Why President Bush is so stubborn about keeping Gonzales as AG is a puzzle to me. If he won’t let him go then Gonzales should have the decency to resign, as he is not serving the president very well.

From the Washington Post comes the story that Gonzales is being investigated by the DOJ Inspector General and the counsel of the Office of Professional Responsibility.

Fine has the authority to refer cases for possible criminal prosecution if warranted, and both he and Jarrett can recommend disciplinary action for violations of internal ethics guidelines or other rules of professional conduct.

The revelation further expands the publicly known contours of the Justice Department’s internal investigation, which is examining the removal of the prosecutors and whether any laws or policies were violated in the hiring of career prosecutors, immigration judges and others.

In her May 23 appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Goodling testified that the backdrop of her conversation with the attorney general was her prospective decision on whether to transfer to another job or leave the department. “Let me tell you what I can remember,” Gonzales said, according to her account. He then asked whether Goodling “had any reaction to his iteration,” she said.

Goodling testified that the conversation made her “a little uncomfortable” because of ongoing investigations into the issue — including one begun several days earlier by the OPR. “I didn’t know that it was maybe appropriate for us to talk about that at that point, and so I just didn’t,” Goodling said. “As far as I can remember, I just didn’t respond.”

Gonzales said in testimony before both the House and Senate judiciary committees that he had not talked to potential witnesses about the events surrounding the firings. “I haven’t wanted to interfere with this investigation and department investigations,” Gonzales said on April 19.

Several legal experts said the federal laws that could apply to wrongdoing such as witness tampering, suborning perjury or obstruction of justice all require evidence of corrupt or improper motives on the part of a potential defendant. Gillers said Goodling’s description of her meeting with Gonzales amounts to a “vague narrative” that would potentially pose difficulties for a prosecutor.

“It really depends on what the person’s intent was, and you can infer intent from words and conduct and tone,” said James A. Cohen, an associate professor at Fordham University Law School and an expert on witness-tampering statutes.

The Congressional investigations will go on, but the possibility of being charged with tampering with witness demands Gonzales must go now.

The presumption is innocent until proven guilty and so far no charges have been brought, but being under the cloud of an investigation does not allow Gonzales to do his job properly and only drags this out.