Slate's Bizbox
jurisprudence: The law, lawyers, and the court.

The Reluctant ExecutionerKyle Sampson cuts down his ex-boss, Alberto Gonzales.

By Emily Bazelon
Posted Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 6:47 PM ET

Kyle Sampson tried to stand by his man today. But he just couldn't. His former boss of seven years, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, zoomed so far into outer space this month in claiming that he had nothing to do with last year's firing of eight U.S. attorneys that Sampson could only leave him to orbit. Sampson was sweaty, nervous, and soft-spoken—nowhere in evidence was the cavalier swagger of the aide who wrote e-mails a few short months ago about replacing one prosecutor without waiting for his "body to cool." And that made his testimony about Gonzales all the more damning for its apparent reluctance.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., teed up the first big moment of the morning. On March 13, as he reminded Sampson, Gonzales held a press conference in which he (rashly) said that he "was not involved in any discussions about what was going on" regarding the firing of the prosecutors. Then last Friday, the White House released e-mails showing that Gonzales went to a meeting on November 27 that was all about the firings. How did Sampson account for the contradiction?

"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate," Sampson said, sounding unhappy but firm. A few minutes later, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., prodded him to elaborate. How many times had Sampson and Gonzales discussed the dismissals? "The attorney general was aware of this process from the beginning in early 2005," Sampson answered. They discussed it several times during the course of 2006, both when "leaders" at the Department of Justice were contributing names to the purge list over the summer, in Sampson's telling, and when the list was finalized in late fall.

So, Sampson and Gonzales spoke about the firings at least five times? Schumer asked.

"I spoke with him every day," Sampson said. "At least five, yes."

It could only have been odd for Sampson to call up that intimacy while he was doggedly undermining the man he used to have it with. He did try to sync his account with Gonzales' efforts to dial back his own blanket denials of involvement. "I think the attorney general has clarified his earlier statements," he told Schumer. Sampson also said he couldn't remember the November 27 meeting clearly enough to offer much detail about it. (Never mind that November isn't exactly ancient history.)

But what Sampson did recall "tells us quite a lot," as Schumer put it. Sampson was sure that the attendees included himself, Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and Monica Goodling, the department's White House liaison, who went on extended leave last week and has taken the Fifth rather than testify before Congress. Sampson said the meeting lasted about 20 minutes. He was sure Gonzales had spoken.

And Sampson was also sure that he'd shared information about the process of determining which prosecutors should go with his higher-ups. This also contradicts Gonzales, who said at that soon-to-be-regretted press conference, "So far as I knew, my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers." Asked if he'd mentioned names of specific prosecutors to Gonzales before the firings, Sampson said he had. And no, he couldn't explain how Gonzales could say that he'd had no part in the selection process. Sampson didn't dream up the firings on his own, he didn't plan them himself, and he sure didn't carry them out. "The decision-makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president," he said, in what may become the day's sound bite.

Sampson tried to sound equally confident about resolving the ragged ends he himself left trailing. None of the prosecutors was forced out for improper reasons, he swore—the DoJ never ousted a single U.S. attorney in order to interfere with a pending prosecution. The Democrats pushed back hardest about former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., wanted to know what Sampson meant when he referred to "the real problem" with Lam, in an e-mail he wrote just a day after she broadened her investigation of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham to include other Republicans. "The real problem," Sampson said, "was her office's failure in bringing immigration cases." Later, he similarly tried to explain away a past e-mail reference to "loyal Bushies" by saying that he had in mind prosecutors who were loyal not to the president himself, but to his "policies and priorities."

None of this went over well with the Democrats running the hearing. They all thanked Sampson for showing up to testify voluntarily. And they must have liked the ammunition they were getting against Gonzales. Still, for all the professed appreciation, the senators went after their witness. They bore down on the discrepancy between 1) a Dec. 19, 2006, e-mail in which Sampson wrote that getting Tim Griffin appointed as U.S. attorney in Arkansas "was important to Harriet, Karl, etc."; and 2) a Feb. 23, 2007, letter he drafted on behalf of the DoJ that stated, "The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin."

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Emily Bazelon is a Slate senior editor.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Assessing Sarah Palin
| Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, John Podesta and others weigh in.
Colbert King: She's No HillaryEditorial: Is She Ready for This?
PLUS » PostPartisan: Quick Takes from Opinions