Gonzales's Trail of Comments May Haunt Him
Now, of course, ultimately at the end of the process or near the end of the process, the recommendations were – were presented to me....
And, of course–having decided there will be changes, there was–there was a discussion about how do we implement this change?
NBC: So you didn't get into the decision about specifically which U.S. attorneys to include on this list until the very end?
Absolutely. Now, that's not to say that during the process I may not have heard about the performance – or particular matter with respect to the United States attorney. For example– we've already confirmed that Senator Domenici did call me about the performance of the United States attorney in New Mexico.
The president–the White House has already confirmed that there was a conversation with the president, mentioned it to me in a meeting at the Oval Office–in terms of concerns about–about the commitment–to pursue voter fraud cases in–in three jurisdictions around the country. I don't remember that conversation, but what I'm saying is during the process there may have been other conversations specifically about the performance of U.S. attorneys. But I wasn't involved in the deliberations as to whether or not a particular United States attorney should or should not be asked to resign.
NBC: The–so the list came to you toward the end for you to sign off on. But you were not involved in deciding who should be on or off the list during the process?
I was not involved in the deliberations during the process as to who–who should or should not be–asked to resign.
Statement of Gonzales before Senate Judiciary Committee, in advance of upcoming testimony, submitted April 17, 2007
This week, Gonzales elaborated further in his written testimony to Congress and provided still more details of his involvement, including the fact that he had heard specific U.S. attorney replacement names mentioned. Here are those remarks:
Shortly after the 2004 election and soon after I became attorney general, [Sampson] told me that then counsel to the president Harriet Miers had inquired about replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Mr. Sampson and I both agreed that replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys would be disruptive and unwise. However, I believed it would be appropriate and a good management decision to evaluate the U.S. attorneys and determine the districts where a change may be beneficial to the department.
I delegated the task of coordinating a review to Mr. Sampson in early 2005. Mr. Sampson is a good man and was a dedicated public servant. I believed that he was the right person (1) to collect insight and opinions, including his own, from department officials with the most knowledge of U.S. attorneys and (2) to provide, based on that collective judgment, a consensus recommendation of the department's senior leadership on districts that could benefit from a change.
Mr. Sampson periodically updated me on the review. As I recall, his updates were brief, relatively few in number, and focused primarily on the review process itself. During those updates, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.
advertisement
