Op-ed: Bush may retain 'drastically, weakened' Gonzales to avoid Watergate-like hearings
 A member of the House panel that voted to impeach former President Richard Nixon said in an op-ed Tuesday that the Bush Administration's battle with congressional probes into the firing of eight US Attorneys is "reminiscent of the Watergate scandal."
Former Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, who sat on the House Judiciary Committee that investigated Nixon prior to his resignation, says President Bush may be sticking with embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to avoid a confirmation hearing for his replacement.
"All this is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal," Holtzman writes in Tuesday's Los Angeles Times. "In 1973, as the cover-up was unraveling, the Senate imposed a condition on the confirmation of President Nixon's nominee for attorney general, Elliot Richardson. Richardson's predecessor had resigned because of Watergate troubles. Concerned that the Justice Department would not get at the truth, the Senate insisted that Richardson would name a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Richardson duly appointed Archibald Cox."
Holtzman said the Senate could use confirmation hearings to investigate whether administration officials miscarried justice in firing US Attorneys on what Democrats say was largely political ground. Those hearings would serve the same role as the Watergate-era special prosecutor's investigation, Holtzman says, adding that the Senate "also might use the opportunity to probe the Justice Department's role in mistreatment of detainees, four years of flouting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other serious matters."
A coauthor of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens," Holtzman was active last year in a series of rallies calling for the president's impeachment. In December, she told a crowd of activists in New York that impeachment can work when done right, as previously reported by RAW STORY (link).
According to Holtzman, "Rather than face such scrutiny, the White House may prefer keeping a drastically weakened Gonzales in place."
"But doing so exacts a high price for the Justice Department and the nation," Holtzman argues. "It damages department morale and credibility, undermines its ability to recruit and could affect perceptions of federal prosecutors, jeopardizing important cases. By retaining Gonzales to preempt Senate action, the president has signaled that this is a price he is willing to make the nation pay."
Excerpts from Holtzman's op-ed:
#
A new special prosecutor would have many questions to investigate.
For starters, were any of the firings of U.S. attorneys federal crimes — such as obstruction of justice, designed to stymie investigations or to retaliate for prosecutions of Republicans? If so, who is responsible and how high up does that responsibility go? Did Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty, who gave inaccurate testimony to Congress about the firings, commit any crime in doing so? Were those who briefed him for that testimony complicit? And what happened to the missing e-mail messages from Rove and others? Did these apparent violations of the Presidential Records Act — failure to keep copies of the exchanges — constitute federal crimes?
So there is ample work for a special prosecutor. The Senate could call for appointing one without waiting for Gonzales to resign. But in that case, Gonzales or McNulty would be making the appointment, and the integrity of the choice would be highly questionable. That leaves Senate confirmation hearings of a new attorney general nominee as the main leverage for Congress to secure an independent criminal investigation of the U.S. attorney firings.
#
FULL LA TIMES COLUMN CAN BE VIEWED AT THIS LINK
|
