Last week, every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against Ted Olson, Bush's nominee for solicitor general. The Democrats are troubled by accusations that Olson may have associated with conservatives who were conspiring to commit journalism.
The conservatives -- primarily writers at The American Spectator -- had a devilish plan to investigate Bill Clinton's venality, corruption and crimes as governor of Arkansas. At the conclusion of their little scheme, the Spectator intended to publish the fruits of their conspiracy as widely as possible.
This is a highly unusual strategy for a criminal conspiracy. Typically, conspiracies are marked by hiding evidence, losing billing records and developing amnesia -- pretty much everything the Clintons did. Rarely do criminal conspiracies plot to write magazine articles about their dirty business.
Though you wouldn't know it from the behavior of the mainstream media, it is not, strictly speaking, against the law to publish articles critical of Democratic presidents. And it is not against the law to associate with individuals reputed to be conservatives engaged in journalism. (In fact, it's not even against the law to consort with known felons, like Bill Clinton, or convicted felons, like Webb Hubbell.)
But wait! That's not all. The Democrats also charge that Olson's legal fees for one particular client, David Hale, were paid by a third party, Richard Mellon Scaife, also reported to be a conservative. (BEGIN ITALS)Have you ever received money from a conservative, Mr. Olson?(END ITALS) In paranoid liberal fantasies, this is pretty much how McCarthyism worked.
For the record, it is not illegal for a third party to pay legal fees. If it were, Bill Clinton would be bankrupt and Barbra Streisand would be in jail -- which, come to think of it, isn't a bad idea.
Finally, the Democrats allege that The American Spectator paid some of its sources -- a practice which, if illegal, would put the National Enquirer out of business.
None of these accusations are true. Indeed, their only support comes from David Brock, a journalist who made a name for himself by denouncing his own prior work because he couldn't trust himself to distinguish fact from fiction. He then went on tour as a Clinton flack, where he publicly endorsed the practice of telling lies when necessary. If this were a criminal case against Olson, no prosecutor would dare put a witness like Brock on the stand. But to Senate Democrats, Brock is an oracle.