Ex-Gonzales Aide: Firing Decisions 'Properly Made, but Poorly Explained'

March 29, 2007 — -- In a grueling six hours of sworn testimony, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff contradicted his ex-boss's recollection of not seeing any memos or having any discussions about the plan to fire eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Gonzales' former top aide D. Kyle Sampson took responsibility for his role in the Justice Department's "badly mishandled " response to questions over the firings, and attempted to answer pointed questions from both sides of the aisle.

Much of Sampson's testimony focused on what Gonzales knew and when he knew it.

"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate," Sampson said. "I think he's recently clarified it."

Asked about a Nov. 27, 2006, meeting in which Gonzales, Sampson and other senior Justice Department officials discussed the controversial plan to oust eight U.S. attorneys, Sampson testified that Gonzales participated in the conversation, and might have even signed off on the list of attorneys to be fired before the meeting.

Sampson described his role as "the keeper of the list" of attorneys considered for termination. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., questioned him about who made the decision to place individuals on the list, to which Sampson replied, "It was based on an aggregation of input that came into me, and then I added people to the list."

"You made a list, you aggregated a list, and you took it to the attorney general," Feinstein asked. "Is that correct?"

"Ultimately, in the fall of 2006, he [Gonzales] approved the final list," Sampson confirmed.

During questioning from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., an outspoken critic of the Justice Department's handling of the firings, Sampson provided a few more details, noting, "I remember that he [Gonzales] asked me to make sure that I was consulting with the Deputy Attorney General [Paul McNulty], and that he agreed with the list of U.S. attorneys who should -- who we might consider asking to resign. And he also asked that I be sure to coordinate with the White House."

Gonzales' Statements: Conflicting or Consistent?

Despite charges that Gonzales had told a different version of events in past statements, the Justice Department doesn't see a conflict between what Gonzales has said and Sampson's testimony.

In a statement released after Sampson's testimony concluded, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said, "The attorney general explained -- consistent with Mr. Sampson's testimony today -- in an interview on March 14 that he directed Mr. Sampson to lead the evaluation process, was kept aware of some conversations during the process, and that he approved the recommendations to seek the resignations of select U.S. attorneys."

Clarifying an earlier statement from March 13 in which Gonzales said he did not see any memos or have discussions on the firings, Gonzales said in an interview with NBC News, "I was never focused on specific concerns about United States attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign."

Sampson testified that he coordinated the process but shared information among senior Justice Department officials, including McNulty, the second-highest ranking official at the department behind Gonzales.

"I shared information with anyone who wanted it," Sampson recalled. "I was very open and collaborative in the process."

'Confusion, Misunderstanding and Embarrassment'

But even though he contends the process was not based on improper motives, Sampson acknowledged there were mistakes.

In his opening statement to the committee, he said, "What started as a good faith attempt to carry out the department's management responsibilities and exercise the president's appointment authority has unfortunately resulted in confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment. This should not have happened.

"When members of Congress began to raise questions about these removals, I believe the department's response was badly mishandled," Sampson said. "It was mishandled through an unfortunate combination of poor judgments, poor word choices and poor communication."

Sampson also said, "As I see it, the truth of this affair is this: The decisions to seek the resignation of a handful of U.S. attorneys were properly made, but poorly explained. This is a benign, rather than sinister, story. And I know that some may be disposed not to accept it, but it's the truth as I observed it and experienced it."

Loyalty to the Bush Administration

In e-mails detailing Sampson's critiques of some of the 93 U.S. attorneys serving around the country, he referred to some as "loyal Bushies."

When asked about his use of that term, Sampson said, "Let me just say that, in my e-mails, by referring to 'loyal Bushies' or loyalty to the president and the attorney general, what I meant was loyalty to their policies and to the priorities that they had laid out for the U.S. attorneys," which Sampson described as programs such as the Justice Department's Project Safe Neighborhoods and President Bush's initiative to combat illegal gun use.

Sampson testified that one of the fired U.S. attorneys was underperforming on this program, so she was flagged to be replaced when members of Congress also questioned her enforcement of immigration cases along the southern border of California, a part of her district.

CIA Leak Prosecutor: 'Undistinguished'?

But some of the attorneys singled out by Sampson, even the ones not ultimately targeted for removal, caused senators to question Sampson's judgment.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., questioned why Sampson gave Patrick Fitzgerald, one of the U.S. attorneys from Durbin's state, a mediocre review, labeling him "undistinguished."

The rating baffled many on Capitol Hill, as Fitzgerald has made a name for himself as the lead prosecutor in both the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and, more recently, the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

Sampson explained the rating, saying, "I knew that Mr. Fitzgerald was handling a very sensitive case [the CIA leak investigation] and really didn't want to rate him one way or the other."

But after Durbin pursued the issue, Sampson admitted that on one occasion, he did recommend to White House counsel that Fitzgerald be added to the list.

"And I immediately regretted it, and I withdrew it at the time, and I regret it now," Sampson said.

White House Testimony: 'Sooner Rather Than Later'

Specter also discussed his interest in having senior White House political adviser Karl Rove appear before the committee, saying, "I think we ought to hear from him candidly, sooner rather than later."

Specter also said he would like to have a transcript if Rove were to testify, though the White House has stated its opposition to its staff testifying under oath, in public or with a transcript.

Sampson was questioned about a few references to Rove in some of his e-mails discussing the firing plan with the White House counsel's office. The Justice Department released several groups of e-mails and internal documents after questions about the process came to a head.

Taking the Fifth

While Sampson voluntarily appeared before the committee, and current Justice Department employees start heading to the hill Friday to meet with the House Judiciary Committee to discuss the matter, one such official has already invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify.

Attorneys for Monica Goodling, counsel to Gonzales and the Justice Department's White House liaison, informed Congress earlier this week that she will not discuss the matter before Congress -- even if subpoenaed -- because of her belief that members of Congress had already made up their minds about the chain of events leading to the firings.

In reference to Goodling, Sen. Jeff Sessions, a former U.S. Attorney himself, said, "These are matters that have cast a cloud over the department. And it's very sad. I don't think that we have people here [on the committee] with the kind of malicious intent to do wrong that has been suggested [by Goodling]. I reject that.

"But a series of misjudgments and overreaching and pushing harder than should be, perhaps, or something, has resulted in a situation that's not healthy," said Sessions.

Fallout Taking Its Toll

The controversy has placed additional scrutiny on the Department of Justice, but Sampson admitted his personal struggles with the firings fallout as well..

Describing the recent strain he has been faced with in the past few weeks, the soft-spoken Sampson said, "[This] has personally been devastating to me and my family."

The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., observed the attorney general's possible shifting of the blame for the firings, saying, "At his press conference two weeks ago, and actually again this week in an interview, Attorney General Gonzales seemed to heap much of the responsibility for this matter on Mr. Sampson."

Leahy continued, "The attorney general admits that mistakes were made but he seems, according to him, to say: 'However, those mistakes were mostly by Mr. Sampson.'"

The committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, discussed the gravity of the current scandal and cloud hanging over Gonzales, saying, "Right now, it is generally acknowledged that the Department of Justice is in a state of disrepair, perhaps even dysfunctional, because of what has happened, with morale low, with U.S. attorneys across the country [who] do not know when another shoe may drop, whether they may be asked to resign for a bad reason if they're not exercising their discretion."

In conclusion Sampson testified, "In hindsight, I wish the Department hadn't gone down this road at all."