Normally, i'd be surprised if Gonzales stays on but with the current admin he'll probably earn a medal. Now that there's a tad bit of oversight, there's a small chance we may learn what really happened. What you don't mention is that Gonzales' own Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson (who quit last week), noted the differences in adminstration attorney firings practices in an email (Sampson adding the underline himself)...

"In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose four-year terms had expired, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinately under the holdover provision.

What gets the ball rolling is Alren Specter's (R) Chief of Staff had (unbenownst to Specter as Specter claims) inserted a provision into the Patriot Act renewal legislation that allows future interim attorneys to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation. Specter said he wasnt aware that someone in his office had added the provision at the request of the DOJ. Deputy attorney general William Moschell said that he pursued the changes on his own (with Specter's Chief of Staff adding the provision), without the knowledge or coordination of his superiors at the Justice Department or anyone at the White House. Its a shame these tools dont have someone read the entire bill before they vote.

Then you have multiple Republican congress critters personally calling US Attorneys just before the November elections, looking for information on investigations and any plans to indict state gubmint officials of the Democratic persuasion. Calls that the US Attorneys said smacked of being pressured.

In October 2006:

- Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) calls David Iglesias to inquire about possible sealed indictments in the corruption investigation at least one state Democrat. U.S. Attorneys are legally prevented from discussing indictments under investigation. Iglesias is "evasive and non-responsive to her questions."

- Senator Domenici calls Attorney David Iglesias at home. Senator Domenici asks to discuss widely reported corruption cases against local Democrats. Iglesias recalls, "And he said, 'Are these going to be filed before November?' And I said I didn't think so. And to which he replied, 'I'm very sorry to hear that.' And then the line went dead."

Around this same time, Attorney David Iglesias, who had not been on the firing list, gets added to the Justice Department's list of U.S. Attorneys to be replaced and is later fired.

Then you have Gonzales testifying to Congress, claiming it was performance related firings, but later multiple reports surface about the good recommendations these people received shortly before being fired, and that Iglasias had been asked twice to speak on a topic that was his supposed shortcoming. Gonzales testifies "I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it." But you have Sampson urging Gonzales to fire Attorney Cummins and replace him with former Karl Rove aide Tim Griffin. Sampson, referring to the new Patriot Act provision, writes "[I]f we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?" and "I know that getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc."

Then there's the short lived claim by the admin that Harriet Miers was the one who thought of sacking all the attorneys but they backed away from that one because of "hazy memories" when Rove's involvment started showing up.

Then there's the Lam / Duke Cunningham / Lewis issue. Gonzales' Chief of Staff sends an email to White House counsel asking to "Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following... The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam..." which happened to be the same day that the LATimes reported that US Attorney Carol Lam's office was expanding the Duke Cunningham probe to look at the actions of another California Republican, then-House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis.

I think the Lam firing is the most intriguing in that it could lead to the deepest kimshe if its proven she was fired due to the investigation, but that would be a long shot at best. The Domenici pre-election phone calls and the subsequent firing of the attorney are the most obvious and most immediate problem that should be reviewed. But if Gonzales and his Justice Department investigate the matter and they find that they did nothing wrong, then you'd have to consider it just some strange set of coincidences and simple incompentence in their handling of a minor employment matter.


>This article basically sums up everything I've been reading. That cleaning house of basically all USA's at the start of your term has been done by every prez since at least Reagan. And that firing some in the middle of your term for purely political reasons is unprecedented. Feel free to show me information to refute this, as I am really curious, Honestly:
>
>http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/19/us_attorneys/index.html
>
>>He fired around 98 if I recall correctly. He fired the one investigating him, then rolled it into a batch of firings and publicly declared it was a process of setting up a new administration or something like that... There actually was a ruckus about it, but no investigations as far as I recall. Today, everything becomes an investigation...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Didn't Bill Clinton fire a few U.S. attorneys who were investigating both himself and one of his buddies....and then followed that up by firing a whole bunch more???
>>>
>>>Kevin