WASHINGTON -- If saying little and apologizing a lot is the key to a Cabinet post, John Ashcroft seems about to become the next attorney general.
When the former senator sat down before the Senate Judiciary committee for his second day of questioning on Wednesday, he was as evasive about antitrust as Bill was about Monica.
"The Microsoft case is a very important case," Ashcroft told the panel. "And the maintenance of competition in our culture is a very important aspect of what we need to make sure that we get the right output."
No skin off anyone's nose there.
George W. Bush's pick for attorney general predicted that he would "have to confer with the people in the antitrust division" of the Department of Justice, which last week urged the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court's ruling that slices Microsoft into two halves.
Ashcroft was responding to a series of questions from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), who has been an ardent proponent of additional antitrust actions against the airline industry.
Specter chose his words as carefully as did Ashcroft, saying he was "not commenting on the merits" of the Clinton administration's dogged pursuit of Microsoft and he merely wanted to explore what would happen when Republicans once again control the DOJ. For instance, Specter wondered, would Ashcroft be inclined to abandon the case? Or settle it?
"The question which I would like your response to is, to what extent you would honor the court process," Specter said. "(I would like to know the) recognition that, as attorney general, if confirmed, you would give to the existing legal status of the case."
Ashcroft demurred. "I would look very carefully at this case, relying on the expertise of the department, in deciding strategy for the case," he replied. "And I'm not in a position to assure you that I would do anything other than that at this time."
If the DOJ loses -- and few observers predict the appeals court will uphold all parts of the breakup -- the Bush administration could decide not to appeal the case, or settle it on terms more favorable to Microsoft.
But Ashcroft didn't say that, of course, and instead he even went so far as to reassure the Pennsylvania senator: "I don't know the facts of the Microsoft case. It is a very complex case, from what I've heard about the case."
Two years ago, Ashcroft seemed to have much clearer -- if still conflicted -- views.
During a March 1998 hearing in which Microsoft chairman Bill Gates testified, Ashcroft asked skeptical questions of the executive and said Microsoft appeared to have a monopoly. But he also criticized the lawsuit, saying: "Frankly, the best thing that the politicians in Congress could do for the nation and this vital industry is to keep their hands off a part of the economy they do not understand."
Also on Wednesday, Mike Dewine (R-Ohio) questioned Ashcroft about "crime technology" such as automated fingerprint systems, vast databases filled with criminal records and DNA samples. "It is something where the federal government can play a unique role, because only the federal government really can give the assistance to all local jurisdictions," said Dewine, who has in the past sponsored legislation supportive of such measures.
Asking Ashcroft, the former law-and-order attorney general of Missouri, such a question is akin asking Al Gore if he thought the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the Florida election was somewhat less than fair.
"During my time as governor and attorney general, we sought through the creation of agencies and capacity capability in our state, the ability to integrate our effort in a national coordination of data so that we could apprehend criminals," Ashcroft replied.
He also said he'd be "honored" to work with the Judiciary committee, which oversees the DOJ on issues including privacy rights.
Most of the hearing was spent on sharp questioning from Democrats on topics that included abortion, school desegregation and the appointment of federal judges.
