On Tuesday, All Eyes Will Be on Gonzales
    By Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
    McClatchy Newspapers

    Sunday 15 April 2007

    Washington - For Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, his testimony Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee is all about him, and whether he can restore enough credibility to keep his job.

    But many of the Democrats who control Congress and the committee have already written off Gonzales. They're less interested in his fate than in whether his testimony can open a back door into the White House as they investigate the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

    Their keenest interest is in how much influence President Bush's political adviser Karl Rove exercised in the firings, and why. The prosecutors were fired shortly after last November's midterm elections, a highly unusual move in the middle of an administration. Based on what they've learned so far, Democrats suspect that partisan political motives may have corrupted the impartial rule of law.

    When an attorney general is accused of letting politics interfere with the administration of justice, it's so sensitive a matter that predecessors are uncomfortable discussing it. Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, declined an interview request, as did President Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno.

    Philip Heymann, a Harvard law professor and former deputy attorney general under Reno, said any Justice Department was always vulnerable to allegations of playing politics with prosecutions.

    "But these allegations are vastly greater and more credible," Heymann said. "Really good attorney generals go out of their way to keep appearances straight as well as realities. I think something serious has been going on, and I think it's terribly important that it come out.

    "If politicians were going to the White House and saying they didn't want this or that case brought, and the White House was letting the U.S. attorneys know by firing them, it would be terribly immoral and destructive."

    Much as they want to, lawmakers may never get to question Rove himself. The White House argues that the doctrine of "executive privilege" shields him from Congress' reach in order to protect the confidentiality of his advice to the president. Congress could fight that stand in court, but resolving the question could take longer than the 20 months left in Bush's presidency.

    That makes Gonzales' testimony all the more crucial.

    "There are two separate issues," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a leader in the Judiciary Committee's inquiry. "The first issue is: What happened? How were these people (fired prosecutors) chosen? Why were they put on the list? Are there others who might have been put on the list and weren't? To me, it looks more and more like the White House played a major role.

    "The second issue is whether Gonzales should be attorney general. I've already decided, as have many, he shouldn't."

    The prosecutors served in Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington state and, in two cases, California. While U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, some of those fired have suggested that they were dismissed because they'd prosecuted Republicans on corruption charges or hadn't brought indictments against Democrats in the weeks before close statewide elections, when bad publicity for Democrats might help elect Republicans.

    Gonzales, 51, is in trouble because he's given conflicting, incomplete and flailing explanations about why the U.S. attorneys were fired and what his own role was.

    Tuesday will be his first congressional testimony since January, when he told lawmakers that the firings weren't political. His deputy, Paul McNulty, told lawmakers the firings were performance-based, but documents released later contradicted that assertion.

    Then Gonzales said he'd lost confidence in the prosecutors. He also suggested he hadn't been deeply involved in the decisions.

    But soon after, Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff, who'd resigned as the controversy exploded, testified before the Senate that he'd briefed Gonzales about the prosecutors repeatedly and the attorney general had signed off on the decisions to fire them.

    Gonzales has since tried to reconcile the conflicting statements, but hasn't done so to many lawmakers' satisfaction.

    While Bush has stood by Gonzales, his longtime friend, the White House also has said that Gonzales needs to ease lawmakers' concerns.

    Several Republican senators who once backed Gonzales consider his upcoming testimony make-or-break. They include Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, as well as others who aren't on that panel but are up for re-election next year.

    "The attorney general has serious problems," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn. "I support his opportunity to come before us and explain himself. I have questions about whether he's going to be able to generate the level of confidence that's needed. I have real doubts."

    Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who remains a Gonzales supporter, argues that Democrats have overblown a poorly managed but legal personnel decision for political gain. "Nevertheless," Hatch said of Gonzales, "he's going to have to make a case that these type of things aren't going to happen in the future."

    On Thursday, Schumer sent Gonzales a list of 10 questions he plans to ask. Half focused on Rove, communications with the White House and allegations of voter fraud - a topic, frequently raised by Republican activists, that Rove and his deputies have acknowledged that they referred to the Justice Department. Democrats view Republican attempts to combat "voter fraud" as efforts to suppress the turnout of people who are likely to vote Democratic, such as the poor and minorities.

    "If he comes in and says `I don't know' or `I can't recall' a whole lot of times, that is not sufficient," Schumer said of Gonzales.

    The Justice Department didn't make Gonzales available for comment Friday.

    Interviews, released documents and testimony already have shown that Rove and his deputies were involved. Tim Griffin, a Rove protege, was named to replace an ousted U.S. attorney in Arkansas.

    Disclosure last week that the Republican National Committee can't find records of e-mails that Rove sent on his RNC e-mail account before 2005 fueled the intrigue. Democrats suspect that Rove and other White House officials discussed the U.S. attorneys on their non-White House e-mail accounts.

    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former state attorney general and U.S. attorney under Clinton who's now a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Gonzales would face a tough crowd.

    "It's his only chance to salvage any credibility, if he can do it," Whitehouse said. "I don't see how, but he's entitled to his chance."