Gonzales's Trail of Comments May Haunt Him
For instance, I recall two specific instances when Mr. Sampson mentioned to me that Harriet Miers had asked about the status of the department's evaluation of U.S. attorneys.
I also recall Mr. Sampson mentioning Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand as a possible candidate to be U.S. attorney if a vacancy were to occur. I am not sure he mentioned a specific district, but it may have been Michigan. I do not recall my response, nor when it happened. But I do recall thinking I did not want to lose Ms. Brand as head of Legal Policy. I also recall Mr. Sampson mentioning career prosecutor Deborah Rhodes for San Diego in the event of a vacancy. I do not recall my response or any other discussion. Nor do I recall the timing of when this was raised with me. Although these names were mentioned to me, I do not recall making any decision, either on or before Dec. 7, 2006, about who should replace the U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign that day.
Near the end of the process, as I have said many times, Kyle Sampson presented me with the final recommendations, which I approved. I did so because I understood that the recommendations represented the consensus of senior Justice Department officials . ... I also remember that, at some point in time, Mr. Sampson explained to me the plan to inform the U.S. attorneys of my decision... .
I misspoke at a press conference on March 13 when I said that I "was not involved in any discussions about what was going on." That statement was too broad. At that same press conference, I made clear that I was aware of the process; I said that "I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers. Where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew."
This week, New York Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer, a key member of the Judiciary Committee leading the charge on the controversy, said that Gonzales continues to provide an incomplete, and in his view, inaccurate accounting of his role in the firings of three prosecutors: Carol Lam in San Diego, David Iglesias in New Mexico, and H.E. "Bud" Cummins in Arkansas.
"If he has nothing to hide, why is the attorney general parsing words and using lawyerly language to evade questions?" Schumer said at a press conference today. "Tomorrow, we need clear answers, not clever dodges."
Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, a key member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the upcoming hearing gives Gonzales an important opportunity to clarify his role. "For weeks too many people have been speaking for him, most of it pure speculation," Hatch said. "Now he'll have the opportunity to provide his perspective on the reasons behind the resignations and the questions that have come up since."
Hatch said Gonzales's focus will be on "what really matters here," whether the administration tried to interfere with specific cases or fire U.S. attorneys as a form of retaliation, or tried to "knowingly and willingly mislead" Congress in previous statements.
"It looks like he'll say," Hatch remarked, "that there is no evidence that either has occurred."
But crisis management consultant Eric Dezenhall, who served in the Reagan administration, says Gonzales made a fundamental error in strategy and faces an uphill battle reconciling all these statements.
"It's the mistake of coming out in the first place with incomplete information. It's very hard to get beyond that," says Dezenhall. "Whether it was purposeful or unwitting, there's always malice ascribed."
advertisement
