That slimy, little ratfuck is lying again:
"You said that nine U.S. attorneys were fired for partisan political reasons. That’s not what the report said. Quite the opposite. The report clearly found that there were performance related reasons for the removal of most of these U.S. attorneys and with respect to the remainder, they didn’t have enough information to draw definite conclusions."
You know, if it were me, and I'd been one of those attorneys dismissed for what were, in fact, nakedly political reasons, and I caught the aforementioned slimy, little ratfuck claiming -- on national TV -- that it was because of my unacceptable performance, I'd be filing a lawsuit for slander and defamation of character before he'd even finished that sentence. But you'll notice how carefully Gonzo makes the accusation:
"... there were performance related reasons for the removal of most of these U.S. attorneys and with respect to the remainder, they didn’t have enough information to draw definite conclusions."
So who exactly is he referring to out of those nine fired attorneys? Without naming names, there's no way to know so, if you sue for defamation, all Gonzo has to say is that you're one of those for whom there wasn't "enough information."
CNN's Brown missed a golden opportunity to demand that Gonzo name names, and put those accusations right out there in public. As it is, unless he ever gets more specific, Gonzo appears to be safe to smear those attorneys as long as he remains adequately generic.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Apparently, Gonzo is having trouble finding work. I can sort of see why -- what's the point of hiring someone who's going to be dragged off to The Hague and tried for war crimes? Then you'd have to start that job search all over again and who wants to go through that?