WASHINGTON — When he testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, D. Kyle Sampson will accept responsibility for the Justice Department's mishandling of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, which has escalated into a political scandal for the White House.
In his three-page statement obtained by the Deseret Morning News late Wednesday, Sampson takes the blame for the "ugly, undignified spectacle" that erupted out of what he contends were justifiable forced terminations.
In advance of Sampson's testimony, the Justice Department released more documents Wednesday to show that Sampson was to blame for contradictory statements made to Congress.
But Sampson, a Utah native and a rising star in Washington before he abruptly resigned as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff earlier this month, says any contradictions in information presented to Congress were unintentional.
"The mistakes I made here were made honestly and in good faith," Sampson said in his prepared statement. "I never sought to conceal or withhold any material fact about this matter from anyone."
The Justice Department fired eight U.S. attorneys last year, and when Congress asked about what led to the terminations, department officials defended the actions as performance-based and said the decisions on who should leave did not involve the White House.
But department documents later released to the House and Senate judiciary committees showed e-mails that have Sampson discussing with then-White House counsel Harriet Miers the plan to fire the attorneys and that have White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove initially asking about the process for getting rid of attorneys after Bush won re-election in 2004.
Testimony from the fired U.S. attorneys led some lawmakers — mainly Democrats — to allege the requested resignations were not entirely warranted while Republicans insisted that the attorneys, like all appointees, serve at the pleasure of the president.
Once Congress began to ask about the firings, Sampson believes "the department's response was badly mishandled," according to his testimony.
"It was mishandled through an unfortunate combination of poor judgments, poor word choices, and poor communication and preparation for the department's testimony before Congress," according to Sampson's prepared remarks. "What started as a good faith attempt to carry out the department's management responsibilities and exercise the President's appointment authority has unfortunately resulted in confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment. This should have not happened."
Sampson said he resigned because he "let the attorney general and the department down" and "felt honor-bound to accept my share of the blame for this problem and to hold myself accountable."
His testimony does not specifically identify Gonzales as among top department officials aware of the plan. Gonzales has maintained he was not involved in the firings, although documents indicate he was briefed about it and now Democrats are calling for his resignation.
Sampson's testimony also addresses the issue of whether the firings were politically motivated beyond the usual process of replacing U.S. attorneys who were appointed under a previous administration.
Sampson said the distinction "between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States Attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," emphasizing that there is a difference why political appointees can be asked to resign versus a "civil servant or private sector" employee.
"Presidential appointees are judged not only on their professional skills but also their management abilities, their relationships with law enforcement and other governmental leaders, and their support for the priorities of the president and the attorney general," according to his testimony.
Sampson created a list of attorneys that might be replaced based on that definition and sought advice from fellow Justice Department employees and "provided that information to the White House when requested."
"Based on everything I have seen and heard, I believe that each replaced U.S. Attorney was selected for legitimate reasons falling well within the President's broad discretion," according to his testimony.
The Justice Department on Wednesday released more documents that lay the blame for the debacle at Sampson's feet.
Sampson wrote a Feb. 23 letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling and sent to four Senate Democrats, that may have had "inaccurate or incomplete information" similar to that found in the congressional testimony, according to the documents.
Among the additional 202 e-mails submitted to the House and Senate judiciary committees on Wednesday is a cover letter by Hertling that says a review found that "certain statements in the February 23 letter are contradicted by Department documents included in our production in connection with the Committees' review of the resignations of U.S. Attorneys."
"We sincerely regret any inaccuracy," Hertling said.
The latest document pile mainly includes e-mails from Sampson organizing Hertling's response, including sending it to the White House for approval because it "mentions Rove and alludes to Harriet (Miers)," according to a Feb. 22 e-mail.
The letter, sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., says, among other things, "the department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin," referring Tim Griffin who replaced Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins, one of the eight that were fired.
But in a Dec. 19, 2006, e-mail, Sampson explains to White House aides Monica Goodling and Christopher Oprison that "I am not 100 percent sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority but know that getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc."
Sampson's testimony does not go into details on how or why this —or any other —discrepancy was made.
"The truth of this affair as I see it is this: the decisions to seek the resignations of a handful of U.S. Attorneys were properly made but poorly explained," according to his statement. "This is a benign rather than sinister story and I know that some may be indisposed to accept it. But it is the truth as I observed and experienced it."
E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com