Gonzales Testifies Before Senate Panel, Part III

But my point is when you're making a decision like that, there's a counterbalance to it. When you go to Carol Lam and say, "You know what, you're not doing enough immigration prosecutions, therefore you're fired," there are all sorts of collateral consequences of that -- some of which are really quite damaging and evil, particularly when you're knocking off somebody who is known among her colleagues as being really the prime United States attorney in the country on public corruption prosecutions. It sends a really rough message.

So in the balancing between the structural protections and the respect and all of that, and this question of policy, I would hazard to you that you can't let the policy question just run away with the issue. You first think it through thoughtfully, and I can't find a place in the whole tragic record of this situation, in which that careful thought was administered.

GONZALES: No question about it. No question about it that we have to take into account how decisions may affect ongoing cases. There's no question about that.

But we also -- I think it's important for the American people to understand that even when there's a chance at the top with the attorney general, or a change in the United States attorney, the cases continue.

WHITEHOUSE: That's true.

GONZALES: The cases continue to be investigated.

WHITEHOUSE: As you and I know, the leadership from the U.S. attorney makes a big difference. That's why you thought these replacements were important in the first place.

GONZALES: They do -- they do make a big difference...

WHITEHOUSE: If I may make my second point, because I'm running out of time here. It's the second thing that you suggest, which is we should further agree on a definition of what an improper reason for the removal of a U.S. attorney would be. And over and over again you've used the word "improper" as sort of your target word as to where the boundary is, to where you should and shouldn't go.

But your definition of improper is almost exactly the same as Kyle Sampson's. He came in here and testified, he said, without consulting with anybody, and said that the improper reasons include an effort, and I quote, "to interfere with or influence the investigation or prosecution of a particular case for political or partisan advantage."

And your testimony is, "...to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain."

You've loaded up those words. You've used them repeatedly. And I think that the definition of where impropriety lies, clearly that would be improper. That would be grotesquely improper.