Yes, it's nice that the white hat's are continuing to win and expose the evil.
from DMA post. www2.uclick.com
J'ACCUSE TED OLSON!
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.
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.
tom watson tosiwmee |
