Rich Lowry

In "A Beautiful Mind," her bestselling biography of mathematician John Nash, Sylvia Nasar describes the process whereby he went mad. He spun coincidences and unrelated incidents into a pattern utterly detached from reality.

Nash's example suggests that if Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is at risk of losing his job in the flap over the firings of U.S. attorneys, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer might be at risk of losing his mind. He and his fellow Democrats leap from one hypothesis of wrongdoing to another, all in the service of their grand paranoid theory: that Karl Rove orchestrated the firings for nefarious reasons yet to be determined.

Former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld liked to say that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Democrats have a simpler axiom in the U.S. attorneys case -- the absence of evidence is evidence. With every Justice Department document drop that shows no evidence of anything illegal or unethical, Democrats seem more convinced that there is a cover-up of some ill-defined wrongdoing.

A few weeks ago, Schumer was on TV -- when is he not? -- saying that the firing of Carol Lam, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, was the "most notorious" of the eight firings. Lam had prosecuted corrupt Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who now is in jail. Schumer said that it was known Lam was going to prosecute more Republicans, so the Justice Department shut her down.

Put aside for the moment that the firing of a U.S. attorney alone won't shut down a particular corruption prosecution, which will be carried on by career prosecutors. As National Review reporter Byron York relates, in all the thousands of e-mails released by the Justice Department, there is no mention of Cunningham in connection to Lam, and the concerns about her performance centered on lax immigration prosecutions, which pre-dated the Cunningham case.

So much for the "most notorious" firing. Schumer has shifted of late to saying that the shifting explanations of the firings by Gonzales imply that he is "hiding something." From what we know of Gonzales' incompetent operation at the Justice Department, however, we can be certain that if he were actually trying to hide something, he would have revealed it by now.

Gonzales' statements about the firings have been wrong and inconsistent, but that appears to have more to do with his sloppiness with facts and language than anything else. A month ago, if Gonzales had been called upon to summarize the Anna Nicole Smith case, he probably would have messed it up -- but that wouldn't have meant he was the father of her baby.

Rich Lowry

Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years .
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Rich Lowry's column. Sign up today and receive daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.