US Attorneys

With a New Day Dawning in DC, Will Rove Escape Justice?

fast2write — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:56:48 -0500

With a new day dawning in Washington, D.C., due to the election of Barack Obama as the first black president in American history who looks determined to govern like Lincoln and make changes in that corrupt town, is it possible that Bush administration officials will totally escape the long arm of justice for their roles in high crimes and misdemeanors more damaging than any corruption in our history?

While former Bush political adviser Karl Rove is still in defiance of a Congressional subpoena to testify under oath and still faces an investigation for destroying e-mails and other documents, obstruction of justice and other civil and criminal infractions for his role in turning the Bush Justice Department into a political arm of the White House, the Washington Post company actually pays him money to write a column for Newsweek magazine advising the Republican Party on how to get itself out of the political wilderness. There is something very wrong with this picture....

Read the full story at the permalink below in the the hottest independent news site in the American South by far, The Locust Fork News-Journal: http://www.locustfork.net/

Permalink:
http://blog.locustfork.net/2008/11/20/with-a-new-day-dawning-in-dc-will-...

A Day of Reckoning For Don Siegelman, Eleventh Circuit

fast2write — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:32:39 -0500

The Case For Why Siegelman’s Verdict Should Be Overturned

A detailed analysis of the appeals briefs in the Siegelman case reveals four solid arguments the appeals court panel could stand on to reverse the conviction, order a mistrial, or reduce the sentence after a hearing scheduled for Dec. 9 in Atlanta.

Full news feature with links and photos here:

http://blog.locustfork.net/2008/11/15/a-day-of-reckoning-for-siegelman-1...

News Flash! Bush Judge Does the Right Thing!

dlindorff — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:32:30 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

A federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush to
the bench has done the right thing, ruling definitively this morning
that the President’s claim of absolute immunity for his advisors from
Congressional oversight and subpoena is “entirely unsupported by
existing case law.”

The ruling, by Judge John Bates, is as important as much because of
who issued it as it is for its impact upon Congressional investigations
into presidential wrongdoing.

Certainly the ruling will open the way for Democrats in Congress to
move harder to investigate the abuses of the current administration,
which have been stymied by administration refusal to provide witnesses,
even to come in and plead the Fifth Amendment protection against
self-incrimination.

In the specific case under consideration here, the House Judiciary
Committee had been attempting to force the appearance of Josh Bolton,
the president’s former chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, former White
House legal counsel, to testify about the White House role in the
firing of a number of federal prosecutors around the country who were
reportedly deemed insufficiently political in their unwillingness to
“go after” Democratic elected officials, or to interfere with the
election process.

Bush had asserted that all such aides have blanket immunity from
Congressional inquiry under the concept of “executive privilege.”

But Judge Bates disagreed, saying that the White House had failed
to show a single case in which the courts had held White House aides to
be immune from Congressional subpoenas. In a strongly-worded 93-page
ruling, he not only said that no such blanket immunity existed, and
that aides had to respond to congressional subpoenaes. He also ordered
that the White House must hand over requested documents—something that
the White House for both of the president’s two terms, has been
unwilling to do.

Of course, it is a certainty that the Bush administration will
appeal Judge Bates’ ruling to a higher court, and the process could end
up dragging on beyond the end of Bush’s term of office, which ends on
Jan. 20. But with this ruling, Congress should feel much more confident
about going after those, like Miers, Bolton, Karl Rove (recently cited
for contempt of Congress himself) and others, who refuse orders to
appear and testify. Congress should also be more willing to consider
using its own power of inherent contempt to go after such witnesses by
having their own officers arrest and jail recalcitrants.

The other important thing about Judge Bates’ ruling is that it
suggests, happily, that there are principled Republicans, even among
the slew of so-called conservative “constructionist” judges that Bush
has been larding the federal bench with, from the district level to the
Supreme Court. At least some of these judges, apparently, once
confirmed in their lifetime offices, do take their oaths of office to
uphold the Constitution seriously. Judge Bates (who, though I didn’t
know him personally, attended Wesleyan University in Connecticut at the
same time I did, graduating in 1968) worked as a deputy independent
counsel in the Whitewater Investigation of President Bill Clinton,
which was an obvious political plus in his gaining a federal judgeship
nomination by the Bush White House. In 2006 he was also appointed by
Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court that is supposed to oversee domestic spying
activities of the National Security Agency.

I am assuming the best of Judge Bates, i.e. that he ruled based on
his reading of the Constitution and court precedent. But of course it
could also be that this ruling is a sign that Bush judicial appointees
are reading the political handwriting on the wall: that the Bush era of
seeking to aggrandize absolute executive power is coming to an end.
With the president’s public support dwindling to just 21 percent, and
with all signs pointing to a big Democratic win in upcoming
Congressional elections, not to mention a possible Democratic president
in the White House this November, we may start to see at least some
Bush-appointed judges concluding that supinely acceding to the wishes
of the Bush/Cheney White House may not be the wisest career move for
anyone hoping to move up to a higher court.

Whatever the reasons for this important decision, I commend Judge
Bates for upholding the Constitution, and its all-important
establishment of three separate, co-equal branches of government.

Now if only Democrats in Congress would do the same thing.
______________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). Because of a clerical error and his own inattention to bureaucratic detail, he graduated from Wesleyan University in 1972. His work is available at
www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35170';
digg_title = "News Flash! Bush Judge Does the Right Thing!";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n A federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush to the bench has done the right thing, ruling definitively this morning that the President’s claim of absolute immunity for his advisors from Congressional oversight and subpoena is “entirely unsupported by existing case law.”\r\n\r\n The ruling, by Judge John Bates, is as important as much because of who issued it as it is for its impact upon Congressional investigations into presidential wrongdoing.\r\n\r\n Certainly the ruling will open the way for Democrats in Congress to move harder to investigate the abuses of the current administration, which have been stymied by administration refusal to provide witnesses, even to come in and plead the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Neo-Cons Demand Mukasey's Criminal Complicity

Chip — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:09:25 -0500

Harper's Scott Horton just dropped da turd in da tank. Seems as though a few "movement conservatives" got some "private time" with the "independently minded" Judge Mukasey. They made two offers he couldn't refuse. First, don't appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the US Attorneys scandal - that's essential to protect the Bush toadies Rove and Miers. Secondly, they wanted Mukasey's assurance that he would continue the protection of the authors of the waterboarding torture program.

Welcome, folks, to the world of Alice in Wonderland, as we peer down into the rabbit's hole, reading Senator Schumer's (ir)rationalization for endorsing Mukasey:

"...the job will not be finished until we get a strong and independent attorney general. I believe Judge Mukasey is that type of person. Should we reject him, it is almost certain that an acting, caretaker attorney general will take office without the advice and consent of the Senate. Inevitably, that would enable those in this administration, who do not believe in the rule of law, and have done things that caused even former Attorney General Ashcroft to threaten resignation, to have the complete upper hand.

Only a strong and independent attorney general can return the Justice Department to what it once was and should always be. Under this administration, that nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping.

Wake up, you're not going to get a strong and independent attorney general. You're going to get another puppet whose primary function will be to hold the damn mess together for another year, until the corporate fascists can bail out to their K Street golden parachutes. If Mukasey has an ounce of integrity and a lick of sense, he'll bolt for the door.

But the really startling admission in Schumer's statement is his defeatist handwringing: "When an administration, so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice..." Schumer must be tone deaf to his own words to be so accepting of the administration's lawlessness.

But, sadly, it gets worse. Mukasey either is waffling (hardly the stuff needed to manage the in-disarray DOJ) or he's scamming someone. Which is it? Or, Who is it? Schumer or the neo-cons? Here's what Schumer says Mukasey promised:

The judge made clear to me that were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.

But according to Scott Horton, Mukasey also shined on the neo-cons. "Mukasey, I am told, gave vague reassurances on both points, 'without completely giving away the shop.'”

Strong and independent? Or vague and waffling? And isn't conspiring to cover up crimes - even at the highest level - also a crime? Maybe not, down in Wonderland's rabbit's hole.

Move on to impeachment

richardmathews — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:49:16 -0400

MoveOn is finally moving on to talk about the possibility of impeachment proceedings!

Sign their petition:
http://pol.moveon.org/subpoena/

It states:

"Congress must force Vice President Cheney to respond to its subpoenas. If he continues to obstruct justice and disregard the rule of law, Congress has no choice but to begin impeachment proceedings against him."

Richard M. Mathews

Jill Simpson's Affidavit Lifts The Veil on Bush Justice Department, Karl Rove Dirty Tricks

fast2write — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:06:20 -0400

In a five part series, Jill Simpson tells the story of her affidavit filed in the interest of seeking justice against the Bush and Riley political machines in the case of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and deposed HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy.

The Locust Fork Journal

Glynn Wilson
Editor & Publisher
The Locust Fork News and Journal
http://www.locustfork.net/news/
http://www.locustfork.net/blog/

Judiciary Chairmen Subpoena Miers and Taylor but White House Claims Executive Privilege

Bob Fertik — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:30:17 -0400

As we all know, it's ultimately about Karl Rove...

Judiciary Chairmen Conyers, Leahy Issues Subpoenas For White House Officials, Documents

Senate, House Judiciary Panels Compel Former White House Officials To Provide Testimony, Information In Connection With Investigations Of U.S. Attorney Firings And Politicization Within Dept. Of Justice

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., today issued subpoenas to two former White House officials compelling them to provide testimony and related information as part of ongoing congressional investigations into the mass firings of well-performing federal prosecutors and the politicization of hiring and firing within the Department of Justice.

The House Judiciary Committee issued two subpoenas, one seeking the documents and testimony of Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, and another seeking White House documents relevant to the panel’s ongoing investigation.

The Senate Judiciary Committee issued three subpoenas, two seeking the documents and testimony of Sara M. Taylor, former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs, and another seeking White House documents relevant to the panel’s ongoing investigation.

“Let me be clear: this subpoena is not a request, it is a demand on behalf of the American people for the White House to make available the documents and individuals we are requesting to help us answer the questions that remain,” said Chairman Conyers.”The breadcrumbs in this investigation have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania. This investigation will not end until the White House complies with the demands of this subpoena in a timely and reasonable manner so that we may get to the bottom of this.”

“By refusing to cooperate with congressional committees, the White House continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation, and those who suffer most in this case are the public and the hard-working people at the Department of Justice,” said Chairman Leahy. “The White House cannot have it both ways — it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred. The involvement of the White House’s political operation in this project, including former Political Director Sara Taylor and her boss Karl Rove, has been confirmed by information gathered by congressional committees. Some at the White House may hope to thwart our constitutional oversight efforts by locking the doors and closing the curtains, but we will keep asking until we get to the truth.”

So will the White House comply with the subpoenas? Hell no!

CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin reports, “The White House has made clear it will cite executive privilege for conversations that took place within the White House on the U.S. attorney matter, and if the people with those conversations happen to have subsequently left the White House, that doesn’t matter. They’re still going to cite executive privilege, and these people are not going to be allowed to testify anytime soon, it appears, if the White House remains as it has been. … Even if they want to testify.”

At long last, the Constitutional Crisis begins...

Gonzales: It's Time to Impeach or Jail

Bob Fertik — Wed, 16 May 2007 14:39:46 -0400

Leftblogs are boiling mad at James Comey's dramatic testimony about the 2004 trip by Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card to then-AG John Ashcroft's hospital bed to pressure Ashcroft to approve the illegal NSA wiretapping program.

("Loyal Bushie" David Johnston of the NY Times featured Bush's role in ending the conflict by siding with Comey, but failed to report that Bush started the conflict by approving the blatantly illegal program and then personally calling Mrs. Ashcroft to arrange the shocking visit.)

Bush, Gonzales, and Card would have gotten their way if Comey hadn't raced over to the hospital and arrived before Gonzales and Card. Even more shockingly, Comey had to persuade FBI director Mueller to order the FBI agents outside the hospital room to ignore any order from Gonzales and Card to eject Comey. Ultimately, Comey and Ashcroft had to threaten to quit in order to get Bush to reluctantly agree to something resembling the rule of law - although the "legality" of the final action remains a deep dark secret.

So it's no wonder that leftblogs are now calling Gonzales and Card "thugs." But there's infinitely more at stake than namecalling.

First, it looks like Gonzales committed perjury before the Senate Judiciary Committee, as looseheadprop details:

When asked about Gonzales' statement about that he was not involved in the firings — Comey not only said that he (Comey) was more well versed in that subject than most, but also stated an assumption that Gonzales had since "corrected" his testimony. I immediately thought were did he get an idea like that? Did I miss a news item?

Specter had to tell the world that AGAG had NOT corrected his testimony and then Specter puts out a plea for Gonzales to "recant". What's that all about? It sounded like a last ditch effort to get Gonzales to avoid Scooter Libby's fate.

Second, Gonzales also perjured himself on February 26, 2006 when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee about internal disputes over the NSA wiretapping program:

There has not been any serious disagreement, including – and I think this is accurate – there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the President has confirmed.

But Comey testified the dispute was so bad he had to race to Ashcroft's bedside, arrange FBI protection, confront Gonzales and Card, demand a witness at a later meeting with Card, and threaten to resign with Ashcroft. Senators Feingold, Schumer, Kennedy, and Durbin just wrote Gonzales giving him one last chance to stay out of the slammer:

In light of Mr. Comey’s testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it?

Third, Gonzales also perjured himself during his April appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee when

he claimed that he'd always rejected the idea of using a Patriot Act provision to appoint handpicked U.S. attorneys and keep them in place indefinitely without Senate confirmation as "interim" U.S. attorneys.

But Kyle Sampson told congressional investigators that Karl Rove's senior aide Sara Taylor "was upset when the Attorney General finally “rejected” this use of the interim authority" in January after Senators Leahy and Feinstein began asking questions about the U.S. Attorney scandal.

Finally, Tuesday's hearings coincided with a 2 pm Senate Judiciary Committee deadline for a subpoena to Gonzales to turn over

any of Karl Rove's emails in the [Justice] Department's possession that might be relevant to the U.S. attorney firings. The deadline came and went. And now Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) and ranking member Arlen Specter (R-PA) are angry.

“You ignored the subpoena, did not come forward today, did not produce the documents and did not even offer an explanation for your noncompliance,” the senators wrote in a lettter to Alberto Gonzales today. “Your action today is in defiance of the Committee’s subpoena without explanation of any legal basis for doing so.” You can read the letter here.

The senators set a new deadline, this Friday at May 18, 10 AM. If the Justice Department does not respond to the subpoena, the senators ask that they at least explain why they're not responding "so that the Chairman and the Committee can assess any objections to the subpoena or privileges claimed by the Department."

"The Committee intends to get to the truth," they conclude.

Leahy and Specter can beg Gonzales as much as they want, but everyone knows what will happen - Gonzales will "gum it to death," making fools out of the Senators (1).

If the Senators don't want to be made into fools, they have two choices: either ask the House to impeach Gonzales and then vote to remove him in the Senate, or go directly to a Senate trial under penalty of jail. As Kagro X has patiently explained, this is the forgotten power of "inherent contempt:"

Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

Senators, pre-season is over. As Cheney would say, "it's game time."

(1) Late Wednesday the Justice Department gave the Senate Judiciary Committee all of its emails to Karl Rove about the U.S. Attorney firings. How many exactly? One. Looks like someone's been doing some serious scrubbing...

The Fox (Gonzales) Promises To Investigate HEN Disappearances

thepen — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 05:55:13 -0400

Let's Give Gonzales A PUSH, Shall We?

ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/goodbye_gonzales.php

The thing we must remember about people who ABUSE power is they do not volunteer to give it up. It's not just Gonzales, look at what's going on with Wolfowitz at the same time, with the entire World Bank staff in open revolt. So if Gonzales has not resigned by the time you read this, please contact your members of Congress and push them to speak out, to tell Gonzales it's time to go.

And if the testimony of the Attorney General clinging to power before the Senate Judiciary Committee was not enough of a comedy sketch, we offer the following:

FOX PROMISES TO INVESTIGATE HEN DISAPPEARANCES

Prepared Statement of The Fox:

Distinguished members of the Farm Oversight Board, I can reassure the farm community that I want to get to bottom of the missing hens scandal just as much as you do. Each of these hens were very valued and tasty . . . uh, I mean . . . dedicated members of the hen department and we thank them for their loyal service in comprising my diet. . . that is, in working for the best interests of us all.

I hadn't myself noticed when any of these hens disappeared, but we discovered them missing when you asked for a head account. And I have already directed the wolf department to conduct a full investigation. I have every confidence their final report will be just as professional and thorough as the one they did about the lost sheep incidents.

We have done everything we can to cooperate with this hearing process, including providing thousands of HEAVILY redacted documents, which you had no right to ever see in the first place of course, so you certainly don't need to see all the many others we are withholding or told you we can't find. And I have spent many hours preparing for this hearing carefully reviewing all these documents to refresh my memory so I can truthfully tell you I don't remember any of the important events.

And having said that, I would be happy to respond to your questions, even if I don't substantively answer them at all.

Senator Horse: Mr. Fox aren't those hen feathers around your snout?

Mr. Fox (quickly brushing them away): You must understand that I work very closely with the hens every day, so there is nothing improper if a couple of bloody hen feathers happen to get caught in my whiskers from time to time. In my view there is no appearance of impropriety, despite the improper appearance.

Senator Horse: When exactly did the hens start to turn up missing?

Mr. Fox: What missing hens?

Senator Horse: Uh . . . the hens whose disappearance we're here to investigate?

Mr. Fox: Oh, THOSE missing hens. When did that start? Let me be clear, again, I don't recall that.

Senator Goat: Isn't it your JOB to watch over the hen house, to KNOW if any of the hens are missing?

Mr. Fox: I had limited involvement in doing the watching. I delegated that responsibility to some of the unhatched eggs, but going back over the farm reports I now understand that the first hen disappeared 10 days ago.

Senator Goat: Isn't that the day after you took over the hen house?

Mr. Fox: Now look, I didn't come here to have you impugn the integrity of the hardworking hens in our department.

Senator Goat: Don't accuse this committee of attacking the hens. Isn't that the same thing as blaming the sheep for getting lost on their own? That's what the wolf department concluded in their recent commission report, but we need to reinvestigate that one too. Do you honestly expect this committee to believe you don't remember when you started work, which was just 11 days ago?

Mr. Fox: We redacted that information from the documents we produced. How can you know that? Has one of the remaining hens been testifying without me telling them what to lie about? Otherwise I can't be expected to remember recalling having a recollection about anything like that.

Senator Bull: Well it seems to me VERY suspicious that we had no missing hen problem before, and then the day after you come on, hens start disappearing. Can you explain why in your press conference yesterday, you stated that there WERE no missing hens, when there were already farm journal headline articles about them?

Mr. Fox: I have already acknowledged that my previous statements were not accurate, imprecise, that I misspoke, there were misstatements and I regret saying those words, but I still maintain that they were all true.

Senator Bull: What?! Are you seriously telling us you have NO knowledge of any of the facts about any of these hens and when they disappeared, and on THAT basis you are asking us to allow you to stay on as the keeper of the hen house?

Mr. Fox: Even though I won't admit I know how any of this happened I have concluded that there was no intentional misconduct. I have learned many important lessons from all this which I promise I will quickly forget as well. The keeper of the hen house is a very important job, and I'M still determined to continue to do it.

Senator Bull: Well, either you are doing a very bad job of watching over the hens, or you're not doing the job at all. Either way, we've concluded it's time for you to go.

Mr. Fox (grins slightly, and thinks to himself): [So, who's gonna make me?]

Mini-Monicagate - Torturer General Gonzales' Lawyer to Take the Fifth

CactusPat — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:18:21 -0400

Oh, how the high and mighty are falling. A mini-Monicagate in the making! Gonazales' lawyer takin' the fifth... What next? A midnight flight to Bushco's new Paraguayan ranchero....

Gonzales Aide Won't Answer Senate Queries
WASHINGTON, March 26, 2007 (CBS/AP) Monica Goodling, a key Justice Department official involved in the firings of U.S. prosecutors, will invoke a constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions at upcoming congressional hearings, her lawyer said Monday. "The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said her lawyer, John Dowd... (more)

He said that members of the House of Representatives and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings and objected to the political overtones of the congressional investigation.

Goodling, who was senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the top U.S. law enforcement official, and White House liaison until she took a leave of absence earlier this month, was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee along with several of the attorney general's other top aides.

The White House won't budge from its initial offer of making top aides available for interviews, but not in a public hearing, and not under oath, CBS News' Susan Roberts reports.

"If the Congress wants to choose confrontation over a resolution, that is their choice," said Dana Perino, a White House deputy spokesperson.

There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February.

Dowd said that a senior Justice Department official had told a member of the Senate committee that he was misled by Goodling and others before testifying.

Hovering over the matter is the specter of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff convicted of lying to a grand jury about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. The potential for taking a fall over the department's bungled response "is very real," Dowd said.

"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," the lawyer said.

The White House stood by Alberto Gonzales on Monday, even as support for the embattled attorney general erodes on Capitol Hill amid new questions about his honesty.

But as one Republican senator puts it, Gonzales is on the "do-not-resuscitate" list, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod. It's only Mr. Bush who's keeping him on life support.

Three key Republican senators sharply questioned his truthfulness over the firings last fall of eight federal prosecutors. Two more Democrats on Sunday joined the list of lawmakers calling for Gonzales' ouster.

Lawmakers want to know whether Gonzales actually changed his story about the dismissals and whether he allowed his aides to say the prosecutors were fired for performance reasons, if in fact the reasons were purely political, Roberts reports.

At issue is Gonzales' March 13 denial that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals.

Perino said Gonzales "might be accused of being imprecise in what he was saying," but maintained that the attorney general was not closely involved in the firings.

"I understand the concern. I understand that people might think that there are inconsistencies," Perino said. "But as I read it, I think that he has been consistent."

The White House is placing the onus on Gonzales to explain his action to lawmakers, but he is not scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until April 17 — three weeks away.

"I grant you, I think that that seems like a long time," Perino said. "But I don't think I would read into that that the Justice Department isn't having ongoing discussions with members of the Judiciary Committee on both the House and the Senate side, and other members who have expressed interest."

President Bush did not speak to Gonzales over the weekend.

Gonzales faces the toughest test of his two-year tenure at the Justice Department with the release of documents suggesting he was more involved with the firings than he indicated earlier.

Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees.

Speaking to reporters in Orlando, Fla., Sen. Bill Nelson said whether or not Gonzales was fully engaged, "he has lost all credibility with me." Nelson, D-Fla., joined the ranks Sunday of lawmakers in both parties calling for Gonzales to resign.

"Unless he has a good explanation for not only what he knew and when he knew it but also for the ineptitude of the department ... he is a goner," Nelson said of Gonzales. "I think there might be enough Republicans who are calling for his resignation, even before he takes the witness stand."

Stopping short of demanding Gonzales' resignation, Sen. Arlen Specter cited a Nov. 27 calendar entry placing the attorney general at a Justice Department meeting to discuss the dismissals. Those documents "appear to contradict" Gonzales' earlier statements that he never participated in such conversations, said Specter, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department.

"We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful. And if we find out he has not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on," said Specter, R-Pa.

Specter said he would wait until Gonzales' testimony before deciding whether he could continue to support the attorney general.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, 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 also is on the Senate Judiciary panel. And Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said the Justice Department has continually changed its story about the dismissals.

"You cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility," Hagel said.

More discussion here...

Anybody know if there's a line in Vegas on when Gonzales goes down?