Based on the e-mail conversations, there was the prospect of the administration asking all 93 U.S. attorneys to resign at the start of President Bush's second term, which would not be that out of the ordinary at the start of a new term. But the change in the law would have added a new element because the Justice Department would be able to appoint interim attorneys for an unspecified amount of time — bypassing the Senate confirmation process.

The change was a prominent part of D. Kyle Sampson's planning to remove U.S. attorneys, as illustrated by several e-mail exchanges, including one where he said he "beat back" a plan to replace all the attorneys.

Sampson, a Utah native who resigned as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff two weeks ago, will testify about the matter before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

Sampson told former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Gonzales counsel and White House liaison Monica Goodling and others that using this new power provided in the Patriot Act would allow the administration to "give far less deference to home-state senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House," according to an e-mail.

"I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed — it will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready to roll immediately," Sampson said in an e-mail. "In addition, I strongly recommend that, as a matter of administration policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments."

After the attorneys were fired in December, other e-mails focus on a new story about the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, Bud Cummins — one of the eight let go — and his replacement, Tim Griffin.

"There is some risk that we'll lose the authority (to appoint interim attorneys), but if we don't ever exercise it, then what's the point of having it?" Sampson wrote on Dec. 19. "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."

At issue too are the discrepancies in what the Justice Department has told Congress as to why the attorneys were fired. DOJ officials told Congress it was for performance or management problems when other statements, including some made in the e-mails, show it was for other reasons. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be asked to resign at any time, but lawmakers — particularly Democrats — are trying to determine what is behind the conflicting stories.

The White House has offered Miers and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to Congress to discuss the firings, but not under oath and with no transcript. Congressional Democrats have rejected the plan and each chamber's Judiciary Committee has been authorize to issue subpoenas for testimony if they deem it necessary.

Goodling's lawyers, John Dowd and Jeffrey King, issued a statement Monday that she will "invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege not to answer any questions about this subject."

Her attorneys said it is "clear" that some committee members have already made up their minds about the situation, and that the conflict is getting too political, among other reasons.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," according to her attorneys.

---

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com