Hard to believe they’re still at it. But here we go, ABC News:

EXCLUSIVE: Gonzales Contradicts His Own Testimony:

“Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ assertion that he was not involved in identifying the eight U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign last year is at odds with a recently released internal Department of Justice e-mail, ABC News has learned.

That e-mail said that Gonzales supported firing one federal prosecutor six months before she was asked to leave.

Gonzales was scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, but his testimony was postponed until Thursday because of the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech University.

When Gonzales appears before the committee, a central focus will be the extent of his involvement in the firings.

Gonzales has insisted he left those decisions to his staff, but ABC News has learned he was so concerned about U.S. attorney Carol Lam’s lackluster record on immigration enforcement in San Diego that he supported firing her months before she was dismissed, according to a newly released e-mail from his former chief of staff.

The e-mail, which came from Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson, appeared to contradict the prepared written testimony Gonzales submitted to Congress over the weekend in advance of his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday. In his prepared testimony, Gonzales said that during the months that his senior staff was evaluating U.S. attorneys, including Lam, “I did not make the decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.”

But the recently released e-mail from Sampson, dated June 1, 2006, indicated that Gonzales was actively involved in discussions about Lam and had decided to fire her if she did not improve. In the e-mail to other top Justice Department officials, Sampson outlined several steps that Gonzales suggested, culminating in Lam’s replacement if she failed to bolster immigration enforcement.”

One is not the same as the other. As the media can’t have it one way, as they asserted in the beginning by trying to suggest that Lam was fired over Duke Cunningham until that theory was disproven.

Lam was fired because she wasn’t doing her job on immigration – period. The email that ABC is huffing and puffing over would have been routine given her failure to perform, but not necessarily related to the original (2005) routine plan to replace prosecutors.

As I said over the weekend of the MacRanger Show this is getting more Libby Like every day, where the more they try to make a crime out of nothing.

Andy McCarthy notes:

“That ABC story is particularly infuriating because the email at issue should be among the strongest parts of Gonzales’s defense of himself. It shows him in a light we have seen too little of as this story has unfolded: i.e., as an engaged Attorney General dealing exactly the way an AG should with a U.S. attorney, Carol Lam of San Diego, whose laxity on an important enforcement issue in her district, illegal immigration, was serious enough ‚Äî as Byron detailed on NRO last month ‚Äî that both Republicans and a Democrat (Sen. Feinstein) from California had complained.

The email underscores, moreover, that the firing of Lam did not stem from any intention to obstruct pending corruption investigations, which would be the only inappropriate basis for getting rid of an official who serves at the pleasure of the president. It also demonstrates that Gonzales was concerned but measured ‚Äî firing was apparently contemplated only as a last resort if other efforts to get Lam to improve her performance did not work.”

They’ll keep digging and scratching until they get him. Talk about the politics of destruction, the left are masters of it.