Well, this is getting interesting (via the NYTimes):
The former top aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales 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….
Mr. Schumer said Monday that Mr. Sampson recalled that in early March, Mr. Gonzales had told him about the White House conversation — the first time, Mr. Sampson said, that he learned of the president’s concern. Mr. Sampson’s lawyer, Bradford A. Berenson, declined to comment on the interview.
According to Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sampson said he believed Mr. Gonzales had attended a June 2006 meeting in which Ms. Lam’s removal was discussed. Another official, William W. Mercer, the acting associate attorney general, recalled with greater certainty that Mr. Gonzales was at the meeting, Mr. Schumer said….
A Justice Department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, said there was nothing new in the information Mr. Schumer attributed to Mr. Sampson. He said that Mr. Gonzales’s role in discussions about Mr. Iglesias and Ms. Lam had been previously disclosed; that Mr. Gonzales’s statements about his lack of recollection about the White House meeting were accurate; and that his accounts of it to Mr. Sampson and others were based on what others had told him, not on his own memory.
The House Judiciary Committee also moved Monday to expand its investigation, notifying the Justice Department that it was seeking to interview the current United States attorneys from Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
One House official said the committee wanted to learn about the February 2006 appointment of Rachel K. Paulose as the United States attorney in Minnesota, particularly the reasons for her move from a post at the department’s headquarters.
ABC News' The Blotter has an additional piece by Justin Rood that walks through the potential minefield that could be public testimony under oath — if, indeed, there will be a lack of honesty from the Attorney General. With the hearing now postponed until Thursday, I'm wondering how much more information will dribble out between now and then. And how the Attorney General is going to prepare for public testimony when all of his current and former aides have been rushing to Congress to cover their own rear ends ahead of his. This just gets more and more interesting, doesn't it?
Eugene Robinson has a WaPo op-ed today that really hits the lack of credibility issue where it counts:
Gonzales had an op-ed Sunday in The Post that included this positively breathtaking claim: The attorney general of the United States writes that "to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign."
To his knowledge? What on earth does that mean? Is Gonzales in the habit of making decisions without his own knowledge? Does he have multiple-personality issues?
Rove, Wolfowitz and Gonzales are making the last-ditch argument of a cheating husband caught in flagrante: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? (emphasis mine)
The nation needs an intervention. Because, in all honesty, this has got to stop.