journal have to step in ?

Something financial ?

[name already taken]

Since day one of Bush's term, they have seeked nothing less than to destroy his and the republicans credibility and to regain power.

This is just a witch hunt plain and simple, the democrats always complain that the republicans should do more to reach out to the democrats when in reality the democrats hate the republicans and everything they stand for, they only seek to destroy their political opponents and nothing less.

This is just another instance of the left trying to chip away at whats left of Bush credibility.
Do you prefer living in a Kingdom ?

[Dasein]

Dasein, yes it is standard to fire all prosecutors at the beginning of a term, if Bush had done that, he would most likely be receiving the same flak for doing it then that he is receiving now.

I highly doubt that, people accept housecleaning from a new administration.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

I highly doubt that, people accept housecleaning from a new administration.


Common people, yes, with common sense, yeah, they don't mind that.

People with an agenda?

No, they have set goals as to how they will regain power and political influence and part of it is bashing every single move by the opposition.

[Dasein]

No, they have set goals as to how they will regain power and political influence and part of it is bashing every single move by the opposition.

There are those types on both sides, but without an audience, they're harmless annoyances at worst. With this scandal, people are listening - why is that?

[name already taken]

There are those types on both sides, but without an audience, they're harmless annoyances at worst. With this scandal, people are listening - why is that?
This could be one of the reasons (http://cagle.com/news/Gonzales/main.asp). There are many others.

[California Joe]

Jesus H. Christ Joshua will you read what you're writing here? Your arguments boil down to "Oh yeah? Well they would have hollered no matter what Bush etc. did."

Is it or not SOP to get rid of everyone when a new administration takes over?

Why did they wait and only fire a few select ones?

Why did Gonzalez admit a f*ck up? Admitting f*ck ups is hardly a hallmark of this administration. For chrissakes, people, yes even Republicans, do make mistakes or do things that aren't completely kosher in politics and dislike having been called on it but not every damned thing is a monolithic conspiracy. I've worked in the government and you can't usually get 10 people to agree on where to get lunch, let alone create conspiracies.

I don't really give a rats ass personally. If these guys were such screw ups they better damned well have excellent documentation.

[Firetxmi]

Yeah, they even had their buddies in hollywood make a movie about to spin it in a positive light and to deflect attention from a certain lil war.

So it is no longer the big bad "Jewish controlled media?" Now it is simply the liberal controlled media?

[Durandal]

Sigh, another history noob.

Clinton was impeached for telling lies under oath during a rape and ****** harrasment investigation.

Actually, and this is the second time I have had to correct this...

Clinton was NOT impeached because of lying under oath during the ****** harassment suit, it was the subsequent testimony during the Whitewater hearings/testimony.

I loathe Clinton, but if you are going to call a dude a noob get it right yourself.

[ElHombre]

A few short answers.


Is it or not SOP to get rid of everyone when a new administration takes over?

There is typically a large change-over of personnel when a new administration comes in. Usually the previous office holders quit, but sometimes they stay and are fired.


Why did they wait and only fire a few select ones?

This question needs clarification. All of Clinton's appointees were fired when Bush2 started up in '01. They were replaced, naturally enough, by Bush appointees. A number of these Bush admin appointees were fired six years into the Bush admin, which raised a few eyebrows.


Why did Gonzalez admit a f*ck up?

Gonzalez testified under oath to Congress that the firings were due to bad performance by the AAGs involved and that the WH wasn't involved. Both of these claims have now been proven to be lies, which is a crime.


I don't really give a rats ass personally. If these guys were such screw ups they better damned well have excellent documentation.

So far, their latest excuse is that it's all the Gonzalez's chief-of-staff's fault. He did it all and Gonzalez had no idea of what was going on.

Either Gonzalez is too f***ing stupid to be allowed to run a gov't agency or he's lying (which is pretty much how one can sum up every single action by this admin, come to think of it).

[ElHombre]

From the What Does It Take For One Of These Folks To Get Fired? file...

The rationalization being used by Gonzalez and the WH is that it was Gonzalez's chief-of-staff who was the problem and that he had resigned the day the e-mails showing that Gonzalez lied came out, creating a major headache for the WH.

The guy's still there (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8285969).


SEN. LEAHY: Right now, what I want to do is find out everything that happened. I want to do it with this attorney general. I want to do it with the people who are with him. I find even the person that supposedly resigned, Mr. Sampson, is still there at the Department of Justice. So I want to find out from these people; we'll subpoena whomever we need; and we will find out.

MS. NORRIS: Now, when you say he is still — Mr. Sampson is still there at the Department of Justice, clarify that for me.

SEN. LEAHY: He left supposedly, according to what the Department of Justice said, as Attorney General Gonzales' chief of staff. We found out this afternoon after the attorney general's press conference that Mr. Sampson is still there while he, quote, "goes job hunting." Come on; if you did something wrong and you're out, you should be out.

[Firetxmi]

Republican says Gonzales should be fired
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 41 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire on Wednesday became the first Republican in Congress to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal, hours after
President Bush expressed confidence in his embattled Cabinet officer.

Gonzales has been fending off Democratic demands for his firing in the wake of disclosures surrounding the ousters of eight U.S. attorneys — dismissals Democrats have characterized as a politically motivated purge.

Support from many Republicans had been muted, but there was no outright GOP call for his dismissal until now.

"I think the president should replace him," Sununu said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think the attorney general should be fired."

Bush, at a news conference in Mexico, told reporters when asked about the controversy: "Mistakes were made. And I'm frankly not happy about them."

But the president expressed confidence in Gonzales, a longtime friend, and defended the firings. "What Al did and what the Justice Department did was appropriate," he said.

Still, Bush left himself room to sack the attorney general.

"What was mishandled was the explanation of the cases to the Congress," Bush said. "And Al's got work to do up there."

The developments unfolded as presidential aides labored to protect White House political director Karl Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers from congressional subpoenas. The Senate Judiciary Committee was considering seeking subpoenas for Rove, Miers, deputy White House counsel William Kelley and five Justice Department officials.

The White House dispatched presidential counsel Fred Fielding to Capitol Hill to negotiate the terms of any testimony by White House aides in an institutional tug of war reminiscent of the Watergate and the
Iran-Contra scandals.

Sununu has long been a critic of what he has said were the White House's disregard for civil liberties in its war on terrorism and played a large part in forcing the administration to accept new curbs on its power during the reauthorization of the Patriot Act last year.

On Tuesday, he said firings of the prosecutors, together with a report last Friday by the Justice Department's inspector general criticizing the administration's use of secret national security letters to obtain personal records in terrorism probes, shattered his confidence in Gonzales.

"We need to have a strong, credible attorney general that has the confidence of Congress and the American people," said Sununu, who faces a tough re-election campaign next year. "Alberto Gonzales can't fill that role."

The White House response was curt.

"We're disappointed, obviously," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. A Justice Department spokeswoman refused to comment on Sununu's remarks.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., in an interview with The Associated Press while campaigning in Iowa for the GOP nomination for president, said Gonzales shouldn't be forced out and that he should be given ample time to defend himself. Asked if Gonzales should resign, McCain said: "I don't think so. But there certainly are a lot of questions that need to be answered. There are problems here, and I think he should be made to answer for them."

Some of the dismissed prosecutors complained at hearings last week that lawmakers tried to influence political corruption investigations. Several also said there had been Justice Department attempts to intimidate them.

E-mails between the Justice Department and the White House, released Tuesday, contradicted the administration's earlier contention that Bush's aides had only limited involvement in the firings.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., predicted Wednesday that Gonzales would soon be out.

"I think he is gone. I don't think he'll last long," Reid said in an interview with Nevada reporters. Asked how long, Reid responded: "Days."

Fielding, the White House counsel negotiating with lawmakers over possible administration testimony, is a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan administrations. He was hired by Bush this year to handle just these kinds of demands by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

It was unclear whether Bush would grant Democratic requests for his own aides to tell their stories under oath.

For his part, Gonzales, in a brief hallway interview with reporters, said he intended to cooperate where his aides are concerned.

"We want Congress to know, to understand what happened here," he said. "We'll work it out."

Republicans weren't immediately piling behind Sununu's call for Gonzales' firing.

"I don't believe the attorney general should resign over this," said Sen. Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H. "I don't believe his ability to pursue the terrorist threat has been compromised to the extent that he should resign."

The House and Senate Judiciary committees have invited Rove, Miers and her deputy, Kelley, to testify voluntarily about their roles in the firings. Gonzales has pledged to allow five of his aides involved in the dismissals to testify. As insurance, the Senate panel is expected to consider subpoenas for the whole group.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters after the meeting with Fielding that the counsel promised a yes-or-no answer by Friday.

"He said it was his goal to get us both the documents and the witnesses that we seek to question," Schumer said. The White House was expected to issue some conditions, but Fielding "said his intention was not to stonewall," Schumer added.

U.S. attorneys are the federal government's prosecutors and serve at the pleasure of the president. They can be hired or fired for any reason, or none at all.

However, when the White House dismissed eight federal prosecutors without explanation, Democrats accused the administration of trying to make way for political allies under a new Patriot Act provision that permits the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.

The fired prosecutors are: Carol Lam and Kevin Ryan of California, Bud Cummins of Arkansas, Paul Charlton of Arizona, John McKay of Washington state, Daniel Bogden of Nevada, David Iglesias of New Mexico and Margaret Chiara of Michigan.

Gonzales and the White House denied the charges of a political purge and said they intended to submit the names of the replacements for confirmation.

They initially said the White House had only limited involvement in the firings. But e-mails released by the agency this week made clear that the firings were the result of a two-year campaign to purge the ranks of U.S. attorneys for various reasons, including chafing at the administration's crime-fighting priorities.

The e-mail exchanges between Gonzales' chief of staff and Miers and Kelley made clear the White House was deeply involved in the plan.

Miers, at that time White House counsel, at one point suggested firing all 93 U.S. attorneys. That idea was rebuffed by Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' top aide. Rove is mentioned in several of the e-mails as key to the process. Kelley gave the green light for the firings in another e-mail, saying the White House offices of legislative affairs, political affairs and communications had signed off on it.

Sampson resigned on Tuesday. Mike Battle, who oversaw the U.S. attorneys, announced his resignation last week in a departure the agency said had been long planned.

Bush, and Gonzales a day earlier, used a phrase made famous in previous scandals — "Mistakes were made" — and pledged to set things right with Congress.

Appearing Wednesday on NBC's "Today" show, Gonzales said he had a "general knowledge" of Sampson's conversations with Miers about the prosecutors, but said, "I was obviously not aware of all communications."

___

Associated Press writers Lara Jakes Jordan, Erica Werner and Terence Hunt contributed to this report.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gonzales_prosecutors

[Dronetek]

Im still at a loss to how this is any different from what the Clinton's did. It seems like the media and democrats are saying, "No its different because its political". Explin to me how you can prove the Clintons actions werent politcal. It seems to me that they were politcl reasons. .

[Durandal]

Im still at a loss to how this is any different from what the Clinton's did. It seems like the media and democrats are saying, "No its different because its political". Explin to me how you can prove the Clintons actions werent politcal. It seems to me that they were politcl reasons. .

Actually the similarities I see here is purger related. He testified under oath that they were not going to use this in a certain way, which they have. I could care less whether they were political or not. These people serve at the pleasure, plain and simple.

Its been like like that since I was born, so to me its status quo.

What gets me is that we have an AG that has lied, while under oath, in testimony to Congress.

That is about as Clinton as it gets.

Slap a felony on his ass and call it a day.

[Dronetek]

What gets me is that we have an AG that has lied, while under oath, in testimony to Congress.


Lied about what? The reasons for getting rid of the attorneys? I thought they could be fired FOR ANY REASON. How could you possibly prove that anyone was telling a lie?

[Durandal]

Lied about what? The reasons for getting rid of the attorneys? I thought they could be fired FOR ANY REASON. How could you possibly prove that anyone was telling a lie?

Come on man...


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.
- Jan. 18, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testifing before the Senate Judiciary Committee: "

[Dronetek]

Come on man...


- Jan. 18, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testifing before the Senate Judiciary Committee: "

Ok, whats the problem? How can anyone prove him wrong? They can be fired for whatever reason the president wants.

[Durandal]

Ok, whats the problem? How can anyone prove him wrong? They can be fired for whatever reason the president wants.

These people were fired (by the AG) over political reasons, the actual act is irrelevant. The fact that he lied under oath is.

Now, if it is your suggestion that some people are above the law and most are not, especially when it comes to political parties then, I am not too sure what to say...

He lied. While he was under oath. Too a committee of one of the three branches of government.

What the President can and cannot do is besides the point. The AG TESTIFIED he would never fire someone for political reasons.

He ƒucking lied.

Resign or nail him to a cross I don't care which. Its time to clean up Washington and if it means we do it this way, so be it.

[Dronetek]

So youre saying it can be proven that it was political and the AG lied?

[Jobu]

It doesn't matter anyway. Congress can't do ****all about this because these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and he can fire them at any time for any reason he wishes.

This is nothing but the Democrats and their allies in the media creating a scandal over something which is beyond their authority anyway. They can't do ****, and they know it, so they are convicting Gonzales of an imagined crime through CNN.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

So it is no longer the big bad "Jewish controlled media?" Now it is simply the liberal controlled media?


Always with the Jews. :roll:

Jews still do control the majority of the media, but they are not the common, Judiasm practicing Jews, they are self hating Jews, they hate everything Jews stand for, they hate their own religion, their own upbringing, they hate Israel, this just another effect of liberalism, no pride, no principles, no scruples.

Thats what the liberals do to you, they brainwash you into hating everything that you stand for, they do it to christians, jews, the average American, they try to get you to hate the same things they hate so that it takes the guilt away from their conscience.

These same Jews would side with the terrorist all the while knowing full well the terrorist would behead them in an instant, just to prove a point that they despise conservatives and would never ever side with them.

George Soros is a perfect example of a self hating Jew.

Charlotte Church is another example of an average church going young girl brainwashed by liberals and socialist, anyone know what she's doing now?

[XASA]

Always with the Jews. :roll:

Jews still do control the majority of the media, but they are not the common, Judiasm practicing Jews, they are self hating Jews, they hate everything Jews stand for, they hate their own religion, their own upbringing, they hate Israel, this just another effect of liberalism, no pride, no principles, no scruples.

Thats what the liberals do to you, they brainwash you into hating everything that you stand for, they do it to christians, jews, the average American, they try to get you to hate the same things they hate so that it takes the guilt away from their conscience.

These same Jews would side with the terrorist all the while knowing full well the terrorist would behead them in an instant, just to prove a point that they despise conservatives and would never ever side with them.

George Soros is a perfect example of a self hating Jew.

Charlotte Church is another example of an average church going young girl brainwashed by liberals and socialist, anyone know what she's doing now?

OMG, Charlotte Church has been brainwashed by liberals! What has the world come to? Surely, this must be the beginning of the decline of western civilization as we know it.

Dude, are you on any medication? If not, I think you should seriously consider seeking help for your paranoia.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

OMG, Charlotte Church has been brainwashed by liberals! What has the world come to? Surely, this must be the beginning of the decline of western civilization as we know it.

Dude, are you on any medication? If not, I think you should seriously consider seeking help for your paranoia.


I was making a parallel.

So you insult me instead of presenting your argument?

[XASA]

I was making a parallel.

So you insult me instead of presenting your argument?

It wasn't a insult. More like an intervention because you are one very paranoid individual.

BTW: You once responded to one of my posts by asking what was I smoking. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen

[Mr. JOSHUA]

It wasn't a insult. More like an intervention because you are one very paranoid individual.

I do sleep with my AK right next to my bed and a lil .22 on the headboard.


BTW: You once responded to one of my posts by asking what was I smoking. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Hey I just wanted to know if I could have some.

[Durandal]

This is nothing but the Democrats and their allies in the media creating a scandal over something which is beyond their authority anyway. They can't do ****, and they know it, so they are convicting Gonzales of an imagined crime through CNN.

*chuckle*

Yeah those damned Democrats. You sort of sound like one circa late 90s.

Nothing worse than a lot of whining.

I figure a good chunk of you defending the guy would be "better safe than sorry", but all you have done is proven to me that you are party whores just like the Democrats.

[Dronetek]

*chuckle*

Yeah those damned Democrats. You sort of sound like one circa late 90s.

Nothing worse than a lot of whining.

I figure a good chunk of you defending the guy would be "better safe than sorry", but all you have done is proven to me that you are party whores just like the Democrats.

How do you explain the constant media bombardment of the republicans and the total ignorance of democrat "scandals"?

[ElHombre]

This just gets funnier and funnier. Guess who's just been identified discussing firing AGs?

Karl Rove (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070316/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rove_prosecutors;_ylt=AoP42XZqQnNtDv1UyFvfr3es0NUE).


E-mail indicates Rove role in firings

White House political adviser Karl Rove raised questions in early 2005 about replacing some federal prosecutors but allowing others to stay, an e-mail released Thursday shows. The one-page document, which incorporates an e-mail exchange in January 2005, also indicates Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was considering dismissing up to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys in the weeks before he took over the Justice Department.

And this little bit brought a chuckle.


"Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago," Sampson wrote, referring to Gonzales, a former Texas state Supreme Court justice. He said the Justice Department was looking at replacing "underperforming" prosecutors. "The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc.," he said.

'loyal Bushies'? :lol:

[Durandal]

How do you explain the constant media bombardment of the republicans and the total ignorance of democrat "scandals"?

Because its not "Democrat" scandals. Its Congressional scandals. This is a Legislative vs. Executive Branch tug-o-war. If you haven't guessed that yet, then you need to catch the ƒuck up.

I mean come on man, William Jefferson, he's a democrat and the AG, the FBI, and the Executive Branch was going to nail him to the flag pole. Dude was dead meat, but unfortunately, even in a Republican controlled Congress, the ranking GOP members KNEW what was at stake, regardless of what party they are part of, they are a different Branch of the government and have their own interests to protect.

So, the House and Senate majority leadership cried foul and defended a Democrat...that had probably committed a felony. They couldn't do the same when it came to Foley, because he crossed a line that could not be defended and would not be forgotten.

THe Republicans have been the "Yes men" of the Executive Branch and they have gotten hosed so now the gloves are off. I would wager that only those that are the safest and most secure in the their districts say nothing during the last 2 years...those that KNWO they can win a fight by condemning a loser AND have little in their closet are going be yelling the loudest.

I mean, think about. Let's say you are a Democrat in a district that where a majority of the voters are a bunch of ex-hippie, uber-wealthy, Berkley types...would you attack the Executive Branch (nothing to lose...unless you are super corrupt and been stupid about it).

But I am meandering in this thought...

...back on topic.

Its not Left vs. Right its one Branch of the government fighting the other.

The media LOVES a good fight and if they can get with a little extra coverage on something that looks like it MIGHT even remotely get a little blood letting, they are on it like flies...political ideology is irrelevant...its all about ratings, viewers, and cash coming in from advertisers.

[California Joe]

Do you guys that constantly invoke the demon Clinton even remember how the press boned him by talking about Whitewater and Vince Foster and Monica/Gennifer Flowers/Paula Jones for years? Guilty or not, convicted or not, it was news, and not very flattering to him or his administration, that sh*t played on the news daily for years.....

I agree with Durandal about Jefferson. Personally I think that prick should have been put in jail.

[Durandal]

Do you guys that constantly invoke the demon Clinton even remember how the press boned him by talking about Whitewater and Vince Foster and Monica/Gennifer Flowers/Paula Jones for years? Guilty or not, convicted or not, it was news, and not very flattering to him or his administration, that sh*t played on the news daily for years.....

I agree with Durandal about Jefferson. Personally I think that prick should have been put in jail.

No $hit brother. Its nuts how short people's memory is and what I find the most amusing is that you can, literally substitute "fire" with "ƒuck" and "Bush" with "Clinton" and they would ALL sound the same. rofl

Or is that just me?

[Firetxmi]

GOP support for attorney general erodes

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 2 minutes ago

Republican support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales eroded Sunday as three key senators sharply questioned his truthfulness and a Democrat joined the list of lawmakers who want him to resign over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

"We have to have an attorney general who is candid and truthful. And if we find out he's not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on," said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the Justice Department.

Specter, R-Pa., said he would wait until Gonzales' scheduled April 17 testimony to the committee on the dismissals before deciding whether he could continue to support the attorney general. He called it a "make or break" appearance.

To Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., Gonzales "does have a credibility problem. ... We govern with one currency, and that's trust. And that trust is all important. And when you lose or debase that currency, then you can't govern. And I think he's going to have some difficulties."

Hagel cited changing stories from the Justice Department about the circumstances for firing the eight U.S. attorneys. "I don't know if he got bad advice or if he was not involved in the day-to-day management. I don't know what the problem is, but he's got a problem. You cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility," Hagel said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said Gonzales has been "wounded" by the firings. `He has said some things that just don't add up," said Graham, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Additionally, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., called for Gonzales to step down over his conflicting statements on how involved he was in the dismissals last fall. Democrats contend the prosecutors' firings were politically motivated.

Feinstein, whose state lost two U.S. attorneys in the purge — in San Diego and San Francisco — joined a growing number of Democrats and Republicans in calling for Gonzales' ouster. She said she now believes Gonzales has not told the truth about the firings.

"I believe he should step down," said Feinstein, also on the committee. "And I don't like saying this. This is not my natural personality at all. But I think the nation is not well served by this. I think we need to get at the bottom of why these resignations were made, who ordered them, and what the strategy was."

Gonzales has said he participated in no discussions and saw no memos about plans to carry out the firings on Dec. 7 that Democrats contend were politically motivated.

His schedule, however, shows he attended at least one hourlong meeting, on Nov. 27, where he approved a detailed plan to execute the prosecutors' firings.

The White House has stood by Gonzales, saying the documents do not conflict with Gonzales' earlier statements. "The president continues to have confidence in the attorney general," a spokesman said Saturday.

Gonzales maintains the firings were proper, but also has said he relied heavily on his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to plan the prosecutors targeted for dismissal. Sampson, who resigned under fire March 12, is scheduled to appear Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the dismissals.

The committee chairman, Sen. Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), said he is concerned the Bush administration is trying to make Sampson "the fall guy."

"And yet we find so many e-mails that contradict what the attorney general has said, contradict what the deputy attorney general has said, contradict what the White House has said. Mr. Sampson's right in the middle of it," said Leahy, D-Vt. "We're going to ask him under oath. ... I want him to say exactly what happened."

Leahy's committee also has authorized subpoenas for presidential political adviser Karl Rove and other top White House staff linked to the firings in more than 3,000 e-mails, calendar pages, memos and other documents the Justice Department has released.

President Bush has offered to grant a limited number of lawmakers private interviews with the aides with no transcript and without swearing them in — which senators from both parties have rejected. A House Judiciary subcommittee also has authorized subpoenas in the matter.

Specter appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," Feinstein spoke on "Fox News Sunday," Hagel was on "This Week" on ABC while Leahy and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_go_co/fired_prosecutors

[ElHombre]

Gonzalez better watch out. Bush is going to have to decide whether his AG or Karl Rove are going to be thrown under the bus pretty soon. What do you think the outcome of that will be? :lol:

[name already taken]

Gonzalez better watch out. Bush is going to have to decide whether his AG or Karl Rove are going to be thrown under the bus pretty soon. What do you think the outcome of that will be? :lol:
Not both ? :)

[name already taken]

And not Bush ?


Republican Senator Says Bush's Approach on Iraq Is Driving Lawmakers to Consider Impeachment (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2980019)

[ElHombre]

EDIT: ****. Wrong Senator. My apologies to Sen. Hagel.

[ElHombre]

Update: An aide to Gonzalez is pleading the Fifth (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070326/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc;_ylt=AuEnGoQbvOgQ9mdWxSyMRtzMWM0F).


An aide to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday invoked her constitutional right against self-incrimination and refused to testify before a Senate panel investigating the firing of eight prosecutors.

Monica Goodling, who was involved in the firings, said: "I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right because the ... circumstances present a perilous environment in which to testify."

Gonzalez's former chief-of-staff (the first one to be thrown under the bus by the admin) is still set to testify on Thursday.

[Firetxmi]

Democrats won't reschedule Gonzales

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The White House scrambled Sunday to move up Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' planned testimony to Congress about his involvement in firing eight federal prosecutors, only to get a cold shoulder from majority Democrats.

The effort reflected the frustration by Republican senators and the White House over how long it is taking the embattled attorney general to explain himself under oath. Congress has just begun a vacation — one week for the Senate, two for the House.

In a sign of Gonzales' diminished standing on Capitol Hill, the Senate GOP leader offered lukewarm support for the nation's top law enforcer, whose inconsistent explanations about the dismissals have become a distraction for the Bush administration.

Asked directly if he has confidence in Gonzales, Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., said: "I can honestly say the president does."

"What I can tell you at the moment is that he enjoys the support of the president, for whom he works," he said. "I think most Republican senators are willing to give the attorney general a chance to come up before the Judiciary Committee and give his side of the story."

Gonzales is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17. White House counselor Dan Bartlett said the committee ought to reschedule the hearing for next week.

"Let's move it up and let's get the facts," Bartlett said. "Let's have the attorney general there sooner rather than later."

The committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), said Gonzales had been offered earlier dates but turned them down. It was Gonzales who chose April 17, said Leahy, D-Vt., and that date will not change now because "everybody has set their schedule according to that."

"It's the date that the attorney general originally picked. It's the date the hearing will take place," Leahy said.

Until recently, department officials also said they wanted to give Congress enough time to go through the more than 3,000 pages of e-mails, memos, calendar pages and other documents detailing the decision to fire the prosecutors.

That changed Friday — the day after Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, testified to the committee — when aides said they would try to get Gonzales to Capitol Hill as soon as possible to explain his side.

In his testimony, Sampson said that Gonzales was deeply involved in the removal of the U.S. attorneys, contrary to the attorney general's public statements.

"We are absolutely confused by the White House position," said Sen. **** Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. "For the longest time, Alberto Gonzales wasn't going to come, maybe much later. Now the White House can't wait to bring him in."

Gonzales himself instructed a top aide on Saturday to see if the testimony date could be moved up.

He did so, said Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos, because he is eager to testify and "move on as soon as possible to the other important work before the committee and the department." She said a key reason that Gonzales and the committee settled on April 17 in the first place was because Gonzales was scheduled to testify before another committee, Senate Appropriations, on April 10.

Meanwhile, during the congressional recess, Senate Democrats are interviewing lower-level Justice Department officials in private to lay the groundwork for their session with Gonzales.

The clarity and substance of his testimony may influence whether Gonzales keeps his job.
President Bush has stood by him, issuing another vote of confidence on Saturday. But Bush has bluntly told Gonzales to explain himself better to Congress.

Lawmakers have demanded to know whether the prosecutors were fired as part of a plan to fill the jobs with political cronies, or as payback for not pursuing cases that were politically important to Republicans.

Not a single allegation of wrongdoing has been backed up by documents and testimony provided so far, Bartlett said.

Congress and the White House remain in a standoff over whether Bush political adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and other administration officials will testify in public about their roles in the firings. There appeared no signs of progress on Sunday.

Bartlett spoke on ABC's "This Week" and CBS' "Face the Nation." McConnell appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Leahy spoke on "Meet the Press."

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors;_ylt=AsQz95JBkuGRcewz7oQd2sXMWM0F

[name already taken]

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors;_ylt=AsQz95JBkuGRcewz7oQd2sXMWM0F
I'm sure Gonzales did a heck of a job (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=heck+of+a+job) :grin:

[ElHombre]

All right, this one's gonna make people laugh. One of the AGs, David Iglesias, was canned by yhe Bush admin for being, in their words, an 'absenteee landlord. It seems his superiors felt he was spending too much time away from the office. That little detail is the latest screw-up coming back to bite AG Gonzalez and his buds on the ass. You see, the reason Mr. Iglesias was gone so much was that he was moonlighting.

As a Captain in the US Naval Reserve. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17951419/site/newsweek/)


When he wasn’t doing his day job as U.S. attorney in New Mexico, David Iglesias was a captain in the Navy Reserve, teaching foreign military officers about international terrorism.

But Iglesias’s military service in support of what the Pentagon likes to call the Global War on Terror (GWOT) apparently didn’t go down well with his superiors at the Justice Department. Recently released documents show that one reason aides to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cited in justifying the decision to fire Iglesias as U.S attorney late last year was that he was an “absentee landlord” who was spending too much time away from the office.

So what's the problem? Firing employees for fufilling their duties to the US military is against the law.


That explanation may create new legal problems for Gonzales and Justice. Iglesias confirmed to NEWSWEEK that he was recently questioned by lawyers for the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal watchdog agency, to determine if his dismissal was a violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), a federal law that prohibits job discrimination against members of the U.S. military.

There you go folks. When the time came to decide between fighting the WoT and implementing Rove's latest machination in the cause of a Permanent Republican Majority, Gonzalez picked loyalty to Rove.

[Firetxmi]

All right, this one's gonna make people laugh. One of the AGs, David Iglesias, was canned by yhe Bush admin for being, in their words, an 'absenteee landlord. It seems his superiors felt he was spending too much time away from the office. That little detail is the latest screw-up coming back to bite AG Gonzalez and his buds on the ass. You see, the reason Mr. Iglesias was gone so much was that he was moonlighting.

As a Captain in the US Naval Reserve. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17951419/site/newsweek/)



So what's the problem? Firing employees for fufilling their duties to the US military is against the law.



There you go folks. When the time came to decide between fighting the WoT and implementing Rove's latest machination in the cause of a Permanent Republican Majority, Gonzalez picked loyalty to Rove.

Oops.... :lol:

[ElHombre]

Gonzalez had his big moment answering questions from a Senate panel today. It didn't go well (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gonzales_prosecutors;_ylt=AifyRTUP6CXC4xqSjidLaeis0NUE)...


The best way to put this behind us is your resignation," Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma bluntly told Gonzales, one conservative to another.


Gonzales has provided differing versions of the events surrounding the dismissals, first saying he had almost no involvement and later acknowledging that his role was larger — but only after e-mails about meetings he attended were released by the Justice Department to House and Senate committees.

He has a severe memory problem as well...


Seventy-one times he fell back on faulty memory, saying he could not recall or remember conversations or events surrounding the firings.