Gonzales's Trail of Comments May Haunt Him
When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday regarding his role in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, his previous statements on this subject could come back to haunt him. In particular, Democrats on the committee will zoom in on three different occasions in which Gonzales addressed the controversy. At issue: what he knew, when he knew it, how involved he was in the firings, and why he and others in the department have given conflicting accounts of the decision making.
Gonzales has significantly addressed the controversy three times in public over the past month:
Gonzales Press Conference, March 13, 2007
Gonzales largely professed ignorance and blamed much of the fiasco on his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who resigned under fire. Here are some of his comments:
As we can all imagine in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions. As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware of a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys. That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive.
What I know is that there began a process of evaluating strong performers, not-as-strong performers, and weak performers. And so far as I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers. What were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew.
Mr. Sampson was charged with directing the process to ascertain who were weak performers, where we could do better in districts around the country.
But the charge for the chief of staff here was to drive this process and the mistake that occurred here was that information that he had was not shared with individuals within the department who were then going to be providing testimony and information to the Congress.
NBC News Interview, March 27, 2007
During this interview, Gonzales backpedaled on his press conference remarks but still maintained that he was largely uninvolved in the nitty-gritty of which U.S. attorneys should be fired and who should be hired in their place.
When I said on March 13 that I wasn't involved, what I meant was that I–I had not been involved, was not involved in the deliberations over whether or not United States attorneys should resign.
After I became attorney general, I had Kyle Sampson coordinate a department review of the performance of United States attorneys. And I expected him to–to consult with appropriate Department of Justice officials who had information and knowledge about the performance of United States attorneys. From time to time, Mr. Sampson would tell me something that would confirm in my mind that that process was ongoing.
For example, I recall him mention[ing] to me that–inquiry from the White House about where were we in–in identifying underperformers? And there are other similar-type reminders that occurred during this process that I'm going to discuss specifically with the Congress. I was never focused on specific concerns about United States attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign. I was more focused on identify[ing]–or making sure that the White House was aprop–was appropriately advised of the progress of our review. And I was also concerned to ensure that the appropriate Department of Justice officials, people who know–knew about the performance of–of United States attorneys, that they were involved in the process.
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.
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."