Still, the truth of the allegations is really beside the point. What about the allegations themselves? If all the charges against Olson are true, Senate Democrats have painstakingly established that Olson is a conservative.

In case there is any doubt about the accusation here, the Inspector Clouseau of this criminal probe, Sen. Patrick Leahy, explicitly states in his published statement that the "principle [sic] question" is whether Olson's "connection with so many far-reaching anti-Clinton efforts marks Mr. Olson as a thoroughgoing partisan."

Immediately forgetting what the "principle question" was, Leahy then goes on to insist he is concerned only with alleged "discrepancies" in Olson's testimony -- not the underlying criminal behavior of being a conservative. Liberals are always wrapping their comically irrelevant charges in a haze of lies, and this is a lie: There are no discrepancies in Olson's testimony, as has been ably demonstrated by Sen. Orrin Hatch.

But this is no time to be getting bogged down in the dry specifics of Olson's testimony. The point is: Liberals are trying to make it a criminal offense to criticize Democrats.

Here are a few completely representative excerpts from the Democrats' bill of particulars against Olson as set forth in Senator Leahy's published statement:

  • "(The Washington) Post story quotes Mr. Tyrrell, a quote he does not disavow, as saying he did not recall, but it was a possibility that he talked to Ted Olson about the stories about the Clintons."

  • "(Olson) himself authored articles for the magazine paid for out of Scaife's special 'Arkansas Project' fund."

  • "What (some random guy) does not say and what he does not deny is that he was the person who introduced David Hale to Mr. Olson."

    So the perp may have had knowledge of journalism before it was committed. In addition, he may have personally, himself, committed acts of journalism. Not content to commit journalism, conservatives were also engaging in parties and dinner!

    J'accuse Ted Olson!

    Continuing the ritualized innuendo of this Kabuki theater, Leahy intones: "We do not know what Mr. Olson did as lawyer and when he did it." What is he talking about? Using phrases like "a quote he does not disavow," or "what he does not deny" cannot obscure that what no one is denying or disavowing is that Olson didn't care much for Bill Clinton.

    That's probably why Bush nominated him. It might be nice for a change to have a solicitor general at the Department of Justice who doesn't like criminals.