Let's apply some logic here. If this is an issue that requires a response in the Washington Post, it requires a response, under oath, before the commission.
BUT if Gorelick has to testify before the commission as a witness, she can't be on the commission as a member who will later be called on to evaluate that testimony. Therefore, Gorelick has to resign.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
Nope, not hard logic at all.
An "independent commission" cant be called independent if they are examining themselves. Any person with such a major role as Gorelick in terrorism policy pre 9/11 has no business on the commission.
Otherwise, we could have saved the trouble of bringing all these old suits out of the closet and made it the Tenet/Ashcroft commission. (hmmm, on second thoughts that wuld have been a more balanced and professional commission.)