I understand that in January of 2006, Attorney General Gonzales listed the Bush Adminsitrations priorities for the Justice Department. On that list, immigration was not near the top. While one can make the argument that the US Attorneys should persue the priorities of the Administration, one needs to examine closely what the published priorities are; if one wishes to credibly make that argument. Well, there's some hyperbole, isn't there. Who exactly was threatened with jail time. By whom? And, I note you use the phrase "once again": please clarify for me, when did we establish the prior time that Congress threatented people with jail time? It seems that when the Administration has given information to Congress about this subject, there have been some pretty notable "errors". One method of reducing "errors" is to put the information provided to Congress under oath. Now, if you are arguing that asking someone to swear an oath is the same as threatening them with Jail time, I guess I would have to ask, many of the people in question have sworn oaths to protect and defend the United States Constitution, should we expect them to honor those prior oaths. Now, as I understand the Constitution, each branch of government provides some measure of oversight toward the others. Seeking testimony under oath seems, to me anyhow, as an important part of that oversight. The United States attorney in New Hampshire, by the way, was not dismissed. In 2002, there was some pretty serious accusations of the Republican Party jamming the telephone lines of the Democratic Party's Get Out the Vote centers. Our US Attorney did a wonderful job investigating that activity at a very slow pace. Nothing was released from the US Attorney until after the 2004 elections. Lastly, don't pass this off on the Attorney General. US Attorneys are appointed by the President; and the President is the person with authority to remove them. The Attorney General does not have the authority to remove US Attorneys.