D Kyle Sampson

Three years ago, D. Kyle Sampson took some time off as a top Bush administration lawyer to try his first and only criminal case. It was a federal drug prosecution in South Florida, where the defendant also was cited as a felon with a firearm. Earlier, as a junior lawyer in a Salt Lake City law firm, Sampson assisted in a "handful" of civil cases, usually taking a second chair to more seasoned trial attorneys.

Three years ago, D. Kyle Sampson took some time off as a top Bush administration lawyer to try his first and only criminal case. It was a federal drug prosecution in South Florida, where the defendant also was cited as a felon with a firearm. Earlier, as a junior lawyer in a Salt Lake City law firm, Sampson assisted in a "handful" of civil cases, usually taking a second chair to more seasoned trial attorneys.

The White House reaffirmed its support Saturday for embattled Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales after a newly released Justice Department memo showing he joined in a meeting about plans to fire several U.S. attorneys. Gonzales' participation in the November meeting could indicate he played a larger role in the dismissal process than he has said. Some Democrats have therefore intensified calls that Gonzales resign.

EMBATTLED ATTY. GEN. Alberto R. Gonzales is to appear today before the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the risk of prejudging what Gonzales might say about the role he played in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, we reject the conventional wisdom that the hearing offers him an opportunity to save his job. The melodramatic notion that this is a "make or break" appearance for Gonzales has been encouraged by the White House.

AS ADVERTISED, D. Kyle Sampson's testimony Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the questionable firings of eight U.S. attorneys was bad news for Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. The nation's chief law enforcement officer stands revealed as either an unreliable witness or a man who would rather deceive Congress than admit to his own wrongdoing.

Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a criminal investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under President George W. Bush, two sources say. Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to examine whether former Justice Department and White House officials lied or obstructed justice in connection with the dismissal of federal prosecutors in 2006. Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Rove, declined to comment.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S firing of eight U.S. attorneys returns to center stage today with Senate testimony by D. Kyle Sampson, the former aide to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. Whatever one thinks of the administration's conduct in this affair, one of its self-justifying arguments is bizarre for reasons that have nothing to do with possible obstruction of justice. Is it possible that Carol C. Lam was a casualty of the nation's broken immigration policy? The dismissal of Lam, the U.S.

The lead investigator lacks evidence to bring criminal charges in U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias' ouster in New Mexico and to determine whether Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales committed perjury. The Justice Department announced Wednesday that "no criminal charges are warranted" against officials in the George W. Bush administration for the firing of nine U.S. attorneys four years ago, which led to allegations of improper political pressure and ultimately cost Alberto R. Gonzales his job as attorney general.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey wisely has accepted a recommendation by two watchdog agencies that he name a special prosecutor to determine whether laws were broken in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. But even if there is no finding of criminality, the report released Monday by the Justice Department's office of inspector general and office of professional responsibility is a devastating judgment on one of the worst attorneys general of modern times: Alberto R. Gonzales.

Re "Blunder after blunder," editorial, March 18 The Times asks in parenthesis about the assumed competence of "Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and even Rice (who knew?)." I think more appropriate than your rhetorical "who knew?," the query might be recast by asking that if anyone did know, who would have heard or cared at the moment that most mattered? Your "who knew?" poses ugly implications about the problem of your isolation and the isolation of those officials you, as profoundly important journalists, are responsible for studying.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicating they think there is more to learn about the firings of eight federal prosecutors last year, asked Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales on Monday to turn over additional documents on the terminations and threatened to issue subpoenas if the materials were not forthcoming. Specifically, the four senators want the internal rankings that the Justice Department made of all 93 U.S. attorneys over the years, as well as employment charts that Monica M.