It appears now that Alberto Gonzales will stand before Congress on Tuesday with all of the Administration’s cover stories about the U.S. attorney purge littered around his feet like so many rejected scripts. From the Washington Post:

The former Justice Department official who carried out the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year told Congress that several of the prosecutors had no performance problems and that a memo on the firings was distributed at a Nov. 27 meeting attended by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, a Democratic senator said yesterday.

The statements to House and Senate investigators by Michael A. Battle, former director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, represent another potential challenge to the credibility of Gonzales, who has said that he never saw any documents about the firings and that he had “lost confidence” in the prosecutors because of performance problems.

. . .

The statements by Battle, who left his job last month, are the first details to emerge from more than 20 hours of interviews with four top Gonzales aides over the past two weeks by staff members on the House and Senate Judiciary committees. The last of those interviews was conducted yesterday with Sampson, who testified publicly last month that he was only an “aggregator” of information on the firings and that ultimate responsibility rested with Gonzales.

TPM Reader PG, on this week’s congressional testimony by the attorney general:

[T]here’s one aspect of this story that seems to have attracted no editorial mention or public interest. Implicit in all the coverage is the assumption—by Democrats and Republicans alike—that the Attorney General is going up to Capitol Hill to lie. As far as I can tell, this is a universal assumption. The Republicans are rooting for Mr. Gonzales to be successful in his perjury, to tell a coherent story that his enemies cannot break down. The Democrats are rooting the other way, off course. They’re hoping that their ace interrogators will be able to shoot enough holes in Mr. Gonzales’ story that they can destroy his credibility. But nobody seems to find it shocking or tragic that the Attorney General of the United States is going to lie to congress. . . . I’m sure that if Gonzales makes it through his testimony without being totally discredited, Fred Barnes and Brit Hume will be all over Fox news boasting that the Senators “never laid a glove on him.” But no one seems the least bit concerned about his truthfulness, just his tactics. . . .

Given President Bush’s role in the dismissal of David Iglesias–over the reported objection of Attorney General Gonzales–it’s worth going back over what the President and those who speak on his behalf have said publicly since this scandal broke. TPM Reader CB gets us started off with some choice quotes.

President Bush, at a press conference in Mexico, March 14, 2007:

I specifically remember one time I went up to the Senate and senators were talking about the U.S. attorneys. I don’t remember specific names being mentioned, but I did say to Al last year — you’re right, last fall — I said, have you heard complaints about AGs, I have — I mean, U.S. attorneys, excuse me — and he said, I have. But I never brought up a specific case nor gave him specific instructions.

President Bush, in his weekly radio address, on March 24, 2007:

In recent months, the Justice Department determined that new leadership in several of these positions would better serve the country. I strongly support the Attorney General in this decision.

Dan Bartlett, in a press briefing in Mexico, on March 13, 2007:

Particularly, as you can imagine, at the White House, when it comes to complaints, we receive a lot of complaints, whether it be from members of Congress, state leaders, local leaders. Oftentimes that is the job description of a White House employee, is to field complaints. That is not limited to U.S. attorneys. And over the course of several years we have received complaints about U.S. attorneys, particularly when it comes to election fraud cases — not just New Mexico, but also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

That information, it’s incumbent upon us to share with the relevant Cabinet officers, incumbent upon the President to do that, as well. The President did that briefly, in a conversation he had with the Attorney General in October of 2006, in which, in a wide-ranging conversation on a lot of different issues, this briefly came up and the President said, I’ve been hearing about this election fraud matters from members of Congress, want to make sure you’re on top of that, as well. There was no directive given, as far as telling him to fire anybody or anything like that. That would be under the prerogative of the Justice Department to take a look at those issues, as they obviously were doing.

So I know a lot of people want to make more out of it than that, but that is exactly what happened.

If you have other gems from the public record, please send them along, including links to the source of the quotes.

Update: And still more:

Dana Perino, on March 13, 2007, according to the AP:

“At no time did any White House officials, including the president, direct the Department of Justice to take specific action against any individual U.S. attorney.”

Late word from the White House and DOJ in response to the Albuquerque Journal article, from McClatchy …

Meanwhile Sunday, the Albuquerque Journal reported that Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., told Gonzales in the spring of 2006 that he wanted New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias dismissed, and that Gonzales refused. The newspaper said that Domenici later made the same case to White House adviser Karl Rove and spoke to President Bush about it after the November election, but before the attorney firings were announced on Dec. 7. Iglesias was among those fired.

The newspaper cited “sources familiar with the firing of Iglesias, including sources close to Domenici,” but did not name them.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president did not tell Gonzales to fire Iglesias. He also said that Gonzales did not recall discussing with Domenici whether or not to replace Iglesias.

A White House spokesman, Trey Bohn, pointed to comments made by President Bush and his adviser Dan Bartlett last month when asked about the conversation with Domenici.

Bush said that in speaking to Gonzales about U.S. attorneys, “I never brought up a specific case nor gave him specific instructions.” Bartlett said that “there was no directive given, as far as telling him to fire anybody or anything like that.”

Domenici spokesman Chris Gallegos said Domenici would have no comment.

Late Update: As this close reading TPM Reader notes …

You can drive a Halliburton convoy through that White House denial. The President never brought up “a specific case” — say, U.S. v. Talking Points Media — nor “gave [Gonzales] specific instructions.” No “directive” that Gonzales should “fire anybody or anything like that.”

So a call from the President to the Attorney General in which he says, “Pete Domenici called me this morning, says we gotta do something about that U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, Iglesias. Not doing his jobs, not bringing cases fast enough – can you look into that, see what needs to be done?” That would fit within the White House denial.

Perhaps more importantly, remember this: by law , only the President can fire U.S. Attorneys. That’s the only correct way to interpret the statute. Bush got a complaint about Iglesias. Bush fired Iglesias. So how much did Domenici tell Bush? I think we need to know a lot more details…

Yup.

Pulitzers are announced tomorrow at 3:00 PM. Any guesses?

I’ve hinted at this in a few of Sunday’s posts. But another wrinkle in the Albuquerque Journal article is the sourcing. As I suggested earlier and this non-denial denial seems to confirm, the Domenici-Bush conversation does seem to have occurred. But the Journal’s story is a bit vague on the sourcing. The article says the paper “confirmed the sequence of events through a variety of sources familiar with the firing of Iglesias, including sources close to Domenici.” Close to Domenici looks like the key. These are facts no one else has been able to dig up so far. But proxies for Domenici wouldn’t seem to have much interest in putting this story out. So what’s up exactly? And what does it suggest about the facts alleged in the article?

From the WSJ …

The Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section is investigating connections between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the White House, a probe that may be affected by missing White House emails.

Lawyers involved in the case said that beginning more than a year ago, federal prosecutors and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents interviewed Mr. Abramoff and other cooperating witnesses at length about numerous contacts between Mr. Abramoff and White House officials, including presidential adviser Karl Rove.

One focus of the Justice inquiry has been whether Mr. Abramoff obtained official favors in exchange for giving Bush administration officials expensive meals and tickets to sporting events and concerts. The White House has denied this.

Perino from this morning’s gaggle …

Reporter: Dana, the Albuquerque Journal reported that Senator Domenici made a personal deal with the White House. Does the president recall talking about Iglesias, does the president recall specifically talking to Domenici, does…

Dana Perino: I’d refer you to what the president said in Mexico when he was asked this specific question, and he said that he had, that it was something, I don’t have his exact words, but he said something along the lines of that he had been hearing complaints, and we’ve told you the general different areas, around the country, and that he remembers the issue of voter fraud being brought up at a meeting with senators. But we have never said —

Reporter: He doesn’t remember specifically Domenici?

Dana Perino: Not that I — I don’t believe so.

Today’s Must Read: getting Alberto Gonzales’ story straight.

Jon Cohn’s bottom line on health care politics: we need a practical idealism.

Editorial note: A huge thanks to all who participated in last week’s Book Club. It was a privilege to host such a distinguished group on such an essential topic.