Get over it, Tim. This is a non-scandal non-issue. The president, AG or anyone on his staff can hire or fire anyone they like for any reason. It's an at-will position.

The more time that passes, the greater the peril for the memory-challenged Attorney General:

Kyle Sampson, former top aide, has told Congressional investigators that Mr. Gonzales was “inaccurate,” or “at least not complete” in asserting that he had no role in the deliberations about individual United States attorneys who were later dismissed, a Democratic senator said Monday.

The statements during an interview with investigators last Sunday, were made public as the Senate Judiciary Committee postponed a hearing that had been scheduled for Tuesday in which Mr. Gonzales was to appear to defend his actions in the dismissals.

In his interview, Mr. Sampson said under oath Gonzales took part in discussions last fall about David C. Iglesias, who was removed as the United States attorney in New Mexico, as well as in a June 2006 meeting that addressed concerns about Carol C. Lam, the United States attorney ousted from her job in San Diego.

Can Alberto spell O-U-C-H?????

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. While it is true that an at will employee may be fired for any reason or no reason - he or she may NOT be fired for an impermissible reason.

Impermissible reason,you ask stupidly?

Yes, such as a firing based on race, creed, color, gender, age, etc.

Further, a US attorney may not be fired in order to interfere with an ongoing investigation or for partisan political purpose (such as in order to effectuate an illegal scheme to selectively prosecute 85% Democrats and 15% Republicans - which happened under Karl Rove's direct supervision).

And, finally, nowhere does it say that Alberto Gonzales may LIE to Congress about his part in the firing of US Attorneys, which he has already demonstrably done. It's a FELONY - even if not under oath. Gonzales is toast - and you area an anonymous imbecile.

If that last Anonymous is right, why oh why don't the parties responsible just take a deep breath, calm down, and say so rather than threatening to plead the Fifth, misremembering, pointing fingers, and attempting to lose or delete emails, all of which comes under the heading of "acting guilty"?

Further, a US attorney may not be fired in order to interfere with an ongoing investigation or for partisan political purpose

Oh, sorta like when Clinton fired the USA who was days away from indicting his politcal crony Dan Rostenkowski, and the Dems then in power in congress didn't issue a peep. Yeah, sorta like that.

Isn't this the "we don't comment on ongoing investigations" administration?

SHUT UP, GONZ. Don't waste our time writing op-eds! Get your s#$t together and TELL CONGRESS THE TRUTH.

I'm sure we'll hear about it afterwards, somehow...

From Mother Jones 1998 Article:

"Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) was indicted in 1994 on 17 felony charges, including the embezzlement of $695,000 in taxpayer and campaign funds. The longtime House Ways and Means chairman plea-bargained his way down to two counts of mail fraud and served 17 months in a Wisconsin minimum-security prison."

No interruption of legal proceedings became apparent against this presidential 'crony'. So, nah, not like that at all.

No interruption of legal proceedings became apparent against this presidential 'crony'. So, nah, not like that at all.

-- skyema

Will you people please quit trotting out this excuse. The USA investigating Rostenkowski was canned in Feb. '93. Rosty was indicted a year and a half later! But at the time of the firings, no one could possibly know that would happen. Ergo, all the information they had at the time was that a USA about to indict a Clinton crony was fired--all without a peep from the Dems in power at that time.

Please, please, please, people, stop giving this lame excuse! It's the hypocrisy, stupid!

...so, the fact that he had to go through a plea bargain process, followed by an actual prison term somehow means to you that justice was not served. Take your strawman home and serve him tea with your Barbies, pal.

...so, the fact that he had to go through a plea bargain process, followed by an actual prison term somehow means to you that justice was not served. Take your strawman home and serve him tea with your Barbies, pal.

-- skyeman

Huh!? Are you really that dense that you can't follow a simple argument? The issue is not what eventually happened to Rostenkowski.

The issue is that--and I'll type really slowly here for you--at the time of being fired, one USA was days away from indicting Rostenkowski. The Dems held both houses of Congress at the time. Not a peep.

Really, now, it's quite simple. They're all outraged now when a president fires USAs that he himself appointed, but the Dems were silent when a president fired a USA who was ready to indict a presidential crony.

What is so difficult about this for you to understand!? Remember, now, the issue isn't what did or didn't eventually happen to Rostenkowski. It's the Dems' response to the firing of USAs.

As I said, it's the hypocrisy, stupid! (And I do mean stupid in your case.)

Nice to see anonymous is on such solid moral ground. "It's OK to fire the US attorney who prosecuted and convicted Duke Cunningham because Clinton did the same with the guy investigating Rostenkowski in 1993!"

Didn't know moral relativism was becoming so fashionable with so-called traditional conservatives. But, as others have pointed out, it is important that Rostenkowski eventually faced the music. That gives the lie to the idea that the firing was politically motivated, unless you think Clinton is such an idiot that he would fire one attorney for investigating Rostenkowski and replace him with, um, another prosecutor who would eventually indict Rostenkowski.

So, um, why did Clinton fire that US attorney? You might as well ask why he fired Dick Cheney, the Secretary of Defense. He did so because it's traditional for a new President to hire his own people. He didn't do so out of any nefarious purpose.

This "days away from prosecuting" nonsense smacks of wingnuttery.

Apparently our nameless commenter thinks it's just fine and dandy for a sitting US Senator to make a phone call to a prosecutor and indicate that he needs to indict a political opponent. And that, when he fails to do so, it's OK for said Senator to call the President, who then turns around and fires the prosecutor. And that, when the AG is asked about the sequence of events, it's just fine and wonderful for said AG to lie to Congress.

Because it's OK to lie to Congress when Congress is run by Democrats. That's the lesson Republicans took from the Reagan years and Oliver North. Everything is about power and nothing is about rule of law.

Because, ultimately, the only principle left in the Republican party is It's OK if You're a Republican.

Lincoln, TR, and Ike would be ashamed. Nixon would be pleased as punch, though.