After nearly six hours under the lights, handling hard shots and soft lobs, Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and a Utah native, may have helped his cause.

But his testimony raises tough new questions for Gonzales and the White House, and Sampson faces the likely prospect of a repeat performance before the House Judiciary Committee.

“After he went in there, I halfway expected them to put a toe tag on him and save dental records,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. “He wasn't physically harmed, and I suppose that's something to be thankful for. Otherwise it was hardly a good day, nor do I think he expected a good day.”

Sampson, who orchestrated the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, told the committee that the fallout “has been personally devastating,” and that by appearing before the committee and sharing what he knew he hoped to “put this behind me and my family.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he thinks Sampson helped his cause.

“I think he did very well. He came across as somebody we all know is honest and decent and had a really tough job to do,” said Hatch, who was Sampson's boss when the senator chaired the Judiciary Committee in 1999.

“He testified in a straightforward fashion, and I personally think he helped himself a lot.”

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, doubted the wisdom of Sampson going before the committee, seeing considerable peril and little potential benefit.

“I think that's a tough group to stare down. . . . I don't know many people who would want to be there,” Tobias said. “So when you look at it from that perspective, he did as well as you could expect.”

Sampson told senators more than 100 times he could not remember specific facts about what led up to the firings, but he freely accepted blame for the sloppy, bungled terminations.

At the same time, he was unable to offer senators a satisfactory rationale for firing several prosecutors, and eventually conceded that U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias probably should not have been let go.

Moreover, his testimony implicated top Bush administration officials: Gonzales and White House counsel Harriet Miers, who approved the firings, and Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, who weighed in on the matter.

“I think that his answers add extra pressure to the White House in making Ms. Miers and Karl Rove available in a meaningful way,” said James Fitzpatrick, a Washington lawyer who has represented clients in congressional investigations. “The statement that the judgments were made by the attorney general and the White House counsel raises very serious questions about the White House's responsibility.”

Said Turley: “His testimony was everything the Democrats could have hoped for. It lays the stage for demanding the testimony of the White House officials.”

Gonzales on Friday sought to stop the bleeding. He told reporters that he was primarily focused on keeping the White House advised of the process and ensuring Sampson was consulting with the right people.

“I don't recall being involved in deliberations involving the question of whether or not a U.S. attorney should or should not be asked to resign. I didn't focus on specific concerns about individuals," said Gonzales.

Michael Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, spent hours in closed-door meetings with congressional investigators Friday as well.

Hatch stood by Gonzales, as he has throughout, arguing that Sampson's testimony doesn't necessarily conflict. Hatch said Gonzales has told him that he “understood generally what was going on.”

“They think they've got a live one, but they don't,” Hatch said. “I know Judge Gonzales. . . . I don't know anybody who would call him a liar.”

Turley said that Sampson may have created some goodwill with the committee by coming forward and answering questions, and did so at great risk, but the testimony did not exonerate him.

“Far from it, it was clear he was part of something that seems now to be quite untoward,” Turley said. “He succeeded in two respects: One is he looks better than Monica Goodling, who has claimed the Fifth Amendment and is perceived as hiding information, and he looks a lot better than Alberto Gonzales, who looks both ruthless and cowardly.”

“That is an improvement, because before his testimony he was at the front of the line of the cast of villainous characters,” he said. “Now he's somewhere in the middle.”

---

* THE ASSOCIATED PRESS contributed to this report.