Gonzales' three major inconsistencies

Heading into his sworn testimony tomorrow, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are expected to press the Attorney General on three specific areas:

1) The Documents Claim

Alberto Gonzales claims he was never briefed or given any documents regarding the attorney purges.  "I never saw documents,” Gonzales said one month ago. "We never had a discussionabout where things stood."

But Gonzales' former colleagues say otherwise.  Michael A. Battle -- former director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, who helped carry out the firings -- told congressional investigators last year that Alberto Gonzales received a memo during a November 27, 2006 meeting about the attorney purges.

Kyle Sampson, a former Justice Department aide, also contradicted Gonzales' claim.  "I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was notinvolved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate," Sampson said in his sworn testimony last month.

2) The Politicization Claim

In January of this year, Alberto Gonzales promised under oath that he had never fired a prosecutor for political reasons.  "I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney forpolitical reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoingserious investigation," the Attorney General said.  "I just would not do it."

Once again, former Justice Department aide Kyle Sampson disputed what Gonzales said.  "The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasonsfor removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largelyartificial," Sampson said last month in front of Congress.

If Gonzales' testimony tomorrow contradicts his promise in January that he would never fire a U.S. attorney for political reasons, then he could face perjury and obstruction of justice charges for lying to Congress.

3) The Confirmation Claim

This is by far the most obvious flaw of all.  No matter what Gonzales says tomorrow, he still did lie under oath on this very issue.   In his sworn testimony before Congress on January 18, 2007, Gonzales promised that all U.S. Attorneys would have to be confirmed by the United States Senate:

And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you’re going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as theadministration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to everyUnited States attorney position in this country, we will have apresidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.

But when Gonzales said that, he knew full well that a hidden loophole in the Patriot Act allows the Administration to hand-select new attorneys and appoint them without having to go through the Senate confirmation process.  So what Gonzales said was a complete lie.

Again, Alberto Gonzales has a lot of explaining to do on these three inconsistencies.  Let's hope that the Judiciary Committee follows Russ Feingold's lead and holds Gonzales feet to the fire until he answers the questions honestly and completely.

The hearing is tomorrow at 10 AM ET.  We will blog live during the hearing, enabling you all to comment as it happens.