Reply #11: It sure makes the context of this report kind of interesting, dunnit?

[MADem]

http://www.startribune.com/562/v-print/story/1164109.html

Already, the Senate is outlining conditions for confirming a Gonzales successor. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., head of the Judiciary Committee, said that his panel wouldn't hold confirmation hearings unless Karl Rove and other White House aides testify about the firing of U.S. attorneys...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 Richard 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.

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....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.

A new special prosecutor would have many questions to investigate.

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 Attorney General Paul McNulty, who gave inaccurate testimony to Congress about the firings, commit any crime in doing so? Were those who briefed him complicit?

And what happened to the missing e-mail messages from Rove and others? Did these apparent violations of the Presidential Records Act constitute federal crimes?

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.