Senate denies White House push for earlier Gonzales testimony

[Mind_your_head]

<snip>
For all the explanations Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has given about his role in the firing of eight U.S. prosecutors, he hasn't yet given one under oath to Congress. For the White House, it suddenly seems that day can't come fast enough.

The Bush administration scrambled Sunday to move up Gonzales' planned April 17 testimony. The idea was rejected by Democrats, who said it was too late to adjust the schedule. The Senate has just started a one-week vacation, while the House is taking a two-week spring break.

<snip>

The committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, said Gonzales was offered earlier dates but turned them down. It was Gonzales who chose April 17 and now that "everybody has set their schedule according to that," that date won't change, said Leahy, D-Vermont.

<snip>

"We are absolutely confused by the White House position," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. "For the longest time, Alberto Gonzales wasn't going to come, maybe much later. Now the White House can't wait to bring him in."

</snip>

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/02/fired.attorneys.ap/index.html

[woodsprite]

1. Do you think this had something to do with recess appointments?

I'm thinking it did. Either they wanted to get Gonzo out of the picture and appoint someone in his place while congress was on recess OR they didn't want Gonzo to get any additional questions about someone who was recess appointed over their break.

Glad the Dems didn't go along with it.

[Mind_your_head]

2. I never thought of those scenarios, but you could be absolutely right!

I was just thinking the committee wanted more time to interview people and get 'more background', see what other foul stench is gonna rise up from this mess, etc.

Whatever the reasons, I'm with you - I'm really glad the Dems didn't go along with it.

[Lerkfish]

3. that seems plausible.

good thinking.