While at CBS online yesterday, they're take on Comey's testimony was that calls for Gonzales' resignation had waned.

Who are they listening to?

It appears like it could be too early to speculate. Will Robert Swan Mueller III be testifying as well? Or anyone else related to this? It seems like there just isn't enough info yet for a clear picture.

That said - Comey did move into the private industry, but perhaps to keep his job, or his future in general would be jeopardized if he leaked this. Like you say, if this was that big a deal you think he would have leaked this to the press some time ago. He has to know with that episode that as soon as Ashcroft and he left that the administration would be back to their old tricks. We don't even know if the administration didn't re-broaden the NSA wiretapping when Gonzales came in.

Who would stop him?

It is precisely because Gonzales will never leave on his own and never be forced out by Bush that the call by semocrats for a "sense of the Senate" vote is important. The only way to rid the DOJ of Gonzales is through impeachment and conviction, but unless there is on-record support for this wrenching process--ie a "no-confidence vote--from the republican opposition, the bare-majority democrats should probably avoid the battle.

GG:

One can accept that Ashcroft, Comey and Goldsmith are not quite as tolerant of blatant lawbreaking as Cheney, Addington and Yoo. But that is an extremely low bar. It is not entirely unlike heaping praise on someone who embezzles and commits fraud all because they drew the line and refused to cooperate with their comrades when it came time to, say, commit arson or murder.

Yes. It is interesting to me what finally turns someone from the "dark side" and I hope all of their stories are eventually pulled from them. I have a feeling they knew everything would inevitably come out, and they just finally decided they didn't want to be lumped in together with traitors to the Constitution and the American people-- because that's how Bush's Administration is going to be judged (and soon; Bush isn't going to have to wait any "50 years" to see it). The rest of the World already knows this, and most of the MSM is just starting to catch on.

This is similar to the praise heaped on the fired attorneys, most of whom really only spoke up because they wanted to preserve their preofessional reputations. I haven't seen any "heroes" from within the Administration yet. I think we're just so happy to hear the truth, we confuse simple decency-- or the mere fact that someone did their job-- with the height of ethical behavior.

Time to impeach! Wolfie is gone, Gonzo is up and Rovinghands is on deck.

Agreed Gonzo won't resign unless he knows he faces certain impeachment. What will the Repubs do?

If Gonzales leaves, then his replacement will have to be confirmed by the Senate, which is highly unlikely to confirm anyone who is too politically loyal to the Bush circle.

Two words: Recess Appointment. If you think Bush wouldn't do that, you really haven't been paying attention.

" ... Also, ... why did he wait almost three full years before disclosing it, and then do so only when compelled by the threat of a subpoena? ... Why did he not invoke the whistleblower channels to report this lawbreaking ..."

The short answer is that going up against a crime family as slimy, vengeful, and strong as the Bush crime family takes a lot of guts. (and he does not have any)

Would it be better to wait until the next president is in office to deal with this?

The way I see it, it is a choice between spending lots of time, energy, and political capital impeaching Gonzales, and getting a new AG for the last year or so of the Bush presidency, and letting Bush and Gonzales play their stupid destructive games for another couple of years, and then having the chance to send some people to prison.

I think prison terms are much more likely later, when expulsion from office is no longer an issue, since they are already out.

This is a scenario that has replayed itself countless times throughout history at every level of politics and government.

It is simple.

At times, the only thing standing between a crooked politician (i.e, the Executive) and a jury (i.e, Congress) is the prosecutor and the will to prosecute. Given the long list of Bush administration crimes and malfeasance, the only thing standing between Congress and the Executive office is the Attorney General.

If the AG can be removed from office, a flood of new evidence will find its way into the light, provided by government officials who will suddenly have more to gain than to lose by cooperating with Congress. A special prosecutor can then be named and investigations can begin.

Gonzales is the key. Once Gonzales is removed, Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rice are all suddenly accountable for their actions.

unless there is on-record support for this wrenching process--ie a "no-confidence vote--from the republican opposition, the bare-majority democrats should probably avoid the battle.

If impeachment proceedings were to begin against Gonzales, one would have to assume that a case for impeachment would be vigorously put forth. In other words, how about instead of being all wishy-washy about not enough Republican Senators on record for impeachment of Gonzales, the Senate does its damned job and makes their case? Then let the chips fall where they may. This giving up before even going to battle attitude is a loser's game.

I agree that so long as Bush stonewalls and Gonzales plays the pinata, they can block what really should occur -- an investigation by a special counsel. So in that sense, perhaps the tactic of Sens. Schumer and Feinstein to ratchet up pressure for resignation -- with the "no confidence" resolution as the next but not final step -- is a good idea.

But I repeat that such resignation would not be an end of the matter. The White House knows that, which is one reason Gonzales remains in place as a sacrificial anode. Not only that, he obviously controls the machinery that ought to be investigating him and his cohorts.

The Congress should also, in parallel, ramp up a real investigation of the FISA lawbreaking -- including but not limited to whatever egregious operations were occurring before March 2004. This should be more than a sideshow to the U.S. attorney investigation, which is the venue in which Comey testified. Both the Judiciary and Intelligence committees should be actively involved, with as many open hearings as possible.

I also have been thinking about how this episode illustrates the downside of letting the special-prosecutor statute expire. It is hard to imagine a situation where the attorney general and President are more conflicted than this one, yet they will not move to appoint a special counsel on their own. The law had its own downsides, too, and the general danger of runaway prosecutions is worth worrying about. But I do raise the issue.

Without such a law there can be special counsels on the motion of honorable attorneys general. (Ashcroft recused himself in the Plame matter, and Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald.) But we are witnessing what happens when the incumbent AG, and his boss, are without honor where the rule of law is concerned.

(BTW, it's a minor point, but I think Glenn should lay off Fred Hiatt on this one. The Post editorial page has supported Bush on Iraq, a different issue. But on the domestic spying matter, the Post editorialists have a decent record -- sometimes outperforming their counterparts in the newsroom.)