Toward the end of his long day testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 29, Kyle Sampson offered this rueful judgment: "Looking back on all of this, I wish we could do it over again. . . . In hindsight, I wish the department hadn't gone down this road at all." The former Justice Department lawyer was referring to the removal of eight U.S. attorneys, which ignited a political firestorm that has yet to run its course. As the manager of the process that led to the firings, Sampson told the senators earlier in the day that he felt "honor-bound to accept my share of the blame." He resigned on March 12.

The question that Sampson's testimony invites is whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whom Sampson served as chief of staff and who, with former White House counsel Harriet Miers, was ultimately responsible for deciding the fate of those eight U.S. attorneys, will likewise wish the department had declined the disastrous road taken--and even decide to resign.

In his opening statement, Sampson described the process he ran and the decisions it yielded. Problems ensued when "members of Congress began to raise questions about these removals." Justice's response was "badly mishandled." There were "poor judgments, poor word choices, and poor communication and preparation for the department's testimony before Congress." In sum, the decisions to remove the U.S. attorneys were "properly made but poorly explained. This is a benign rather than sinister story."

The case has yet to be made that the story is sinister--in the sense that the removals were intended to thwart or hasten a given investigation or prosecution. And Sampson did testify--under oath, by the way--that, so far as he knew, none of the removals was undertaken with such illicit purpose, notwithstanding any appearance to the contrary.

But the problem that the probing by senators on both sides of the aisle laid bare is that the process was seriously flawed. The decisions were not sufficiently considered. Nor were their political consequences adequately assessed. Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a former U.S. attorney, faulted "the team at Justice" for its "lack of comprehension" that removing and replacing U.S. attorneys would raise "sensitive and difficult" issues. Gonzales is on the hot seat because the process was under his authority and thus subject to his management; and because, too, Gonzales, as attorney general (and indeed one who served previously as White House counsel), must beware of actions that, however compelling they may seem at the time, eventually weaken a presidency.

The idea of replacing U.S. attorneys originated in the White House--presumably with the okay of the president--after the 2004 election and was delegated to the attorney general, who has supervisory authority over U.S. attorneys. As an associate White House counsel from 2001 to 2003, Sampson had been involved in the selection of U.S. attorneys (nominated by the president and subject to confirmation by the Senate, there are 93 in all). Gonzales gave the project to Sampson, whose various jobs in the administration (he was also a staffer to Attorney General John Ashcroft), made him an understandable choice.