So, by now we've all heard the news that Alberto Gonzales is going to be Dubya's nominee to replace Ashcroft. If you ask me, it's great news, if only because he couldn't possibly be any worse than Ashcroft, and he'll give us the chance to rake him over the coals on Enron and his torture memos.
It's about his ties to Enron that I'd like some input. Clearly, he couldn't be expected to investigate or prosecute an entity that he represented as a private lawyer. Since Enron is, after all, the subject of some ongoing federal investigations and prosecutions, wouldn't making him AG make the appointment of a special prosecutor necessary? And by necessary, I mean politically feasible for the Democrats.
We all know what happens when independent prosecutors start issuing subpoenas and taking depositions. I'm not saying I'm thrilled about the prospect of playing the Ken Starr card, but to be fair, a vigorous investigation of just where Enron's tentacles slithered is badly needed anyway, and I wouldn't mind having the GOP on the defensive for the next four years.
I know that the Independent Counsel statute is dead, so maybe a full-blown Starr-style witch hunt is impossible. But is there any part of this hunch--that Gonzales' ties to Enron gives us an in to do some remedial investigation and prosecution--that's actually true? IANAL, naturally, and maybe YANAL either, but I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts on this.