Mr. Sampson, who played a central role in the dismissals, has agreed to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He resigned this month because of what he later said was a failure to prepare Mr. Gonzales for questions about the ousters.

In another development, Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, said Friday that the department would begin an internal review of the conduct of lawyers involved in the dismissals. The inquiry will be conducted jointly by the inspector general, Glenn Fine, and the Office of Professional Responsibility, a department watchdog unit.

The dismissals have created the gravest crisis of Mr. Gonzales’s time in office, with calls for his ouster from Republicans and Democrats, even as President Bush has offered the attorney general his firm public support. Mr. Gonzales has sent reassuring signals to the ranks of prosecutors, but the strength of his support within the Justice Department is difficult to gauge.

Department officials said there had not been an intentional effort to delay the release of the new material. Instead, they said, the e-mail messages were overlooked in past searches of office files and computers. Many, they said, were copies of e-mail that had already been disclosed. The latest batch of documents shows just how completely the department misjudged what the reaction would be to the dismissals.

“I think most of them will resign quietly,” said Ms. Scolinos, the department’s chief spokeswoman, in a Nov. 17 e-mail message, a few weeks before the dismissals. “It’s only six U.S. attorneys (there are 94) and they don’t get anything out of making it public they were asked to leave in terms of future job prospects. I don’t see it as being a national story — especially if it phases in over a few months.”

Speaking with reporters on Friday evening, Ms. Scolinos said that when she sent that message she had only a fragmentary understanding of the plan to dismiss the prosecutors.

At a news conference this month, Mr. Gonzales was repeatedly questioned about the extent of his participation in the ousters. He said he was aware that his staff had been evaluating the performance of different prosecutors, but on several occasions he said that it was not a matter that he had been following closely.