Ever have one of those days? Attorney General John Ashcroft is having one right now.
The front page of the Washington Post features a fun story explaining that Ashcroft, while running unsuccessfully for re-election to the Senate in 2000, violated federal election laws by “accepting $110,000 in illegal contributions from a committee Ashcroft had established to explore running for president.”
There’s just something amusing about having an attorney general who’s violated election laws serving an administration featuring the first-ever combo of a president and vice-president who had criminal records before taking office (both Bush and Cheney were arrested for DUIs).
“Spirit of America PAC and Ashcroft 2000, respectively, violated the [law] by making and receiving this excessive contribution,” the FEC explained yesterday. “Additionally, Spirit of America PAC and Ashcroft 2000, respectively, violated the [law] by failing to disclose the making or receipt of the excessive contribution.” The Ashcroft-led PACs will pay a $37,000 fine for at least four violations of federal campaign law, which nearly everyone agrees is too light a punishment.
Before you think that low-level PAC staffers were responsible and that Ashcroft had no knowledge of the illegalities, consider the fact that the FEC saw a series of letters and documents signed by Ashcroft personally that showed his participation in the illegal campaign transactions.
Here’s a thought to consider: what would a Republican Congress do if Attorney General Janet Reno had been found by the FEC of having violated election law? And that Reno personally was involved with the transgressions? Is it safe to assume they’d hold hearings and perhaps even call for her resignation? Just a thought.
Of course, that wasn’t the only bad news Ashcroft heard yesterday. The AP reported yesterday that Ashcroft also had to deal with being admonished by a federal judge for violating a court order dealing with the first major terrorism trial after Sept. 11.
The case stems from the arrest of three suspected terrorists arrested in October 2001. The judge in the case ordered Ashcroft and the Justice Department not to talk about the details of the case with the media, so as to ensure a fair trial. Ashcroft nevertheless announced that the defendants were suspected of having knowledge off the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The judge in the case said yesterday, “The attorney general’s office exhibited a distressing lack of care in issuing potentially prejudicial statements about this case.” Luckily for Ashcroft, the judge didn’t charge his office with contempt.
If we didn’t have Ashcroft, we’d have to invent him. Criticizing him by name is one of the few guaranteed applause lines the Dem presidential candidates have.