Special prosecutor should arrive on scene as Gonzales departs-By Elizabeth Holtzman

[kpete]

Special prosecutor should arrive on scene as Gonzales departs
By Elizabeth Holtzman
September 2, 2007

............

The Senate can and should take this precedent to heart and demand a special prosecutor as a condition of confirming a new attorney general. It is already disposed toward imposing conditions on confirmation. Earlier this year, Democratic Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that his panel would not hold confirmation hearings unless White House aides agreed to testify about the firing of U.S. attorneys to clarify whether "the White House has interfered with prosecution." So far, key aides have flouted congressional subpoenas, citing executive privilege, but that might change.

Mr. Leahy's statement on the resignation of Mr. Gonzales, whom Mr. Leahy said flat-out he doesn't trust, sounded slightly ominous: "I hope the attorney general's decision will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House wields over the (Justice) Department."

There remains plenty of truth to get at, including questions of possible criminality that demand a special prosecutor's scrutiny. Who authorized the U.S. attorney firings? Were they intended to deter or punish investigations or prosecutions of Republicans, and do they constitute obstruction of justice or other crimes? Did Mr. Gonzales perjure himself before the Senate? What was his role in the illegal surveillance of Americans, mistreatment of detainees and other erosions of federal law and constitutional guarantees?

Mr. Gonzales bequeaths us a compromised Justice Department, with damaged morale and credibility, and a near-total blurring of what should be a bright line between enforcement of federal law and political influence peddling. But if Watergate history repeats itself and the Senate insists on a special prosecutor as a condition of confirming a replacement, Mr. Gonzales' legacy could also include the means to bring crimes and abuses to light and make people in high places accountable under the law.

Isn't that what an attorney general is supposed to do?

more at:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.gonzales02sep02,0,6857462.story

[LiberalAndProud]

1. Hope so!

[OzarkDem]

2. Not going to happen

Dem leaders in Congress have yet to say they will take real action to uphold the law and go after those in the administration who have engaged in criminal behavior.

Sadly, I think Reid and Pelosi cut some sort of weak-assed agreement before the recess where Rove and Gonzales resign (and Dems keep corporate donations) in exchange for no further investigations or action.

All we're going to see from here on out is a little talk and no real action. Its over.

Pelosi and Reid have bargained everything away in exchange for getting corporate support for a Dem presidential candidate - something they didn't need to do, but were too stupid to realize. No Dem presidential candidate needs GOP support to win in 2008, but Reid and Pelosi aren't smart enough to realize it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. For those who are too young to remember, Elizabeth Holtzman was

one of the sharpest members of the House Judiciary Committee that investigated Watergate.

The Dems 30 years ago were not afraid of taking on the White House.

The ones today are wimps in comparison.

[Baby Snooks]

4. The International Criminal Court

The only court that will ever hold this administration accountable is the International Criminal Court.

Perhaps that is a question to ask of the Democratic presidential candidates. Will the United States of America join the ICC if they become president and more importantly will they allow the ICC to investigate this administration?

We pushed for Nuremberg. And then ignored Nuremberg. As if to say we were above the very laws we wanted etched in stone at Nuremberg.