Gonzales Testifies Before Senate Panel

Their testimony sharply contradicts the accounts of the plan to replace U.S. attorneys the attorney general provided this committee under oath -- under oath -- in January, and to the American people during his March 13th press conference.

The committee is still seeking documents and information and testimony so that we may know all the facts, the whole truth surrounding the replacement of these prosecutors who had been appointed by President Bush.

One thing abundantly clear, is if the phrase "performance- related" is to retain any meaning, that rationale should be withdrawn as a justification for the firing of David Iglesias, John McKay, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Carol Lam and perhaps others.

Indeed, the apparent reason for these terminations had a lot more to do with politics than performance.

LEAHY: In his written testimony for this hearing and his newspaper columns, the attorney general makes the conclusory statement that nothing improper occurred. The truth is that these firings haven't been explained, and there is mounting evidence of improper considerations and actions resulting in the dismissals.

The dismissed U.S. attorneys have testified under oath they believe political influence resulted in their being replaced. If they're right, the mixing of partisan political goals into federal law enforcement is highly improper.

The attorney general's own former chief of staff testified under oath that Karl Rove complained to Attorney General Gonzales about David Iglesias not being aggressive enough against so-called voter fraud, which explains his being added to the list.

With respect to Mr. Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, the evidence shows he's held in high regard, considered for promotion to the highest levels of the department and chosen by the department to train other U.S. attorneys in the investigation and prosecution of voter fraud.

Then as the election approached in 2006, administration officials received calls from New Mexico Republicans complaining that Mr. Iglesias would not rush an investigation indictment before the November election. True accountability means being forthcoming. True accountability requires consequences for bad actions. So this hearing is such an opportunity.

Last November, the American people rejected this administration's unilateral approach to government and to the president actually without constitutional checks and balances. Rather than heed that call, within days of that election, senior White House and Justice Department staff finalized plans for seeing to the simultaneous mass firings of a large number of top federal prosecutors.

By so doing, they sent the unmistakable message, not only to those forced out but to those who remained, that traditionally independent law enforcement by U.S. attorneys would not be tolerated by this administration.

LEAHY: Instead, partisan loyalty had become the yardstick by which all would be judged.