delayed part of the investigation of Renzi until after the November 2006 election. They wrote: Further, the Journal noted that investigators had lobbied Washington for clearance to tap Renzi's phone for months. That clearance was only given in October 2006, but unfortunately for the investigators, word broke of the investigation soon after, disrupting their wiretap. On April 24, 2007, Charlton revealed to House investigators that Brian Murray, Renzi's top aide, called Charlton spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle shortly after news of Renzi's investigation became public, asking for information on the case. Charlton, in turn, notified the Department of Justice about the call. Justice, however, had not previously notified Congress of the contact. A second motivation for removing Charlton may have been the suggestions of Justice official Brent Ward, who said in a September 20, 2006 e-mail that Charlton was "unwilling to take good cases." Ward's reason for discounting Charlton appeared to be the US attorney's reluctance to pursue obscenity charges against adult video manufacturers in connection to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's Obscenity Prosecution Task Force. After a disagreement over initiating the tape-recording of interviews and confessions by the FBI on American Indian reservations, which Charlton supported and the Justice Department opposed, Charlton offered to resign. In his congressional testimony on March 6, 2007, Charlton said he found "no small amount of irony" in the fact that he was eventually fired. The Justice Department reversed its longstanding no-recording policy in May 2014, now requiring federal law enforcement agencies to tape-record interviews with suspects in most instances. Charlton was quoted, The most difficult part of proving a crime is the state of mind, and that is almost always obtained through a statement of the suspect. It was an unjustifiable policy. I think this one of the most significant improvements in the criminal justice system in a long time. Charlton had clashed with the Bush Administration over the death penalty; in at least two cases he did not seek capital punishment but was overruled from Washington. In its formal investigation regarding the firing of the US Attorneys, the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General found as follows: We concluded that the most significant factor in Charlton's removal was his actions in a death penalty case. Charlton persistently opposed the Department's decision to seek the death penalty in a homicide case, and he irritated Department leaders by seeking a meeting with the Attorney General to