WASHINGTON, DC — In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that former U.S. Attorney in Nevada, Daniel Bogden, was removed in part over “concerns about his commitment to pursuing obscenity [cases].”It is a claim that appears to be rooted in a complaint lodged against Bogden by Brent Ward, the current head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, in an email to former chief of staff for Gonzales, Kyle Sampson.

In the email, dated September 20th, 2006, Ward complains about two U.S. Attorneys “who are unwilling to take good cases we have presented to them.”

“They are Paul Charlton in Phoenix (this is urgent) and Dan Bogden in Las Vegas,” writes Ward. “In light of the AG’s [Gonzales’] comments…to ‘kick butt and take names,’ what do you suggest I do?”

Gonzales said that the decision to remove Bogden “in hindsight, was the closest call.” Gonzales’ testimony also suggests that he’s not entirely sure what he did or did not know about Bogden’s job performance.

“I do not recall what I knew about Mr. Bogden on December 7th,” Gonzales said. “That’s not to say that I wasn’t given a reason; I just don’t recall the reason. I didn’t have an independent basis or recollection of knowing about Mr. Bogden’s performance.”

Gonzales testified that, after Bodgen was fired, he went back to review documents relating to Bogden’s dismissal.

“It appears that there were concerns about the level of energy, generally, in a fast-growing district,” said Gonzales, adding that there were “concerns about his commitment to pursuing obscenity… and just generally getting a sense of new energy in that office.”

Gonzales also indicated that after the controversy surrounding the dismissal of the eight U.S. attorneys began to swell, he wondered whether terminating Bogden had been the right move, and asked one of his senior staff members if he ought to stand behind the choice to remove Bogden.

“I went to the deputy attorney general,” Gonzales testified, “and I asked him, ‘OK, do we stand behind these decisions?’”

Gonzales said that the deputy attorney general said yes, and so Gonzales stood by what was, purportedly, his own decision.

During yesterday’s testimony, Gonzales said that even though he cannot recall why he fired Bogden “I believe it was still the right decision.”

In March, Bogden told the Salt Lake Tribune that Ward’s complaints, which to date are the only specific items cited concerning Bogden’s firing, are bogus.

“When I read the emails it was just really nonsense,” Bogden said. “This guy hasn’t even met me and yet he’s criticizing me of having made lousy excuses and being some kind of defiant U.S. Attorney.”

Bogden was referring to an August, 2006 email to a senior official in the DOJ’s criminal division, in which Ward states that “For the FBI people to go out to LV and sit and listen to the lame excuses of a defiant U.S. Attorney is only going to move this whole enterprise close to catastrophe.”

Bogden counters that the case presented to him was entirely undeveloped and simply not ready for prosecution.

“The case that was presented to me needed massive investigative work,” Bogden told the Tribune.

At the time, Bogden said, he was short six attorneys and had several active major cases that needed to be worked. One case involved charges being entered against 42 members of the Hells Angels biker gang, and the judge in the case had split the matter into seven separate trials. At the same time, there was a major public corruption case that was about to go to trial.

In closed testimony before a congressional panel last Sunday, Sampson, Gonzales’ former chief of staff, Sampson reportedly stated that he never read Bogden’s performance review nor was he asked to read the review by Gonzales.

According to the Las Vegas Sun, Sampson also never consulted with Nevada’s law enforcement community to gauge whether they thought Bogden was an effective prosecutor.

Sampson reportedly testified that aside from Ward’s complaint about Bogden’s decision not to prosecute a specific obscenity case, he couldn’t recall any other complaints, either from the White House or the DOJ.

Following Sampson’s testimony Sunday, Bush Administration critics from both the left and the right were quick to note the apparent discrepancy between Gonzales’ testimony and the factual record.

“It seems like the more we learn about what went on, the clearer it becomes that Dan Bogden got a raw deal,” said spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Jon Summers. “They made the decision about this man’s future in 90 seconds – 90 seconds. A professional prosecutor (who) prosecuted some of the highest-profile cases in the state, loses his job in 90 seconds.”

Tory Mazzola, spokesman for Senator John Ensign (R-NV), who has strongly criticized the DOJ’s decision to remove Bogden, said that Sampson’s testimony merely revealed what was already known.

“It confirms what Senator Ensign has said all along; the Department of Justice mishandled the firing of Dan Bogden,” Mazzola said, according to the Sun.

Gonzales now finds himself with the support of the White House, but few others.

Referring to him as “our No. 1 crime fighter,” White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino told reporters aboard Air Force One that Gonzales “has done a fantastic job in the Department of Justice,” according to the Associated Press.

Appearing before the committee, Gonzales received no such words of praise, even from the Republicans on the panel.

“I don’t believe that you’re involved in a conspiracy to fire somebody because they wouldn’t prosecute a particular enemy of a politician or a friend of a politician,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?”

Another Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn (OK) offered much sharper words, directly calling for Gonzales to step down.

“I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered,” said Coburn, referring to the US attorneys who had been removed. “(T)he best way to put this behind us is your resignation.”

Democrats on the panel, naturally, were no more charitable than their Republican counterparts.

“I think anyone who’s watched this would say we could do better for attorney general,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said during a break in the hearing, according to the New York Times. “He seems to be far less qualified than the U.S. attorneys that he’s fired.”

Still, the White House indicates that President Bush is standing by his man, acknowledging only that there have been “communication problems” with respect to the U.S. attorney firings.

“Senators have been frustrated with the admitted communications problems since this began, and I think this has been their opportunity to express that frustration,” said Bush spokesman Tony Fratto, according to the New York Times.

Fratto added that while it’s “perfectly natural” for Senators to express their frustration, “it doesn’t change the facts, and the facts are that there was a process here, and the ultimate decisions were the correct decisions.”