Alberto Gonzales’ strategy in a nutshell: to defend the firing of the U.S. attorneys whenever possible, but when confronted with inescapable evidence that the process was a sham, to backpedal and either blame Kyle Sampson or admit that the process could have been more “rigorous.”
Here’s an example. Under questioning by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), Gonzales cited Kyle Sampson’s consultation of then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey in early of 2005 as proof that there had been a process of consulting career Justice Department officials on their views of U.S. attorneys. Of course, Comey testified last week that he had not known that there was any sort of effort to target U.S. attorneys for removal when he offered his views to Sampson (views that Sampson totally ignored).
Gonzales admitted as much: “There were people that were being consulted… they may not have known they were providing information that would then form the basis of some kind of list.”
So there you have it: Comey was part of a collaborative review process that he didn’t know he was a part of.
Later in the hearing, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) questioned Gonzales about Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty’s comment to a fired U.S. attorney that McNulty had had “limited input” in the process. And here Gonzales said that “it was my understanding or belief” that Sampson was giving McNulty plenty of input. Sampson just let him down.