Did Mary Beth Buchanan use her DOJ position for political purposes?

From the 4/23/07 edition of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

“Cracking down on drugs and pornography was big business in former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s Department of Justice.

When federal prosecutors in California passed on cases involving glass bongs and hard-core sex movies, Pittsburgh-based U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan swooped in and stole the show.

Critics blasted “Operation Pipe Dreams,” calling the nationwide sting on drug paraphernalia trafficking a waste of resources. Buchanan charged on, though, and in 2003 won a conviction against Tommy Chong — the Los Angeles actor made famous by the marijuana-laced “Cheech and Chong” movies.

That same year, she charged Extreme Associates and the California owners of the porn production company in the first major federal obscenity prosecution in more than a decade. Critics again wailed about resources and the government fiddling with constitutional freedoms.

The Justice Department and Ashcroft praised both cases. Buchanan was rewarded with a string of lofty posts, one of which — director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys — has landed her at the forefront of a congressional investigation into a group firing of fellow Republican prosecutors.

Buchanan will not discuss the firings or the House investigation but said the priorities of the Justice Department are those of her office — including pursuing public corruption cases. The Justice Department is reviewing a House Judiciary Committee request to speak to Buchanan and seven other Justice Department officials. She has not met with House investigators.

Democrats want to find out why the Bush administration sacked eight of the country’s 93 federal prosecutors. Democrats say they believe some U.S. attorneys were fired to interfere with public corruption cases in ways that might help Republicans.

The House Judiciary Committee has evidence that D. Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, consulted Buchanan as head of the Executive Office U.S. attorneys in 2004 and 2005 about whom to fire.

Heading the office was largely administrative and dull until 9/11, when the Justice Department began to use it to control U.S. attorneys, said Fred Thieman, a former U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh under President Clinton.

“I can’t understand why someone would want that position, unless there was some other purpose,” Thieman said.

Buchanan said she works hard and with determination, finding it an honor to serve President Bush and the Justice Department in whatever role necessary. Those who know Buchanan said she is a hard worker and does what’s needed to please her bosses.

“They ask, and she responds,” said Roscoe Howard Jr., former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. “Certainly, the objective evidence is that they like her.”

H.E. “Bud” Cummins, former U.S. attorney for eastern Arkansas and one of the eight forced to step down, said he likes and respects Buchanan. If she participated in the dismissals, though, she failed her colleagues by participating “in the completely ridiculous process of making a list of names” of people to be fired, he said.

Thomas J. Farrell, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh and frequent Buchanan critic, called Buchanan’s response to the House inquiry a litmus test for her.

“I hope she stands up for the integrity and competence of those U.S. attorneys who were fired,” he said.

Buchanan was appointed U.S. attorney for Western Pennsylvania by President Bush in September 2001.

Her office has opened at least five investigations into prominent Democrats over the past five years. Critics say she has ignored allegations against fellow Republicans during that time.

“It has been and remains the practice of my office to investigate and prosecute individuals who violate federal law without regard to their political affiliation,” Buchanan said.

Buchanan said all investigations and prosecutions are analyzed from a legal, not partisan, perspective.

She has prosecuted former Allegheny County Sheriff Pete DeFazio and aides in his office and former Allegheny County Judge Joseph Jaffe. An investigation of former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy ended without charges being filed.

“There’s no greater adherent to using public corruption charges against the other party than Mary Beth Buchanan,” said Jerry McDevitt, a defense lawyer representing Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, a Democrat, against charges he abused his former public office as Allegheny County coroner for private financial gain.

Allegations of improper use of office staff have been leveled against two Republican politicians in her jurisdiction, U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy and former state Rep. Jeff Habay. Habay was prosecuted in Allegheny County Court. No federal charges have been filed against these men, but federal authorities are prohibited from saying whether either is being investigated. “

Silence of the lamb, Alberto Gonzales

What Gonzales isn’t saying is as important as what he claims he cannot recall.  His lack of recollection gives the appearance that he’s trying to keep Karl Rove out of the spotlight.

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18141171/site/newsweek

Gonzales continues his shellgame; claims he did “nothing improper”

Nothing improper 

By Alberto R. Gonzales
Sunday, April 15, 2007; B07

My decision some months ago to privately seek the resignations of a small number of U.S. attorneys has erupted into a public firestorm. First and foremost, I appreciate the public service of these fine lawyers and dedicated professionals, each of whom served his or her full four-year term as U.S. attorney. I apologize to them, their families and the thousands of dedicated professionals at the Justice Department for my role in allowing this matter to spin into an undignified Washington spectacle.

What began as a well-intentioned management effort to identify where, among the 93 U.S. attorneys, changes in leadership might benefit the department, and therefore the American people, has become an unintended public controversy.

While I accept responsibility for my role in commissioning this management review process, I want to make some fundamental points abundantly clear.

I know that I did not — and would not — ask for the resignation of any U.S. attorney for an improper reason. Furthermore, I have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason.

Given my convictions on this issue, I testified before Congress in January and will do so again on Tuesday. I have personally spoken with many members of Congress over the past several weeks to hear their concerns about this matter. Additionally, I have instructed all Justice Department officials to make themselves available for on-the-record interviews with lawmakers and hearings before Congress, and I have ordered the release of thousands of pages of internal documents.

All of these documents and public testimony indicate that the Justice Department did not seek the removal of any U.S. attorney to interfere with or improperly influence any case or investigation. Indeed, I am extremely proud of the department’s strong record of vigorous prosecutions, particularly in the area of public corruption, where Republicans and Democrats alike have been held accountable for their crimes.

I have nevertheless asked the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility to further investigate this matter. Working with the department’s Office of Inspector General, these nonpartisan professionals will complete their own independent investigation so that Congress and the American people can be 100 percent assured of what I believe and what the investigation thus far has shown: that nothing improper occurred.

While I have never sought to deceive Congress or the American people, I also know that I created confusion with some of my recent statements about my role in this matter. To be clear: I directed my then-deputy chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to initiate this process; fully knew that it was occurring; and approved the final recommendations. Sampson periodically updated me on the review. As I recall, his updates were brief, relatively few in number and focused primarily on the review process.

During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.

I am committed to explaining my role in this process and will do so Tuesday when I testify before Congress.

I am also committed to correcting any management missteps that occurred during this process. In recent weeks I have met with more than 70 U.S. attorneys around the country to hear their concerns and discuss ways to improve communication and coordination between their offices and the Justice Department.

These discussions have been frank, and good ideas are coming out, including ways to ensure that every U.S. attorney can know whether his or her performance is at the level expected by the president and the attorney general. Additionally, I have asked for recommendations on formal and informal steps that we can take to improve all forms of dialogue between the main Justice Department and U.S. attorneys nationwide.

I am also telling our 93 U.S. attorneys that I look forward to working with them to pursue the great goals of our department in the weeks and months to come. During the past two years, we have made great strides in securing our country from terrorism, protecting our neighborhoods from gangs and drugs, shielding our children from predators and pedophiles, and protecting the public trust by prosecuting public corruption. As I have stressed repeatedly to our U.S. attorneys and others within the department, recent events will not and must not deter us from our important mission.

In part because of my own experience, I know the real strength of America. It lies in our Constitution, our people and our collective unyielding commitment to equal opportunity, equal justice, common decency and fairness. With this same commitment in my mind, I very much look forward to answering Congress’s questions about this matter on Tuesday.

ED.:  Dear Mr. Gonzales - we, the people of America, hope (and pray) you will do the right thing by either testifying without the slightest hint of obfuscation or lies, or, in the alternative, submitting your resignation forthwith.  You are not the right man to run the Department of Justice.  Resign, sir, and allow this country to move beyond your own poor job performance and the controversy you, Pete Domenici, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Monica Goodling and Heather Wilson created.  Further, I would ask that you submit a public apology for the sin you have committed against 8 very good former U.S. Attorneys.

Please don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you as you exit the building.

Yours truly,

Sauerkraut.

Battle contradicts Gonzales’ Statements on Firings

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane, Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 16, 2007; A04

The former Justice Department official who carried out the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year told Congress that several of the prosecutors had no performance problems and that a memo on the firings was distributed at a Nov. 27 meeting attended by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, a Democratic senator said yesterday.

The statements to House and Senate investigators by Michael A. Battle, former director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, represent another potential challenge to the credibility of Gonzales, who has said that he never saw any documents about the firings and that he had “lost confidence” in the prosecutors because of performance problems.

Battle’s statements, relayed to reporters yesterday by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), came as Gonzales prepares for a make-or-break appearance on Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Prepared testimony released yesterday indicates Gonzales will apologize to the fired prosecutors for the way they were treated and will acknowledge that he has been “less than precise” in describing his role in the firings.

But Gonzales will also hold firm to his contentions that any missteps were “honest mistakes,” that “nothing improper” took place, and that most of the details were handled by his then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, according to the testimony.

“I have nothing to hide and . . . I am committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here,” Gonzales says in his remarks.

“I made mistakes in not ensuring that these U.S. attorneys received more dignified treatment,” he adds later. “Others within the Department of Justice also made mistakes. As far as I know, these were honest mistakes of perception and judgment and not intentional acts of misconduct.”

Seven U.S. attorneys were fired on Dec. 7, and another was dismissed earlier, as part of a plan that originated in the White House to replace some prosecutors based in part on their perceived disloyalty to President Bush and his policies.

The uproar over the removals has grown amid allegations that some Republican lawmakers improperly contacted prosecutors about investigations and repeated misstatements by Gonzales and other Bush administration officials about the scope and nature of the dismissals. Democrats have also seized on presidential senior adviser Karl Rove’s connection to some of the firings, and on revelations last week that the White House and the Republican National Committee have lost e-mails that are supposed to be preserved under record-keeping laws.

Gonzales and his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, initially told Congress that the firings were due to “performance-related” problems. Subsequent e-mails and other documents released by Justice showed that most had positive job reviews, that they and other U.S. attorneys were ranked on whether they were “loyal Bushies,” and that Gonzales was more deeply involved in the process than he has sometimes acknowledged.

The statements by Battle, who left his job last month, are the first details to emerge from more than 20 hours of interviews with four top Gonzales aides over the past two weeks by staff members on the House and Senate Judiciary committees. The last of those interviews was conducted yesterday with Sampson, who testified publicly last month that he was only an “aggregator” of information on the firings and that ultimate responsibility rested with Gonzales.

Battle told investigators that he was “not aware of performance problems with respect to several” of the prosecutors when he called to fire them, Schumer said in a conference call with reporters yesterday.

Schumer said Battle also contradicted Gonzales’s assertion at a March 13 news conference that he had not seen any documents or participated in any discussions about the firings. A memo related to the dismissals was passed out at a Nov. 27 meeting attended by Gonzales and others, Battle told investigators.

“Mike Battle remembers a memo was distributed,” Schumer said.

In his prepared remarks for Tuesday, Gonzales says “my statement about ‘discussions’ was imprecise and overbroad, but it certainly was not in any way an attempt to mislead the American people.”

Gonzales also addresses new documents released Friday showing that Sampson had identified five potential replacement prosecutors in early 2006, which appeared to contradict testimony from Sampson and repeated statements from Justice officials that no such list had been drawn up. Gonzales will testify that he remembers being told about two possible replacements, but that neither was approved and no one was lined up when the last seven firings were carried out.

Schumer and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary panel, immediately criticized Gonzales’s planned testimony as falling short of answering key questions about the firings.

“The attorney general has offered another in a series of contradictory statements about the mass firing of U.S. attorneys,” Leahy said. “It has been impossible to discern the truth in this matter based on the shifting explanations and changing stories coming out of the Justice Department and White House.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the committee’s ranking Republican, also said Gonzales should consider reinstating the fired U.S. attorneys.

Specter and fellow Republican Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said Gonzales has an “uphill” climb to restore his credibility with Congress. Numerous Democrats and some Republicans have called on Gonzales to resign.

“He needs to explain what he did and why he did it,” Graham said yesterday on “Fox News Sunday.” “There are three or four different versions of his role in this, and he needs to bring clarity to what he did and why he did it.”

In a related matter yesterday, an attorney for Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who faces an ethics inquiry into his role in the firings, declined to comment on an Albuquerque Journal report that Domenici directly contacted Rove to push for the firing of David C. Iglesias as New Mexico’s U.S. attorney.

The report said Domenici’s call to the White House came after a late October phone conversation with Iglesias about a local corruption case. Iglesias has testified he felt the call amounted to improper political pressure and believes it lies at the heart of his firing.

Domenici has acknowledged that he complained to Gonzales and McNulty about Iglesias, and has said he told the Justice Department he wanted Iglesias replaced “some months” before the call. But he has never acknowledged calling the White House about the issue.

Thousands of pages of documents released by Justice have yet to explain the rationale for Iglesias’s firing. In his testimony last month, Sampson could not recall why Iglesias was put on the list, which did not happen until Nov. 7, less than two weeks after Domenici’s call to Iglesias.

 www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041500548_pf.html

The e-mails: Gonzales caught in a lie?

Gonzales aide floated replacements early on

E-Mails appear to contradict DOJ statements on genesis of attorney firings.

WASHINGTON - The attorney general’s former top aide identified five Bush administration insiders as potential replacements for sitting U.S. attorneys months before those prosecutors were fired, contrary to repeated suggestions from the Justice Department that no such list had been drawn up, according to documents released yesterday.

E-mails sent to the White House in January and May of 2006 by D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, name potential replacements for U.S. attorneys in San Diego, San Francisco, Little Rock and Grand Rapids.

The disclosures contrast with previous statements from Sampson and other Justice officials. They have said that only Tim Griffin, a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove who was later appointed the top federal prosecutor in Little Rock, had been identified as a replacement candidate before the dismissals of the sitting U.S. attorneys.

“These documents uncover one of the most central and disconcerting contradictions we’ve seen so far,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). “We have been told that there were no backups in mind to replace the fired U.S. attorneys, and these documents make it clear that there were.”

‘Sampson’s initial thoughts’
Sampson’s attorney and a Justice spokesman said yesterday that the candidates listed were only tentative suggestions and were never seriously considered. Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the list “reflects Kyle Sampson’s initial thoughts” and “in no way contradicts the department’s prior statements” about the lack of a candidate list.

Sampson told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that on Dec. 7, when seven U.S. attorneys were sacked, “I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.”

The names of the potential replacements were part of nearly 2,400 pages of documents related to the firings released by the Justice Department yesterday. They include more complete versions of e-mails and memos previously released.

The documents provide new details about a range of topics, including the Justice Department’s focus on its prosecutors’ conservative political credentials and the evolving justifications for the firings.

The release came as Gonzales continued intensive preparations for testimony next Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Democrats plan to focus on the Justice Department’s numerous conflicting statements about the firings and on Gonzales’s shifting explanations of his role. A number of Republicans have joined Democrats in demanding that Gonzales resign.

List included administration insiders
Seven U.S. attorneys were fired in December, and another was dismissed earlier in 2006, as part of a plan that originated in the White House to replace some prosecutors based in part on their perceived disloyalty to President Bush and his policies. The uproar over the removals has grown amid allegations that some Republican lawmakers improperly contacted prosecutors about investigations and assertions by Democrats that the firings may have been an attempt to disrupt public-corruption probes.

The possible replacements listed by Sampson in early 2006 were all high-level administration officials, including two suggestions for San Diego who were later given other U.S. attorney postings: Jeffrey A. Taylor, now chief prosecutor in the District, and Deborah Rhodes, now the U.S. attorney in Alabama. Both were career prosecutors in San Diego before taking senior Justice jobs.

Other candidates included Rachel L. Brand, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, who was considered to replace western Michigan’s prosecutor, and Daniel Levin, a former senior Justice and White House official who was listed as a San Francisco candidate, the memos show.

Sampson, who resigned as Gonzales’s top aide last month, said in prepared Senate testimony last month that “none of the U.S. attorneys was asked to resign in favor of a particular individual who had already been identified to take the vacant spot,” except for the prosecutor in Little Rock.

Replacements hadn’t been picked, lawyer says
Sampson’s attorney, Bradford A. Berenson, said yesterday that “testimony regarding the consideration of replacements was entirely accurate” and that “Kyle had none in mind” at the time the firings were carried out.

“Some names had been tentatively suggested for discussion much earlier in the process, but by the time the decision to ask for the resignations was made, none had been chosen to serve as a replacement,” he said.

Roehrkasse said that Brand had expressed interest in becoming the U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids but later decided against it.

One document also raises new questions about the firing of prosecutor David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, who has testified that he felt pressured by Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) to speed up indictments of Democrats before last November’s elections.

Two pages of handwritten notes by Monica M. Goodling, until recently Gonzales’s senior counselor, include this criticism of Iglesias: “Domenici says he doesn’t move cases.” The notes are undated but appear amid a set of documents relating to meetings in February of this year.

Domenici and Wilson have admitted calling Iglesias but have denied pressuring him. Domenici called Gonzales or his deputy four times to complain about Iglesias, and Gonzales also fielded complaints about him last fall from Bush and Rove.

Evolution of a rebuttal
The documents show the evolution of March 6 testimony from William E. Moschella, the principal associate deputy attorney general, to a House subcommittee. Draft versions written just days before he appeared begin with a declaration that Justice “strongly opposes” efforts to revoke Gonzales’s new authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. The scandal mushroomed in ensuing days, however, and Moschella’s testimony was reshaped as the department backed down on the legislation.

The documents also reveal new details about the Justice Department’s efforts to contain the political damage as controversy over the firings grew. On March 5, for example, chief Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos sent an e-mail to White House aides saying that Moschella should focus on admitting mistakes related to how prosecutors were notified of their dismissals.

“We are trying to muddy the coverage up a bit by trying to put the focus on the process in which they were told,” Scolinos wrote, adding that “I don’t know if the Senate Dems will let this go until it is all out in the open.”

Also released yesterday was a chart given to Gonzales in February that noted U.S. attorneys’ political backgrounds and whether they were members of the Federalist Society, a coalition of conservative lawyers and legal scholars with close ties to the Bush administration. It is not clear when the chart was compiled, nor is it clear whether the Federalist Society information is accurate.

Another document, compiling internal Justice Department “talking points” about the fired prosecutors, disparages two U.S. attorneys — in identical language — about immigration enforcement.

Article can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18100126

Excerpts from DOJ docs released yesterday:

The Justice Department on Friday released 2,400 documents to congressional panels investigating whether the firings last year of the U.S. attorneys were politically motivated.

___

Kyle Sampson, then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, wrote an Jan. 9, 2006, e-mail to then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers suggesting replacements for several U.S. attorneys who would be fired nearly a year later:

“PLEASE TREAT THIS AS CONFIDENTIAL. …

“Margaret M. Chiara. Replacement candidates: Rachel Brand?

“Harry E. ‘Bud’ Cummins III. Replacement candidates: Tim Griffin?”

On March 29, under questioning from Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Sampson said he had no replacements for the fired U.S. attorneys last Dec. 7, when the first wave of them were fired.

___

“Domenici says he doesn’t move cases.” _ Then-Gonzales counsel Monica Goodling, in undated, handwritten notes apparently setting out reasons for the dismissals. In New Mexico, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired in part because of criticism by Republican Sen. Pete Domenici.

___

The Bush administration and congressional Republicans conferred closely on how to handle testimony earlier this year from the fired U.S. attorneys and current Justice Department officials:

“Crystal and Dan Flores just called me. They are all geared up and ready to go after the former USA witnesses coming next week.” _ Feb. 28 e-mail from Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling to other Justice Department officials, referring to aides to House Judiciary Committee Republicans preparing for testimony by the fired U.S. attorneys.

___

The White House reached out to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., to fight off Democratic charges that Griffin was unqualified:

“WH political reached out to Sen. Sessions and requested that he ask helpful questions to make clear that Tim Griffin is qualified to serve.

“They requested that someone in our (Office of Legislative Affairs) call the senator’s staff and make sure that we take advantage of the offer.” _ Goodling, in a Jan. 17 e-mail to Hertling. She also included talking points on Griffin “as well as a narrative that can be used by staff and his resume.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18098314

 

Fire Alberto Gonzales

Gingrich Suggests Gonzales Should Resign

Former House Speaker Slams Attorney General Over Firings

By HOPE YEN (AP)

WASHINGTON (April - Joining a growing list of Republicans, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should consider resigning. The possible presidential candidate said the botched firing of U.S. attorneys has destroyed Gonzales’ credibility as the nation’s top law enforcer.

“I think the country, in fact, would be much better served to have a new team at the Justice Department, across the board,” Gingrich said. “I cannot imagine how he is going to be effective for the rest of this administration. … They’re going to be involved in endless hearings.”

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who is helping lead the investigation into the firing of eight federal prosecutors, said Gingrich’s comments pointed to building bipartisan support for a new attorney general.

“This is another important voice who believes that the attorney general should step down for the good of the country and the good of the department,” Schumer said in a statement. “We hope both the attorney general and the president heed Speaker Gingrich’s message.”

Gonzales, a former White House counsel who became attorney general in 2005, is scheduled to testify April 17 before the Senate  Judiciary Committee. It is a congressional showdown believed to be a make-or-break appearance for Gonzales.

The committee also has pledged to compel the testimony of White House officials such as Karl Rove  and former counsel Harriet Miers to determine the extent of White House involvement. On Friday, Monica Goodling, the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House, abruptly quit after telling Congress  she would not testify.

After the firings earlier this year, Gonzales initially asserted that the dismissals were performance-related, not based on political considerations, and that he was not directly involved in the decisions.

But testimony from his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, as well as e-mails between the department and the White House contradicted those claims, leading to a public apology from Gonzales.

On Sunday, Gingrich harshly criticized Gonzales’ judgment in allowing the firings to escalate into such a political scandal.

Gingrich noted that a president has every right to fire U.S. attorneys for any reason. Therefore, he said, all Gonzales had to do was to say that Bush wanted new people. Instead, Gingrich said, the attorney general made a series of misstatements from which he was forced later to backtrack.

“This is the most mishandled, artificial, self-created mess that I can remember in the years I’ve been active in public life,” Gingrich said. “The buck has to stop somewhere, and I’m assuming it’s the attorney general and his immediate team.”

In recent weeks, several Republicans have joined Democrats in saying Gonzales should consider resigning, including Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Gordon Smith of Oregon and Reps. Dana Rohrabacher of California, Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Lee Terry of Nebraska.

Other Republicans, including administration allies Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, have acknowledged that Gonzales badly mishandled the matter and needed to explain himself quickly.

“I think the confusion and the ham-handed way that these firings was done certainly undermines the confidence of the Justice Department,” Kyl said Sunday. “And part of his effort to come up and testify before the Hill will be to restore some of that confidence.”

Schumer said the controversy is the latest evidence of a leadership failure at the department.

“The gravity of this situation is shown by the fact that several Republicans have called for the attorney general to resign,” he said. “The fact that the attorney general is the president’s friend and was the president’s counsel for years does not alone make him qualified to be attorney general.”

Gingrich and Schumer appeared on “Fox News Sunday,” and Kyl spoke on ABC’s “This Week.”

In an Internet poll, nearly 65,000 respondents stated “yes” when asked if Gonzales should resign.  Nearly as many stated “no” when asked if they thought Gonzales would resign.

Gonzales needs to join Sampson and Goodling in the unemployment line.

Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Schumer cited a Washington Post article about Gonzales’ handling of the Bernie Kerik nomination to the top post with Homeland Security as evidence of Gonzales’ incompetence.