Non-Scandal and Lost Emails

A recent non-scandal that has the Democrats barking is that of the fired eight U.S. attorneys. It's customary for presidential administrations to fire U.S attorneys as they work at the convenience of the Executive Branch. The Justice Department fired these eight attorneys - some for poor performance, some for ethical mistakes, and others for (ironically) not being tough enough prosecutors. When asked about the firings, Attorney General Gonzales made statements that contradicted the Justice Department out of an apparent lack of communication. Regardless of Bill Clinton's Justice Department firing all 92 U.S. Attorneys in the 90's the Democrats took the red meat of a misstatement and ran with it.

Now it appears that White House officials, most likely having nothing to do with the firings, have been using Republican National Committee emails that have not been archived before 2004. The Democrats, seizing on this non-error concerning a non-scandal are crying foul. In a letter designed to alert the press rather than actually accomplish anything, Democrats are implying that these emails were improperly deleted, with Patrick Leahy even claiming that the emails aren't really deleted and that a child could find them.

Alberto Gonzales has agreed to testify before congress to clear up any misunderstandings, and the AP has already begun to play to the Left:

With five days left before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testifies before Leahy's committee in an effort to save his job, lawmakers kept up the pressure in the latest dispute to grow out of the Justice Department's firings of eight federal prosecutors.

No doubt an interesting delusion considering Congress' complete lack of ability to remove him from his post.

I really wish this Democratic congress would do something besides stonewall and whine about conservatives. If a Democrat wins in 2008 what on Earth are they going to spend their time complaining about?

Update: Scott Ott weighs in. Are the Democrats stuck on "Congress shall make no law..."?