Gonzales to admit mistakes in firings

When Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales faces angry Senate Democrats on Tuesday, he will acknowledge that he made a range of mistakes in the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys last year and will apologize to them and their families, but he will insist that even though the White House was originally behind the terminations, none of the prosecutors were fired for political reasons.

In what has been described as a make-or-break appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nation’s top federal law enforcement officer will say:

“I know that I did not, and would not, ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain. I also have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason.”

He also will tell the committee, “I firmly believe that these dismissals were appropriate.”

In an unusual move, the Justice Department released Gonzales’ testimony Sunday, two days before the hearing.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been leading the Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the controversy, reacted quickly to the attorney general’s 24-page statement, saying it did not “advance his cause at all.”

In another development, Schumer told reporters that Michael Battle, former head of the Justice Department office that oversees U.S. attorneys, knew nothing about any performance problems of several of those who were fired until shortly before he was directed to call them Dec. 7 and tell them they were being removed.

Schumer said Battle, who has talked to Senate investigators behind closed doors, also told them that a memo naming the prosecutors to be fired was presented at a Nov. 27 meeting that Gonzales attended, though the attorney general has said he never saw the memo.

The firings of the eight U.S. attorneys -- one last summer, seven on Dec. 7 -- have ignited a firestorm in Washington, with critics saying that political pressure was behind the dismissals.

Democrats, who hold a majority in both houses of Congress, have mounted a broad investigation and held hearings on the firings. They also have looked into allegations of missing e-mails at the White House, including some from political strategist Karl Rove that could show his involvement in the terminations.

A number of Democrats -- and some Republicans -- have called for Gonzales to step down.

On Sunday, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Gonzales “ought to consider” reinstating the eight prosecutors.

More significantly, he warned that Gonzales’ performance Tuesday could decide his future at the helm of the Justice Department.

“I think that Atty. Gen. Gonzales is entitled to his so-called day in court,” Specter said on ABC’s “This Week.” “He has a distinguished record. But he’s got a steep hill to climb, and he’s going to be successful, in my opinion, only if he deals with the facts.”

Specter added, “The No. 1 question is: Is he capable of administering the Department of Justice? Did he [have] enough of hands-on to know what was happening? And can he explain why these individuals were asked to resign and justify the reasons for doing so?”

On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Vice President Dick Cheney described Gonzales as “a good man” and added, “I have every confidence in him.”

Asked whether the White House had a credibility problem because of the scandal, Cheney responded: “Obviously, we’ve got issues we need to work through. The attorney general will be doing that this week with respect to the U.S. attorney question.”

Schumer dismissed Gonzales’ statement as heavy on rhetoric but lean on facts.

The “only important theme,” Schumer said, was that Gonzales “points the finger of responsibility” at D. Kyle Sampson, who was the attorney general’s chief of staff. Sampson resigned March 12, the day before the release of e-mails between Justice Department and White House officials describing a lengthy campaign to get rid of prosecutors who had lost favor with the administration.

On March 29, Sampson told the Judiciary Committee that he had helped coordinate the firings, but he did not decide who would go. He also said that despite the attorney general’s statements in March that he had not been involved in the discussions, Gonzales had participated in several meetings, including one 10 days before the dismissals were announced.

From a public relations standpoint, the release of Gonzales’ statement two days before the hearing allowed the Justice Department to get out its position well before the much-anticipated showdown. In addition, an op-ed article written by Gonzales, titled “Nothing Improper,” was published in Sunday’s Washington Post.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Sunday that there was no hidden agenda in releasing the statement early.

“The Congress requested in a letter that we provide the written testimony 48 hours in advance of his hearing,” he said. “We complied with that request by sending it to them at 9 a.m. this morning. Since we knew they would release it to the press, we also sent it out.”

In his statement, Gonzales declared that he had “nothing to hide” and pledged to assure Congress and the American public that “nothing improper occurred here.”

He called the fired prosecutors fine lawyers and dedicated professionals.

“I apologize to them and to their families for allowing this matter to become an unfortunate and undignified public spectacle, and I am sorry for my missteps that have helped fuel the controversy,” he said.

He was often contrite.

“I made mistakes in not ensuring that these U.S. attorneys received more dignified treatment,” he said. “Others within the Department of Justice also made mistakes. As far as I know, these were honest mistakes of perception and judgment and not intentional acts of misconduct.”

He said soon after he became attorney general in early 2005, Sampson told him that Harriet E. Miers, who had succeeded Gonzales as White House counsel, “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,” Gonzales said. “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.”

He said he delegated Sampson to review all 93 prosecutors and to consult with senior Justice Department officials. “I also told him to make sure that the White House was kept informed since the U.S. attorneys are presidential appointees.”

He said Sampson “periodically updated me on the review,” usually in quick briefings, and that Miers had twice asked about the status of the evaluations.

Gonzales said Sampson mentioned two people as possible replacements for any fired prosecutors -- Rachel Brand, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, and Deborah J. Rhodes, a senior Justice Department counselor.

He said he recalled Sampson mentioning Brand for the U.S. attorney post in Grand Rapids, Mich., where Margaret M. Chiara was fired, and Rhodes for San Diego, where Carol C. Lam was terminated.

Sampson testified last month that he never drew up names of potential replacements, which contradicted an e-mail from him to Miers a year ago in which he discussed Brand, Rhodes and three others as possible candidates.

In his statement, Gonzales said he did not “recall making any decision ... about who should replace” the prosecutors. But he said that near the end of the review, Sampson presented him with final recommendations on who should be terminated, “which I approved.”

“I did so,” he said, “because I understood that the recommendations represented the consensus of senior Justice Department officials most knowledgeable about the performance of all 93 U.S. attorneys.”

Gonzales said his goal was “to improve the performance of the Justice Department.” Nevertheless, he added, “in hindsight I would have handled this differently.”

“Looking back, it is clear to me that I should have done more personally to ensure that the review process was more rigorous, and that each U.S. attorney was informed of this decision in a more personal and respectful way,” he said.

He was responding to angry remarks from several fired prosecutors who described receiving glowing job evaluations but later being told they were fired for performance reasons.

Gonzales said he did not intentionally make false statements this year about his involvement. He said he misspoke at a March 13 news conference when he said he was not involved in discussions about the firings. The statement was contradicted by documents showing that he attended a lengthy meeting before the terminations.

“Of course I knew about the process,” Gonzales said, adding that his earlier statement “certainly was not in any way an attempt to mislead the American people.”

He singled out the “sacrifices” of the eight fired U.S. attorneys: Lam, Chiara, Daniel G. Bogden in Las Vegas, Paul Charlton in Phoenix, David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque, John McKay in Seattle, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco and H.E. “Bud” Cummins III in Little Rock, Ark.

“This process could have been handled much better,” Gonzales said, “and for that I want to apologize.”

richard.serrano@latimes.com

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

EXCERPTS

‘I never sought to mislead or deceive’

* “The Justice Department has tried to be forthcoming with the Congress and the American people about the process that led to the resignations ... for two critical reasons: (1) I have nothing to hide, and (2) I am committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here.”

* “I know that I did not, and would not, ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain.

“I also have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason.... Based upon the record as I know it, it is unfair and unfounded for anyone to conclude that any U.S. attorney was removed for an improper reason.”

* “While I firmly believe that these dismissals were appropriate, I have equal conviction that the process by which these U.S. attorneys were asked to resign could have -- and should have -- been handled differently.

“I made mistakes in not ensuring that these U.S. attorneys received more dignified treatment. Others within the Department of Justice also made mistakes. As far as I know, these were honest mistakes of perception and judgment and not intentional acts of misconduct.”

* “In hindsight, I would have handled this differently.... It is clear to me that I should have done more personally to ensure that the review process was more rigorous, and that each U.S. attorney was informed of this decision in a more personal and respectful way.”

* “I never sought to mislead or deceive the Congress or the American people about my role in this matter. I do acknowledge, however, that at times I have been less than precise with my words when discussing the resignations.

“For example, 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’ ... but it certainly was not in any way an attempt to mislead the American people. I certainly understand why these statements generated confusion, and I regret that.”

* “Every U.S. attorney who was asked to resign ... served honorably, and they and their families made sacrifices in the name of public service. The Justice Department owes them more respect than they were shown.... This process could have been handled much better, and for that I want to apologize publicly.”

* “We must ensure that all the facts surrounding the situation are brought to full light. It is my sincere hope that [Tuesday’s] hearing brings us closer to a clearing of the air on the eight resignations.... I want this committee to be satisfied, to be fully reassured, that nothing improper was done. I want the American people to be reassured of the same.”

Source: Justice Department