Former Top Justice Official to Contradict Gonzales Statements
When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee this Thursday about the controversial firings of eight U.S. attorneys, he's unlikely to throw any big bombs at the Bush administration that are of the magnitude of a direct link between Bush's political advisor Karl Rove and the dismissals, a close associate of Sampson's tells U.S. News. But Sampson will set off some fireworks by contradicting a key assurance that Gonzales made to Congress and the American public last Tuesday that he was not in the loop during the long deliberations leading up to the firings.
Gonzales probably spoke to Sampson 20 times a day and had a daily morning management meeting on a range of issues with Sampson and other key officials also involved in the U.S. attorney deliberations. Gonzales had delegated the replacement plan for U.S. attorneys largely to Sampson and was monitoring it at "the 30,000-feet level," Sampson's associate says. But Sampson will testify that the attorney general not only discussed the idea while he was still White House counsel and signed off at the end but also was "aware of the arc of the whole process" in between, says this source. "The idea that there were no discussions on this overall issue," says the source, "the attorney general could not have meant to say that."
While Sampson's testimony won't implicate White House officials, it won't rule out their involvement– including Rove's–in the selection of the fired U.S. attorneys either. In fact, it will only give Democrats in Congress new fodder to demand the testimony under oath of Rove and other key Bush officials– something Bush has so far said he won't tolerate, citing executive privilege. Sampson is likely to testify that although he exchanged E-mails and had discussions with then White House counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, what happened "behind the curtains" in the White House was largely invisible to him.
Sampson also is likely to portray the whole U.S. attorney firings issue as a "mundane pseudo-scandal" and say that no one in the administration was guilty of anything other than faulty political judgment and of organizing a flawed bureaucratic response to the allegations of malfeasance. "I don't think he's aware of any improper motivations for the firings," says Sampson's associate, "nor is he aware of anybody doing anything other than doing their level best to give accurate information to Congress, no matter how badly the effort got botched."
Even as Sampson preps to get grilled, another senior Gonzales aide, Monica Goodling, has declined to be raked over the coals, citing her constitutional right to protect herself against self-incrimination, her attorney John Dowd told the Associated Press. Goodling served as Gonzales's senior counsel and White House liaison and was involved in the firings. She's now on an indefinite leave of absence. The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Goodling last week, along with other top Justice officials. "The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said Dowd. Sampson's attorney, Bradford Berenson, said that his client "plans to testify fully, truthfully, and publicly." Berenson also said that hearings "in a highly politicized environment like this can sometimes become a game of gotcha," but he added that "Kyle has decided to trust the Congress and the process."
Sampson's testimony is likely to provide more details of the attorney general's knowledge of the deliberations, which could prove embarrassing to Gonzales and lead to new calls for his dismissal both by Democrats leading the charge and by key Republican supporters of President Bush who believe Gonzales and his top aides have been less than candid about the whole affair. At a press conference last Tuesday, Gonzales acknowledged that "mistakes were made," but he said it was Sampson who was tasked with the whole process of determining "who were the weak performers." Gonzales said he was "not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on." But an E-mail released over the weekend shows that Gonzales took part in at least one meeting on November 27 in which one topic discussed was the prosecutor firings. Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos has said that the E-mail in no way contradicts Gonzales's statements about his peripheral role in the deliberations.
More than anything else, Sampson's testimony is sure to highlight how unprepared–or arrogant–the Bush administration was, despite Rove's stated political astuteness, about handling the new Demo-cratic-led Congress, and how officials essentially walked into the lion's den and handed their new subpoena-happy oversight masters their heads on a plate. Case in point: Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and William Moschella testified on January 19, February 6, and March 6. But their testimony was largely based on recollections of those involved in the deliberations over the firings. The Justice Department did not begin searching for documents until March 5, one day before Moschella's testimony, when Congress sent an initial document request, and the broad search began on March 8, after a follow up and more expansive requests from Democrats leading the investigation, according to knowledgeable sources. Justice sources say because Sampson and the others involved were helping these senior officials prep for the testimony, they felt they were in good hands. "They had the right people at the table," says one official. "So who needed documents?"
By the time the document search began, McNulty had elevated the problem to a crisis level by testifying that seven of the eight firings were "performance related." Once the E-mails were unearthed, they told a more complicated story. So why did Sampson fail to inform McNulty and the others about the long E-mail exchanges with White House officials concerning the selection of U.S. attorneys to be fired? Because they didn't anticipate that the hearings would be about the process of the firings, Sampson's associate says. "They thought they knew what the questions were; they thought they knew what the answers were," says the source close to Sampson. "And they thought their answers would be believed."
The E-mails also seemingly raise doubts about Gonzales's testimony that he would never get rid of a federal prosecutor for political reasons. Given that the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys is an inherently political process since the president has the core presidential power to do so, Gonzales most likely meant that he would never remove anybody to influence any criminal cases, as has been alleged here, for political reasons. But the attorney general could find himself tripped up by the sloppiness of his own words.
It's unclear how much Sampson's testimony will threaten Gonzales's tenure as the attorney general. But at the end of the day, even if Democrats on Capitol Hill don't reel in the big fish–such as Gonzales or Rove–as the source close to Sampson puts it, they certainly will have a few smaller sardines to chew on, some quite unpalatable for their Republican counterparts. One in particular: Sen. Pete Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico.
At issue is whether Domenici called Gonzales to try to get David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney in his home state, removed because of his perceived slowness in pursuing a corruption case of alleged kickbacks in public construction projects involving some prominent Democrats. Iglesias has said that in addition to Domenici, Republican Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico called him twice before the November elections to get an update on the case and that Domenici even called him once at home. "I felt leaned on," Iglesias testified at a Senate hearing this month. "I felt pressured to get these matters moving." Domenici has apologized for the calls. Both he and Wilson have denied any intent to pressure Iglesias. Domenici issued a statement that "at no time in that conversation or any other conversation" with Iglesias "did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter." Domenici added that he had "never pressured" Iglesias, "nor threatened him in any way." In fact, prior to Domenici's complaints to Gonzales, Rove, and their aides, Sampson had recommended keeping Iglesias on as U.S. attorney last March. Among the treasure-trove of E-mails released by the Justice Department is one from spokesman Brian Roehrkasse to Sampson, McNulty, Moschella, and others indicating that he had given reporters "verbal comments in line with the facts below": that Domenici had called Gonzales three times, in September 2005, and January and April of 2006, expressing "general concerns" about Iglesias's performance and whether he was "up to the job"; that Domenici also placed a "very brief call" in the first week of October 2006 to McNulty about Iglesias's performance; and that Roehrkasse had told reporters that "at no time in these calls" did Domenici "mention the public corruption case."
Sampson is sure to be asked about what exactly Domenici said to Gonzales during those phone calls. His answers could not only challenge Gonzales's assertion that no politics were involved in these firings but also force Congress to look through the looking glass and trigger a tawdry sequel to what's already proved to be a most entertaining Alice in Wonderland tale.