Gonzales said he counted on Sampson to consult with top Justice Department officials and deliver a consensus decision. Instead, "Sampson's project," as he called it, was a "flawed process," that was "nowhere near as rigorous or structured as it should have been."

Nonetheless, Gonzales said his final decision to fire the prosecutors - made without inquiring about the process or reasons for the recommendations - was correct.

Gonzales' defense was built almost exclusively on buck passing, suggested Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor.

"According to Gonzales' testimony, Kyle Sampson ran everything, from parking cars to meeting with the president, and at the end of the testimony you were wondering what Gonzales actually gets paid for," said Turley.

It was Sampson, then, who the attorney general again suggested dropped the ball, much as he did at a news conference in early March, when Gonzales said he wasn't involved in meetings or discussions on the firings. Gonzales later recanted when documents and Sampson's testimony made clear that he was.

Sampson, 37, resigned last month and two weeks later became the first top level official to testify under oath after the release of e-mails propelled the expanding U.S. Attorneys scandal.

He said he took responsibility for changing and contradictory explanations about the firings, which in turn fueled congressional inquiries that turned into "an ugly, undignified spectacle."

Gonzales last week said the deputy attorney general should have been more involved in the process; Sampson should have been given direction on whom to consult on the decision; and the review should have been complete in six to 12 months, rather than two years.

"I regret the way in which it was implemented. There were obviously mistakes in the review process," Gonzales said.

Sampson's attorney declined to comment on Gonzales' statements, but in his earlier testimony before the committee, Sampson conceded that the process was unscientific and poorly documented. However, he also portrayed Gonzales as having been regularly kept apprised of developments.

The process began in late 2004. Sampson, a Cedar City native and Brigham Young University graduate, relayed to Gonzales, then the nominee for attorney general, that White House Counsel Harriet Miers had suggested replacing all 93 U.S. Attorneys.

It was a bad idea, Gonzales said, and instead he assigned Sampson the task of reviewing the performance of the prosecutors and looking for places where improvements could be made.

From that point on, Gonzales testified, he had "limited involvement," beyond an awareness that "Sampson's project" was ongoing. He relayed complaints to Sampson from President Bush and from Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, who had concerns about a lack of election fraud investigations.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., however, cited a string of meetings and discussions Gonzales had on the issue that, Specter said, "appear to me to be carrying forward this same pattern of not being candid."

Gonzales said that, when put in context of roughly 700 days during which the review took place, his involvement was limited. But he failed to recall key meetings, including the Nov. 27, 2006, meeting where Gonzales approved the dismissals, according to Sampson and testimony from Michael Battle, the head of the U.S. attorneys' office.

"I guess I'm concerned about your recollection, really, because it's not that long ago. It was an important issue. And that's troubling to me," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Noel Francisco, a former Justice Department attorney now in private practice, says he doesn't see any inconsistency between the testimony from Sampson and the attorney general.

"Both basically describe a process in which the attorney general initiated it, was kept apprised of how things were unfolding, and gave final approval, but was not immersed in the day-to-day details," Francisco said. "To say the process as a whole is flawed, I think, is simply to say something everyone agrees with. It's not to point the finger at any one individual."

Democrats were frustrated, however, with the inability to identify an individual responsible for deciding which U.S. attorney would survive and which would get the ax.

In his marathon interviews with the committee in the past week, Sampson told congressional staff that not one prosecutor was added to the target list based on his judgment, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said. Sampson, as he told the committee before, was merely an "aggregator" of information.

But it remains unclear where that information came from. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Associate Attorney General William Mercer told staff during interviews that he didn't know there was a list. And Michael Battle, the head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, said he provided no input.

Schumer says the evidence seems to be pointing to the list being compiled by the White House.

That could set up showdown, as the White House Counsel Fred Fielding has refused to budge from his offer of making Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, and former counsel Harriet Miers available, but only if the meetings are private, they are not put under oath and no transcript is made.

If that's where the path leads, Schumer said, that's where the committee intends to look.