Gonzales did not, of course, recall what he knew about Daniel Bogden on the day Bogden’s resignation was requested (see previous post). However, Gonzales does know that his Deputy Attorney General agonized over the decision to fire Bogden.
Having, as he said, “gone back and looked at the documents,” Gonzales stands by the decision, justifying it thus:
it appears that there was concerns about the level of energy, generally, in a fast-growing district, concerns about his commitment to pursuing obscenity -- which is important for the department; it is a law, we have an obligation to pursue it -- and just generally getting a sense of new energy in that office.
Perhaps Bogden can feel energized by Gonzales' regret that there had been no face-to-face meeting to discuss the concerns. In fact, Gonzales wanted to help Bogden secure other employment, because, even though the Attorney General testified that he does not recall what he knew about Bogden when the decision was made, he was able to testify “I struggled, as well, over this decision.”
Those interested in reading the full text of Gonzales explanation of Bogden’s firing will find it in
Part I of the Washington Post’s transcripts of the hearing, in response to questioning by Senator Brownback (R- Kan).
