[zhenya]

It seems that Republicans found a nice scape goat in the face of Attorney General A.Gonzales. The pres/decider seem to be mulling this one over.
Bush gives lukewarm endorsement to Gonzales - Yahoo! News

[Ninong]

I'm not sure that will happen. Gonzales fired his chief of staff a couple of days ago. He's supposed to be the scapegoat in this sorry mess. Incredibly, Gonzales' stated reason for firing his chief of staff was that he failed to inform other members of the Department of Justice that he had been having discussions with the White House (Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, etc.) over the past two years and this failure to inform other DOJ employees resulted in their incomplete testimony before Congress. Haha! Haha! What a riot!

Gonzales went on to say that there are 110,000 employees in the DOJ and he can't possibly know what each one of them is up to. Wait a minute! Did he just say that he had no idea what his chief of staff was up to? Does he expect anyone to believe it? Not only that, his chief of staff wasn't the only DOJ employee who was in constant contact with the White House on the issue of getting rid of U.S. Attorneys who did not show adequate loyalty to the administration. He should fire the others, too. And what about his own "incomplete" testimoney before Congress? In retrospect, it looks more like perjury to me but he is now pretending that he didn't know what was going on at the time. Haha!

Will Bush fire him? I doubt it. He knows too much. He has been Bush's personal lawyer for a very long time. He knows everything because he's the one who hid everything. He knows all about the torture memos and the secret executive orders Bush signed based on those memos. He knows all about which orders came directly from Bush himself. He knows what Bush knew about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson. Firing Alberto Gonzales would be about as risky as firing Dick Cheney (aka trying to persuade him to step down). Bush can't actually fire Cheney but he could try to get him to resign.

They'll probably do what they always do in situations like this. Pretend they didn't know what was going on and make someone else take the rap. They can still be pardoned later (like Christmas Eve 2008 for instance) or, if they're not actually convicted of a crime, they can be awarded the Medal of Freedom a few months from now. Just ask George Tenet how that works.

People forget that Gonzales fired the U.S. Attorney in Guam because he was investigating Jack Abramoff. That investigation was closed the very next day. That was a long time ago. I'm not going to look it up but I think it was about two years ago.

[Ninong]

The Bush Administration has a history of purging any government employees who don't toe the administration's partisan political line. That's why they sent in Porter Goss (dearly departed) as head of the CIA. He was sent there to get rid of any career Democrats. He didn't last long himself. And the Executive Director of the CIA, Dusty Foggo (dearly departed), was just indicted by Carol Lam. She did that on her last day in office. Good for her!

They did the same thing with the civil rights division at Justice. They got rid of many career civil rights attorneys and replaced them with political hacks. In particular, they didn't want any voting rights investigations undertaken because those might benefit Democrats.

The dismissal of the U.S. attorneys is a more visible example of the same purgelike practices. Three of the fired U.S. attorneys—David Iglesias of New Mexico, Carol Lam of the southern district of California, and John McKay of the western district of Washington—were lauded by the Justice Department before they were fired. Bud Cummins, former U.S. attorney of Arkansas's eastern district, was told that the only reason he was being pushed out was to make way for J. Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Karl Rove and a one-time Republican National Committee staffer known for his skill at opposition research, not his legal acumen.

According to an email from Kyle Sampson (dearly departed), Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, getting Griffin appointed "was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.--Harriet Miers (dearly departed), then-White House counsel, and Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser. Given Griffin's thin qualifications for the job, the position of U.S. attorney was reduced to nothing more than a patronage perk.

Home-state politicians and White House officials clearly had a hand in other firings. Allen Weh, chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, told McClatchy newspapers that in 2005, he urged Karl Rove to have Iglesias fired because he failed to indict some Democrats for voter fraud. Iglesias testified that Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, both Republicans from New Mexico, "leaned on" him for the same reason. In each instance, there was direct and, to Iglesias, sickening political interference. The facts add up to retaliation for a decision not to prosecute, which stabs at the heart of prosecutorial discretion.

As for Lam, she successfully prosecuted and convicted on corruption charges former Republican and San Diego Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (dearly departed). Yesterday on the Senate floor, Arlen Specter, the Republican from Pennsylvania, asked whether she was dismissed because she was "about to investigate other people who were politically powerful." And former U.S. Attorney John McKay felt that he was under pressure from the office of Doc Hastings, a Republican congressman from Washington.

Were Iglesias and McKay fired for not indicting enough Democrats? Lam for threatening to bring down too many Republicans? We don't know for sure. But the lesson of some of the firings could be: Woe to the U.S. attorney who didn't enforce the law as political hacks in the Bush administration dictated. Political directives like this flout the tradition of nonpolitical law enforcement that's essential because of the awesome power of prosecutors. The uproar over the firings seems to have taken the administration by surprise, and it's possible they resulted from incompetence as much as cunning. But an administration's use of law enforcement for political ends has rarely seemed more brazen.

[Ninong]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Wednesday she believes the ouster of San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was connected to Lam's prosecution of former Republican congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, even though the Bush administration has denied it.

"In my heart of hearts I do, no matter what they say," Feinstein, D-Calif., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Gonzales went on to say that there are 110,000 employees in the DOJ and he can't possibly know what each one of them is up to. Wait a minute! Did he just say that he had no idea what his chief of staff was up to? Does he expect anyone to believe it? Not only that, his chief of staff wasn't the only DOJ employee who was in constant contact with the White House on the issue of getting rid of U.S. Attorneys who did not show adequate loyalty to the administration. He should fire the others, too.

As Gonzales put it yesterday, "the mistake that occurred here was that information that [Sampson] had was not shared with individuals within the department who was [sic] then going to be providing testimony and information to the Congress."

Setting aside for the moment the implication that Sampson lied to the officials who then gave false information to Congress, let's look at one of those instances of false information.

In late February, Richard Hertling, the acting Assistant Attorney General, wrote a letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in which he claimed that the "Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint [Karl Rove's former aide Timothy] Griffin." Haha! Haha!

Sampson, meanwhile, wrote in an email in December that getting Tim Griffin appointed was "important to Harriet, Karl, etc." And emails from last summer show that Rove's deputy was intimately involved in getting Griffin installed as the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.

So maybe Hertling didn't ask Sampson (the man at the department supposedly in charge of the purge) or Sampson lied to him.

But there's somebody else who knew: Monica Goodling, the Justice Department's liaison to the White House.

The emails show Goodling going back and forth with Sampson and Rove's deputy Scott Jennings about how to install Griffin without kicking up too much fuss. In an August 18th email (which has Jennings cc'ed), Goodling writes that they have a "senator prob" with Griffin's possible nomination -- meaning that one of Arkansas' senators had raised an objection to Griffin's nomination. That's followed by a paragraph brainstorming how to get Griffin in anyway.

Goodling's job at the Justice Department was to communicate with the White House -- and the emails show that Sampson even emailed drafts of correspondence to Goodling before sending it on to the White House.

So did she also do a poor job of communicating the White House's role in the purge to others?

P.S. -- The DOJ released 144 pages of emails a couple of days ago in an attempt to avoid perjury charges or impeachment proceedings against Alberto Gonzales. That's when he fired Sampson. Alberto is trying to pretend that he just discovered all of this and he's taking action to fix things so that it will never happen again. Yeah, right! Haha! Haha!

[Ninong]

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. [Duke Cunningham, Dusty Foggo, Brent Wilkes, Jerry Lewis, etc.]

"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."

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Ninong

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. [Duke Cunningham, Dusty Foggo, Brent Wilkes, Jerry Lewis, etc.]

"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."

Yeah, why do we need to prosecute people like that? It draws way too much attention to the administration. Off with her head...

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by zhenya

Yeah, why do we need to prosecute people like that? It draws way too much attention to the administration. Off with her head...

Alberto Gonzales is a terrible liar. I haven't seen a performance as bad as his since Ted Haggard's famous response when asked about his gay hooker boyfriend: "What did you say his name was again?"

Gonzales now says that he fired Carol Lam because she was spending too much time on public corruption cases and not enough time on illegal immigration. Haha! Haha!

Don't forget, he originally claimed that all of the fired U.S. Attorneys were fired because of "performance issues." Then it was discovered that most of them had received favorable performance reviews and that none of them had been told beforehand that their job performance was inadequate. He testified under oath before Congress that political considerations played no part in the firings and that no one at the White House was involved. This is why he fired his chief of staff. He's trying to pretend that it's all the fault of his chief of staff who did these evil deeds over a two year period without poor little Alberto knowing anything about it.

However, if you want to know the real reason Carol Lam was fired, just read the emails and look up the dates.

In an email dated May 11, 2006, Sampson (Gonzales' chief of staff) urged the White House counsel's office to call him regarding "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam," who was 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.

Guess what else had happened right about that same time:

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 attendance 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 -- Kyle "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.

Yep, I guess you could call that "a real problem" alright! No wonder she didn't have time to devote to catching illegal immigrants. She was too busy catching corrupt Republicans!

And earlier today, down Mexico way, our own Brilliant Invincible Commander made the false assertion that it is "customary" to fire U.S. Attorneys. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth and he knows it. He claimed that this whole thing was the result of a "misunderstanding" on the part of people outside the administration. What a bunch of BS. Karl Rove is going to have to feed him a better line than that.

Both Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. Attorneys upon taking office and that is customary when there is a change in the political party in the White House. That's because all U.S. Attorneys are political appointees of the president. However, the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term is unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors. The arrogance of this administration is seen in the fact that they openly fired those prosecutors who were causing them the most grief. Those are the very prosecutors who should have been off limits!

Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked about this this morning on ABC:

"I'm deeply disturbed by what we have learned thus far," Clinton said, "and I join those who are calling for a full and thorough investigation to try to get to the bottom of these very political decisions that interfere with prosecutorial responsibility by U.S. attorneys, and I think that the attorney general should resign."

Clinton said the evidence so far pointed to "direct interference with the way U.S. attorneys are supposed to operate — to be impartial. There's evidence of political interference and political pressure being put on them to engage in partisan political activities." Clinton added there were "so many examples of an abuse of power, of going in and removing people not on the basis of performance but, in fact, because they were performing well, they were fulfilling their responsibilities as a U.S. attorney, and that wasn't within the political agenda of the administration."

When Clinton's husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney. Clinton was asked how this was different from the termination of eight U.S. attorneys last December.

"There is a great difference," Clinton said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It's not done on a case-by-case basis where you didn't do what some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh' and every president has done that."

Obviously Karl Rove is trying to peddle the ridiculous claim that everybody does it and it's perfectly legal, even "customary." He's going to have to come up with a new excuse because that dog won't hunt.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Yep, I guess you could call that "a real problem" alright! No wonder she didn't have time to devote to catching illegal immigrants. She was too busy catching corrupt Republicans!

Talking about workload...

[Ninong]

It took a few days, but the mainstream media is finally getting around to reading the emails.

From today's Washington Post:

In testimony on Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department had no intention of avoiding Senate input on the hiring of U.S. attorneys. [Gonzales lied under oath!]

Just a month earlier, D. Kyle Sampson, who was then Gonzales's chief of staff, laid out a plan to do just that. In an e-mail, he detailed a strategy for evading Arkansas Democrats in installing Tim Griffin, a former GOP operative and protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove, as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.

"We should gum this to death," Sampson wrote to a White House aide on Dec. 19. "[A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance . . . then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in 'good faith,' of course."

[Gonzales fired Sampson and then released 144 pages of emails in an attempt to make Sampson the scapegoat. Sampson was his chief of staff! And he wasn't the only one involved. For Gonzales to pretend that he didn't know what was going on is absurd! It's so obvious that even the Republicans in Congress want him to resign because they're not in the mood to have another White House scandal wrapped around their necks like a dead albatross. At this rate, who knows, maybe the Democrats will end up with the magic 60 senators after November 2008. There are 21 GOP senators and only 12 Democratic senators up for re-election next year.]

The conflict between documents released this week and previous administration statements is quickly becoming the central issue for lawmakers who are angry about the way Gonzales and his aides handled the coordinated firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Democrats and Republicans are demanding to know whether Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and other Justice officials misled them in sworn testimony over the past two months. Yesterday, Republican Sen. John Sununu (N.H.) joined a handful of Democrats in calling on President Bush to fire his attorney general and longtime friend. [Sununu was first elected to the Senate in 2002. He's up for re-election next year.]

Gonzales has declined to address the apparent contradictions in detail, saying only that he was unaware of the specifics of the plan that Sampson was orchestrating. [He's lying!]

The inconsistencies between Justice's positions and the documents are numerous. On Feb. 23, for example, a Justice legislative affairs aide wrote to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that the department "was not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin." [Another lie!] But internal Justice e-mails show that "getting him appointed is important" to Rove and was closely monitored by political aides in the White House.

Last week, senior Justice official William E. Moschella told a House Judiciary subcommittee that the White House was not consulted on the firings until the end of the process. [Lie!]

But the documents released this week show that the plan began more than two years ago at the White House counsel's office, which initially suggested firing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Gonzales rejected that idea, and Sampson wrote back in January 2006 that Justice and the White House should "work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys."

Schumer argued this week that Sampson "may well have obstructed justice" by not disclosing his communications to Congress and other senior Justice officials, who had said for weeks that the White House had only a limited role in the removals. "There has been misleading statement after misleading statement, and these have been deliberately misleading statements," Schumer said yesterday.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also called yesterday for investigations by Congress and a special prosecutor looking at "whether any official has testified falsely in violation of federal perjury and obstruction of justice statutes."

[...]

McNulty told the committee that there was no plan to use Gonzales's appointment powers to evade Senate oversight, that accusations of "politicizing" the hiring and firing process were "completely contrary to my daily experience," and that the dismissals of everyone but the Arkansas prosecutor were purely "performance-related."

Each of those contentions is called into question by the 143 pages of internal e-mails and other documents turned over to the House and the Senate on Tuesday. Most had been sent or received by Sampson. [They're trying to make Sampson the scapegoat, which is why he was fired just as the emails were released.]

Political considerations, for example, figured prominently in who was chosen to be fired. Sampson ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys in part on whether they "exhibited loyalty" to Bush and Gonzales or "chafed against Administration initiatives etc." [Believe it or not, those are the exact titles used for the two lists. Sampson recommended retaining "strong U.S. Attorneys who have...exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General." He suggested "removing weak U.S. Attorneys who have...chafed against Administration initiatives."]

Legal scholars say that prosecutions related to lying to or misleading Congress are rare, and that they usually focus on cases in which a defendant is alleged to have clearly lied or destroyed evidence in an attempt to mislead lawmakers. One recent example was the prosecution of former White House aide David H. Safavian, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for lying to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and others.

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said several statutes involving obstruction of justice and perjury can be applied to cases in which witnesses allegedly mislead lawmakers.

P.S. -- The Washington Post has put the raw emails online:
Set 1
Set 2
Set 3
Set 4

[Ninong]

Speaking of Alberto Gonzales, do you remember this?

From National Journal:

Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.

Bush personally intervened to sideline the Justice Department probe in April 2006 by taking the unusual step of denying investigators the security clearances necessary for their work.

It is unclear whether the president knew at the time of his decision that the Justice inquiry -- to be conducted by the department's internal ethics watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility -- would almost certainly examine the conduct of his attorney general....

Current and former Justice Department officials, as well as experts in legal ethics, question the propriety of Gonzales's continuing to advise Bush about the investigation after learning that it might examine his own actions. The attorney general, they say, was remiss if he did not disclose that information to the president. But if Gonzales did inform Bush about the possibility and the president responded by stymieing the probe, that would raise even more-serious questions as to whether Bush acted to protect Gonzales, they said.

P.S. -- Of course Bush knew what was going on. Anyone who believes that he doesn't know exactly what's going on with people like Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove, both of whom have been with him for a long time, is smoking something. This is obviously obstruction of justice!

[Ninong]

The Senate just issued subpoenas for five DOJ officials to testify:

WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday cleared the way for subpoenas compelling five Justice Department officials and six of the U.S. attorneys they fired to tell the story of the purge that has prompted demands for the ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The voice vote to authorize the panel to issue subpoenas amounts to insurance against the possibility that Gonzales could retract his permission to let the aides testify voluntarily, or impose strict conditions.

The committee also postponed for a week a vote on whether to authorize subpoenas of top aides to President Bush who were involved in the eight firings, including political adviser Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and deputy White House Counsel William K. Kelley.

The committee approved subpoena power over key Justice Department officials involved in the firings: Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Bill Mercer and Mike Battle.

Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, quit this week. Elston is staff chief to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Mercer is associate attorney general. Goodling is Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, and Battle is the departing director of the office that oversees all 93 U.S. attorneys.

Here.

Update: Why did the committee hold off on subpoenas to the White House? Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says "It is regrettable that members of the minority blocked subpoenas for some of the White House players. They should be joining in our efforts to get to the bottom of this.”

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Ninong

P.S. -- Of course Bush knew what was going on. Anyone who believes that he doesn't know exactly what's going on with people like Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove, both of whom have been with him for a long time, is smoking something.

Well, I personally don;t believe anything he says anymore. And, I see more than one reason to call for his removal/resignation, or whatever you want to call that. Oh, yeah, impeachment... I doubt that will ever happen, or if it even a usefull step. Making someone who knowingly, and arrogantly breaks the law a martyr is not a good thing.
Politics....

PS.

WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday cleared the way for subpoenas compelling five Justice Department officials and six of the U.S. attorneys they fired to tell the story of the purge that has prompted demands for the ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

It will be interesting to hear what they have to say and it looks like things are heating up on the hill. The proverbial crap is about to hit the fan or could they sweep it under the rug?

[Ninong]

Gene,

I don't think the Democrats should even consider impeaching Bush at the present time. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, only that it wouldn't make political sense right now. It would be too risky for the Democrats. Right now they are well positioned to win the White House and increase their majorities in Congress, especially the Senate, next year. Why do anything to put that at risk? If we get to the point where the Republicans themselves are calling for his impeachment, like they did for Nixon's, then that would be different. So far only Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has openly mentioned the possibility of impeaching Bush.

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that both Attorney General Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty both lied under oath before Congress. If the mainstream media decides to make a big deal out of that, then the Republicans will call on Bush to ask for their resignations in an attempt to put an end to what they perceive as a witch hunt by the Democrats.

P.S. -- Just for the record, here is what Hagel said in an interview published March 11, 2007:

"The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore," Hagel says, measuring his words by the syllable and his syllables almost by the letter. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes."

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by zhenya

The proverbial crap is about to hit the fan or could they sweep it under the rug?

It would have been swept under the rug when the GOP controlled both the House and the Senate but now that the Democrats are in control, it won't be swept under the rug.

Check out this picture! That's Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), the guy who had the brain surgery. He's well on his way to recovery! Don't forget, when push comes to shove, the Democrats have only 49 votes right now in the Senate with Sen. Johnson out on sick leave and Joe Lieberman being completely unreliable.

[Ninong]

Check out this Daily Show clip that features hilarious examples of Alberto Gonzales trying to explain things.

In short, Gonzales is now telling Congress that mistakes were made and he takes full responsibility even though he had no knowledge whatsoever of what was going on. He will now investigate himself and get back to them.

[Ninong]

Republican senators are starting to pile on. First it was Sununu, now more of them are speaking out. And poor Alberto hasn't even finished investigating himself yet.

From USA Today:

"For the Justice Department to be effective before the U.S. Senate, it would be helpful" if Gonzales resigned, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., told Kiely. [Sen. Smith is up for re-election in 2008. Oregon voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.]

Meanwhile, GOP Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota said he is "deeply concerned about how this whole process has been handled." [Sen. Coleman is up for re-election in 2008. Minnesota voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.]

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he was "withholding judgment" on Gonzales' tenure, but characterized the attorney general's explanations for the firings as "unacceptable" and "mystifying." [Sen. Specter is up for re-election in 2010. Pennsylvania voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.]

Wednesday, Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., told Kiely that "if I were the president, I would fire the attorney general." [Sen. Sununu is up for re-election in 2008. New Hampshire voted for Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.]

P.S. -- Any day now, I expect the President to hold a press conference or appear on national TV to try to explain away the whole sordid mess, not that that will shed any light on things. What we need is a president who is fluent in at least one language.

[Ninong]

Maybe I should clarify my above post. In spite of the fact that some prominent Republicans are now calling on Alberto Gonzales to step down, I'm still not convinced that this will happen unless he is charged with something more damning than lying to Congress or obstructing internal DOJ investigations that might have caused him problems. Unless, of course, the Democrats decide to push this and consider his impeachment.

The reason I say that is because if Alberto Gonzales steps down, then Bush has to find a replacement that would be acceptable to the Senate. That would mean someone who is not tied to the current Justice Department scandal. The problem for Bush is that if he appoints someone beyond reproach who would be confirmable by the Senate, that person might not be helpful to the administration during all the investigations that are sure to pop up over the next several months.

At times like these, an honest, ethical attorney general is probably the last thing Bush wants.

[schrocat]

Ok.
I'll play!

He's gone by Friday.