<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-holtzman1may01,0,3365495.story?track=ntothtml">http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-holtzman1may01,0,3365495.story?track=ntothtml</A><BR>
<DIV class=body><I>From the Los Angeles Times</I></DIV>
<H1>Alberto Gonzales' safety net</H1>
<DIV class=storysubhead>Confirmation hearings for his successor could spawn
criminal investigations of the White House.</DIV>By Elizabeth
Holtzman<BR>ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, a former Democratic congresswoman from New York,
is the coauthor of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for
Concerned Citizens."<BR><BR>May 1, 2007<BR><BR>NO MATTER how many members of
Congress lose confidence in Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush is
unlikely to let him go. If Gonzales resigns, the vacancy must be filled by a new
presidential nominee, and the last thing the White House wants is a confirmation
hearing.<BR><BR>Already, the Senate is outlining conditions for confirming a
Gonzales successor. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, has said that his panel would not hold confirmation hearings unless
Karl Rove and other White House aides testify about the firing of U.S. attorneys
to clarify whether "the White House has interfered with prosecution."<BR><BR>All
this is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal. In 1973, as the coverup 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. <BR><BR>The rest is history. Cox's aggressive
investigations led to the prosecution of top administration officials and the
naming of Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator in the coverup. When Cox sought
White House tapes of Nixon's conversations with his staff, the president had him
fired, unleashing a firestorm of protests. Americans demanded that a previously
reluctant Congress start impeachment proceedings against Nixon. Congress
complied; the House Judiciary Committee, of which I was a member, voted for
impeachment, and Nixon resigned.<BR><BR>Aspects of this history could easily
repeat themselves. The Senate could demand, as it did in 1973, that a new
attorney general appoint a special prosecutor, and this could again have dire
consequences for the White House.<BR><BR>A new special prosecutor would have
many questions to investigate.<BR><BR>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?<BR><BR>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?<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Moreover, the Senate might use such hearings to do more than
secure testimony from White House aides about the firings, as Leahy indicated.
It 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. <BR><BR>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. 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.</DIV></BODY></HTML>