« Previous | Main | Next »

Gonzales: 'I'm Not Going to Resign'

Share

March 22, 2007 12:12 PM

ABC's Pierre Thomas Reports:  Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told a crowd in St. Louis, Mo. that he's happy to be out of Washington - if just for a day.  The embattled head of the Justice Department is standing firm amid calls for him to step down, telling reporters, "I'm not going to resign. I'm going to stay focused on protecting our kids," a nod to the Project Safe Childhood program, a Justice Department initiative against online predators and child exploitation.

Gonzales traveled to St. Louis for a round table discussion on the program with Missouri's two U.S. attorneys.  This is his first public appearance since he responded to questions about last year's controversial firing of eight U.S. attorneys March 13.  It's also the first of a series of stops aimed at shoring up support among the 93 current U.S. attorneys.

"There's a lot work that needs to be done around the country," said Gonzales.  "The department is responsible for protecting our kids, for making our neighborhoods safe, for protecting our country against attacks of terrorism, to going after gangs, going after drug dealers. I'm staying focused on that."

Gonzales might be keeping his focus on projects at his department, but Congress is charging ahead with its investigation into the firings. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee has cleared the way to issue subpoenas compelling Justice Department staff to testify on the matter, and will hear from Gonzales former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, next week.  Sampson resigned after e-mails showing his communications with the White House counsel’s office over the matter were made public.

Monday, the Justice Department released more than 3,000 pages of internal documents and e-mails detailing the firings process.

March 22, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (37)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Why does every politician in some sort of trouble talk about "protecting our kids"?

TFP

Posted by: T.F. Parker | Mar 22, 2007 2:46:22 PM

Galbraith Score is up to 2

Posted by: UberMitch | Mar 22, 2007 3:05:38 PM

Another puppet of the incredibly unethical Bush Administration. If he had ANY professionalism to him, he would step down.

Posted by: Chris | Mar 22, 2007 3:34:36 PM

well, if he leaves then Dubya has to get the next AG confirmed by a Dem senate. Good luck on that. GW will have to keep someone in there willing to coverup all the corruption.

Posted by: Mike | Mar 22, 2007 4:11:58 PM

Firing executive branch persons by superior officers of the executive branch is not scandal. It's not illegal. It's nothing at all. And if the reason is "pure politics" so what? Much more important people get replaced with every new administration. This is not news.

Posted by: AC | Mar 22, 2007 5:04:20 PM

You bush haters are incredibly dumb if nothing else. It seems to always boil down to the same story...there is NO story. Let's manufacture a bunch of BS stories and turn them into "whatever-gates." Gonzales did nothing wrong. Bush did nothing wrong. USA's work at the leisure of the Prez...they need to get over it.

Posted by: John | Mar 22, 2007 5:26:37 PM

Gonzales and Bush should tell the Dems to "go to hell" and get on with the real work of the country. People get fired all the time and I have no doubt these people deserved it. I can think of no one I like to see get canned more than an attorney!

Posted by: El gato | Mar 22, 2007 5:33:55 PM

Why is it such a deal he fired 8 after Bubba and Reno fired ALL 93?

Posted by: Frank | Mar 22, 2007 5:37:09 PM

What a shill!! He's been doing W's personal bidding since the Texas days and now his bacon is deservedly in the fire because he's represented that personal agenda---corruption and all---instead of his obligation to his country and his oath as AG. Pitiful. He still doesn't get it.

Posted by: Mike | Mar 22, 2007 5:37:42 PM

would anyone disagree the bush admin is no less 'ethical' than any admin in the past?

i recall controversy over the reno firing of a state attorney investigating a democrat during the clinton admin.

i thought the hype was uncalled for then and i feel it is uncalled for now.

'at the pleasure' of the president means what it says and is a constitutionally protected privilege.

Posted by: mike f. | Mar 22, 2007 5:42:20 PM

The Dems are just wanting a big dog & pony show. Clinton got rid of all 96 State Att. All Presidents have had the right to get rid of these positions for any reason or no reason at all.

The Senate & House needs to spend it's time doing something productive to help Americans, not just waste time on their political agendas. What a waste!!

Posted by: Glenn | Mar 22, 2007 5:45:58 PM

Three Cheers for Bush and Gonzales. Let Pelosi and her thugs spend their time on the US Attorney matter so they have less time and energy to cause trouble elsewhere.

Posted by: Stephen Wagner | Mar 22, 2007 5:53:06 PM

How ironic considering that Clinton/Reno fired 93 AGs in one fell swoop.

Making a mountain out of a molehill and squawking nonsense by the lefty liberals.

Posted by: MMac | Mar 22, 2007 5:55:54 PM

The president can fire any US Attorney for any reason at any time. Lets stop the witch hunt and move on!

Posted by: Brian | Mar 22, 2007 6:06:06 PM

Why is the firing such a big deal now?
When the Clinton administration fired them all there was no noise at all.

Posted by: Mike | Mar 22, 2007 6:37:22 PM

You gotta make hay while the sun shines, that's all the Dem's are doing. The conservatives would do the same thing, just for better ideals. Not even the idiot's posting on this thread in support of the subpoenas actually believe he did anything wrong.

Posted by: Ty | Mar 22, 2007 6:57:50 PM

I am sick and tired of the country calling President Bush and Gonzales
unethical. They are both idiots and you can't be both at the same time. As a conservative and former Republican I am ashamed of both men and wish they would BOTH resign.

Posted by: Johni | Mar 22, 2007 7:15:03 PM

buh buh buh but Clinton.... sigh... The scandal is that he fired attornies investigating REPUBLICAN MALFEASANCE. ah well buh buh buh buh Clinton...

Posted by: stupidBaby | Mar 22, 2007 7:27:25 PM

The Libs and media are so stupid, Pat "Leaky" Leahy gave a speech, Sept. 23, 1999, specifically detailing legal and constitutional reasons why Congress would NEVER BE SUCCESSFUL in issuing subpoenas to members of the executive branch. So here I am, just a blogger revealing to you what this media outlet hasnt...isnt that special. Leaky Leahy knows as does the White House that should the democrats choose to attempt to go down that path, they will fail, for the very constitutional reasons Leahy lays out in his speech. Hey Liberals, Hey Media isnt it nice to know yer boy leaky is deliberately playing you...you all have your hopes set so high by the traitor Leaky Leahy, and he has already explained 8 years ago in detail why he cant succeed. Your all his chumps. Used and abused. As I speak the democrats are falling apart in Congress..what an embarrassment they are to the world..and the American drive by media is right next to them. pitiful.

Posted by: Jim | Mar 22, 2007 10:09:40 PM

Some of you folks are missing an angle: Firing ALL the attorneys is normal during a change in administration, and that speaks to the job as being an appointment.
What gets strange is picking & chosing among the AGs, because that means you're changing your mind about them, and a valid question is, Why?

A parallel: If someone breaks a particular law, a cop is supposed to arrest him. That's normal. But if the cop ignores 85 people breaking that law, but arrests 8 for doing so, that's weird. What's his reason for enforcing the law for those 8 and not for the other 85? That's called "selective prosecution" - and it's been held to be unConstitutional.

So, in my opinion, if the administration had gone ahead and fired all 93 AGs, there would be some complaining, but there would be no valid grounds for suspicion of playing politics. When 8 are fired and 85 retained, there is certainly the suspicion that these discriminations were made on grounds other than the faithful performance of their duties - and there appears to be plenty of grounds for such a suspicion.

Posted by: Neal | Mar 22, 2007 10:43:46 PM

Post a comment