Comments (37)

Woodhall Hollow wrote on June 5, 2007 5:44 PM:

Scholzman said that he couldn't discuss the "national investigation" (heads up: Rove coached talker). then later he says that Acorn is the victim in this case. Does that mean that the DOJ is conducting a national investigation into those who would seek to take advantage of ACORN?

The mind reels.

Anonymous wrote on June 5, 2007 5:47 PM:

I find it strange that an attorney would prosecute someone, any one and not understand the policies guide lines that are to be followed in a department, but go by another groups "interpretation" of the policy that is NOT in there department but another?

Who runs the Department of Public Integrity? And where is it located? Under what department does it follow and directions from? What is the roll of this department with the DoJ?

Hank Essay wrote on June 5, 2007 5:51 PM:

It depends on what the meaning of the word "Schloz" is.

-

J DAlessandro wrote on June 5, 2007 6:20 PM:

Okay gang, we have a new verb: "To Schloz."
I schloz.
You schloz.
I have schlozed.
He schlozed for most of the afternoon.
Shlozing in the infield is forbidden.
New biography of Hillary claims that she was exposed to schlozing as a child.
Bush states that schlozing has weakened the morale of our troops.
Okay, I'm finished.

J DAlessandro wrote on June 5, 2007 6:21 PM:

Okay gang, we have a new verb: "To Schloz."
I schloz.
You schloz.
I have schlozed.
He schlozed for most of the afternoon.
Shlozing in the infield is forbidden.
New biography of Hillary claims that she was exposed to schlozing as a child.
Bush states that schlozing has weakened the morale of our troops.
Okay, I'm finished.

DB wrote on June 5, 2007 6:26 PM:

He doesn't consider ACORN a left-leaning organization. But when he was asked earlier about liberal organizations to whom he has personally reached out, his first response was "Native Americans."

cromulant wrote on June 5, 2007 6:42 PM:

This is from the 2005 Public Integrity Section report to Congress on their website: (I could not paste, so I hastily transcribed)

"During the year, the Section maintained a staff of approximately 28 attorneys, including experts in extortion, bribery, election crimes, and criminal conflicts of interest. The section management included: Noel L Hillman, Chief; Stuart Goldberg, Principal Deputy; Raymond Hulser, Deptuy Chief for Policy & Administration; Brenda Morris, Deputy Chief for Litigation; Peter Ainsworth, Deputy Chief for Litigation; Craig Donsanto, Director of Election Crimes Branch, and Bill Corcoran, Senior Counsel."

bianco wrote on June 5, 2007 6:43 PM:

Q: "you dont consider them, say, an organization that will be more likely to register democratic voters?

A: sir my understanding is that do employ many individuals who are not wealthy, i mean theyre poor individuals, but in terms of registration i'm not sure that, i certainly dont have any knowledge that theyre targeting individual .. ah or not targeting other individuals, i mean theyre registering individuals to vote. "

LOL.

choir boys de la money party.

psocrat wrote on June 5, 2007 7:10 PM:

this shchloz-guy is a liar! How can it be proven? He should be made to pay a fine for possible election interference.

Tempest wrote on June 5, 2007 7:24 PM:

Oh I've been waiting for this guy to make his appearance, alone with TV cameras, blinking, under the bright lights.
Tough guy.

heh.

"Whatsa a tough guy?...A guy with an edge...A gun or a knife, a nightstick, or a razor, something the other guy ain't got. Yeah, a little extra reach on a punch, a set of brass knuckles, a stripe on the sleeve, a badge that says cop on it, a rock in your hand, or a bankroll in your pocket. That's an edge, brother.

Without an edge, there ain't no tough guy."
-from some movie

PeteB wrote on June 5, 2007 7:39 PM:

Apparently Scholzman read the article in Slate about how helpful Monica Goodling's little girl voice was to her testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee and thought it might work for him too.

Craig Donsanto wrote on June 5, 2007 7:44 PM:

Shove it up your schloz, man.

PeteB wrote on June 5, 2007 7:49 PM:

Also, I have to say I am so glad I took the time to campaign for Sheldon Whitehouse. He is absolutely brilliant, and has been everything I could have possibly hoped for in a Freshman Senator.

Sharon A wrote on June 5, 2007 8:13 PM:

Aaaah, so there it is -- it's a matter of interpretation of the rule in the manual. As long as no voters are being interviewed, it's okie-dokie to indict.

The bar is set so low that Schleezeman here could fumble over it without much in the way of legal legs to clear it.

sgb wrote on June 5, 2007 8:37 PM:

Notice how often Schlozman blinks. Wow. That kind of blinking is very indicative of less than truthful statements.

Paul Rosenberg wrote on June 5, 2007 9:40 PM:

HECKUVA-JOB-BRADLEY

Schlozman's strategy seems to have been to portray himself as far too dumb to lie. Only problem is, there's no such thing as far too dumb to lie. But Schlozman is too dumb to know that.

I'm with Woodhall Hollow. The DOJ investigation into workers defrauding ACORN has to be one of the silliest lies the GOP has ever told. Except the Dems failed to draw him out so that he actually said it.

This was the most obvious miss for the Dems asking questions today. A hanging curve they just walked away from.

Ron Sheridan wrote on June 5, 2007 11:03 PM:

What's with all those Shoulder Ticks? They coincide critical answers and I submit suggest a involuntary bodily response that is stress related.

JNagarya wrote on June 6, 2007 3:18 AM:

"Scholzman . . . . says that Acorn is the victim in this case."

It's interesting, and revealing, that he has no apparent qualms or second thoughts about indictiing the victim.

Will he reveal who the perpetrator was? And why the perpetrator wasn't indicted?

Oh -- right: victim of the politicized DOJ.

"Posted by: Woodhall Hollow
Date: June 5, 2007 05:44 PM"

JNagarya wrote on June 6, 2007 3:22 AM:

"He doesn't consider ACORN a left-leaning organization. But when he was asked earlier about liberal organizations to whom he has personally reached out, his first response was "Native Americans."

"Posted by: DB
Date: June 5, 2007 06:26 PM"

Oops! That leads to Minnesota!

SC = adjust. As in, Schlozman is much more efficient thaan Gonazles and the DOJ as a whole: his shifting explanations occur during the same testimony.

JNagarya wrote on June 6, 2007 3:28 AM:

"Also, I have to say I am so glad I took the time to campaign for Sheldon Whitehouse. He is absolutely brilliant, and has been everything I could have possibly hoped for in a Freshman Senator.

"Posted by: PeteB
Date: June 5, 2007 07:49 PM"

It doesn't hurt that he's a former US AG.

Rick wrote on June 6, 2007 4:41 AM:

I understand the frame work on Voter fraud just prior to election, it makes sense. This must also refer to the Saving and Loan scandal prior to H.W.Bush election for President. Why did they hold information until after election?

Al in Austex wrote on June 6, 2007 5:00 AM:

J Nygara is right- come late August ,early Sept there will plenty of Republicans ready to do whatever is necessary to wrest the GOP back from the Neo Con TurdBlossom Express. And while a special prosecutor would be very helpful to dismantling the BushCo Organized Crime Enterprise- I still maintain that Leahy & Conyers have the "goods" on the Bushevikkks already. And if we have enough votes to get a Special Prosecutor -then we have enough votes to sustain a Senate Conviction on the Articles of Impeachment that Ranking Member Conyers has in his top drawer at his office desk .
Again we are now entering the political phase of the battle to take down BushCo. TurdBlossom did not count on a growing Republican Rebellion against Dubya & Cheney .Go google what Sen Hagel has said about Impeachment . Go google what former Congressman Barr has said about the Neo Cons.
And please to all the whiners that are pouting because the Dems have no strategy - well you can quit sniveling (unless you all really are Republicant Trolls flying false colors ) -because in the end Conyers & Leahy have already got the goods on BushCo . Schumer & Whitehouse already knew the answer to their questions .
Yes we are entering the Political Phase of the efforts to protect our Constitution .And sooner rather then later the Moderate Republicans will be riding shotgun on this Adventure in Checks & Balances ( Sen Hagel may very well be our Howard Baker ).

Jim wrote on June 6, 2007 7:45 AM:

Al in Austex: "And please to all the whiners that are pouting because the Dems have no strategy - well you can quit sniveling (unless you all really are Republicant Trolls flying false colors ) -because in the end Conyers & Leahy have already got the goods on BushCo . Schumer & Whitehouse already knew the answer to their questions."

With that in mind, I was very interested by the exchange between Leahy and the Schloz on the subject of whether Schloz had made any comments at the time about the timing of his ACORN indictments, the exchange that resulted in Schloz looking panicked and mumbling several variations of "I don't recall" and Leahy eventually cutting him off with "Then your answer is No."

That had the appearance of a perjury trap, as if Leahy has some contradictory testimony available from another witness.

Steve5117 wrote on June 6, 2007 8:01 AM:

Honesty is always the best policy, unfortunately, many people feel they can't afford the best.

Looking and listening to Gonzales, Goodling, Schlozman, et al, you can see what we got when the administration went for Bushiness insteat of the best.

JNagarya wrote on June 6, 2007 8:55 AM:

"With that in mind, I was very interested by the exchange between Leahy and the Schloz on the subject of whether Schloz had made any comments at the time about the timing of his ACORN indictments, the exchange that resulted in Schloz looking panicked and mumbling several variations of "I don't recall" and Leahy eventually cutting him off with "Then your answer is No."

"That had the appearance of a perjury trap, as if Leahy has some contradictory testimony available from another witness.

"Posted by: Jim
Date: June 6, 2007 07:45 AM"

That was my impression also. (I wouldn't be surprised if Leahey's complaint about the withheld emails was a bluff -- that they already have sufficient of them.) That they were essentially getting a low-level key player on the record under oath lying; that would be useful cown the road to squeeze his ass into flipping.

offer wrote on June 6, 2007 9:49 AM:

"That they were essentially getting a low-level key player on the record under oath lying; that would be useful down the road to squeeze his ass into flipping."

Watching Schlozzie, I got the impression that he would flip under some moderate to heavy pressure. He was already sweating bullets. And I think he knows that there are no pardon's coming his way....as the fall guy.

Any reason given why the Repub's were all absent? Did they not get the invitation, or were they getting a seat at the debate?

modmom wrote on June 6, 2007 10:27 AM:

PeteB,

I wuld like to thank you for your role in working on Senator Whitehouse's campaign. He is a real asset to the Democratic Party and the Senate Judiciary!

DrBB wrote on June 6, 2007 1:03 PM:

Schlozz sez the specific wording of the guideline is against undertaking an investigation that involves interviewing voters. Since there was no question, he says, of interviewing voters, they told him there was no conflict with the rule.

I don't like the weazel any more than anyone else here, but can someone explain why that response won't hold up, assuming he's factually correct about how the guideline reads?

mo2 wrote on June 6, 2007 3:14 PM:

Yes, someone please explain about the "no voters were interviewed in the investigation so the rules did not apply" word parsing. It seems that that wording/interpretation was agreed upon by Schlozman and someone else. Who else?

mo2 wrote on June 6, 2007 3:29 PM:

Schlozman said: Let me clarify. What they [the Public Integrity Section] said was that the policy is that you do not do an investigation that requires the interviewing of individual voters.

Questions - Who is "they"? Was there a meeting? Where are the minutes of that meeting? Who attended? Tell us more about how "they" provided information to you.

Slippery Slope wrote on June 6, 2007 6:28 PM:

Any reason given why the Repub's were all absent? Did they not get the invitation, or were they getting a seat at the debate?

Posted by: offer
Date: June 6, 2007 09:49 AM
***************************************

I think this is an important question. One I think Josh should post more prominently. Going even further, it is one that every reader here at TPM Muckraker, TPMcafe, and Talking Points Memo should ask directly to Republican Senators of the SJC.

The questions could be:
Senator, do you believe the integrity of our system of voting and an impartial Department of Justice is important to our democratic form of government based on the Constitution and the rule of Law?

If so, why did you choose to neglect your responsibilities as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to preserve and protect the Constitution and the voting rights of all Americans by skipping yesterday's hearings?

Or something to that effect.

Maybe an email would be appropriate:
Arlen Specter RANKING MEMBER, R-PENNSYLVANIA
Orrin G. Hatch R-UTAH
Charles E. Grassley R-IOWA
Jon Kyl R-ARIZONA
Jeff Sessions R-ALABAMA
Lindsey Graham R-SOUTH CAROLINA
John Cornyn R-TEXAS
Sam Brownback R-KANSAS
Tom Coburn R-OKLAHOMA

Or just call or fax to the SJC. Here are the phone numbers post of the SJC web page:
Republican Phone: (202) 224-5225
Republican Fax: (202) 224-9102

Slippery Slope wrote on June 6, 2007 6:32 PM:

Any reason given why the Repub's were all absent? Did they not get the invitation, or were they getting a seat at the debate?

Posted by: offer
Date: June 6, 2007 09:49 AM
***************************************

I think this is an important question. One I think Josh should post more prominently. Going even further, it is one that every reader here at TPM Muckraker, TPMcafe, and Talking Points Memo should ask directly to Republican Senators of the SJC.

The questions could be:
Senator, do you believe the integrity of our system of voting and an impartial Department of Justice is important to our democratic form of government based on the Constitution and the rule of Law?

If so, why did you choose to neglect your responsibilities as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to preserve and protect the Constitution and the voting rights of all Americans by skipping yesterday's hearings?

Or something to that effect.

Maybe an email would be appropriate:
Arlen Specter RANKING MEMBER, R-PENNSYLVANIA
Orrin G. Hatch R-UTAH
Charles E. Grassley R-IOWA
Jon Kyl R-ARIZONA
Jeff Sessions R-ALABAMA
Lindsey Graham R-SOUTH CAROLINA
John Cornyn R-TEXAS
Sam Brownback R-KANSAS
Tom Coburn R-OKLAHOMA

Or just call or fax to the SJC. Here are the phone numbers post of the SJC web page:
Republican Phone: (202) 224-5225
Republican Fax: (202) 224-9102

Slippery Slope wrote on June 6, 2007 6:32 PM:

Any reason given why the Repub's were all absent? Did they not get the invitation, or were they getting a seat at the debate?

Posted by: offer
Date: June 6, 2007 09:49 AM
***************************************

I think this is an important question. One I think Josh should post more prominently. Going even further, it is one that every reader here at TPM Muckraker, TPMcafe, and Talking Points Memo should ask directly to Republican Senators of the SJC.

The questions could be:
Senator, do you believe the integrity of our system of voting and an impartial Department of Justice is important to our democratic form of government based on the Constitution and the rule of Law?

If so, why did you choose to neglect your responsibilities as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to preserve and protect the Constitution and the voting rights of all Americans by skipping yesterday's hearings?

Or something to that effect.

Maybe an email would be appropriate:
Arlen Specter RANKING MEMBER, R-PENNSYLVANIA
Orrin G. Hatch R-UTAH
Charles E. Grassley R-IOWA
Jon Kyl R-ARIZONA
Jeff Sessions R-ALABAMA
Lindsey Graham R-SOUTH CAROLINA
John Cornyn R-TEXAS
Sam Brownback R-KANSAS
Tom Coburn R-OKLAHOMA

Or just call or fax to the SJC. Here are the phone numbers post of the SJC web page:
Republican Phone: (202) 224-5225
Republican Fax: (202) 224-9102

Slippery Slope wrote on June 6, 2007 6:34 PM:

Sorry for the duplicate posts.

penis stretcher wrote on August 4, 2007 3:41 AM:

Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.

xdpsrfaq rkzq wrote on September 1, 2007 1:37 PM:

ybagzhn buqo tzsxbf bkjcufdwy pfmznu mquac omzglhjui

xdpsrfaq rkzq wrote on September 1, 2007 1:37 PM:

ybagzhn buqo tzsxbf bkjcufdwy pfmznu mquac omzglhjui