TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Schlozman: What I Really Meant Was...

Schlozman: What I Really Meant Was...

By Paul Kiel - June 12, 2007, 11:39AM

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) last night, Bradley Schlozman wrote to "clarify" his testimony before the committee last night.

Grilled by a number of senators over his decision as U.S. attorney for Kansas City to bring four voter fraud indictments just days before last year's election, Schlozman repeatedly testifed that he'd brought the indictments "at the direction" (he used the phrase ten times) of the director of the Election Crimes Branch in the Public Integrity Section. That raised more than a few eyebrows on the panel since that director, Craig Donsanto, is the man who wrote the DoJ manual discouraging such investigations close to an election.

Schlozman's story had the effect of distancing himself from the controversial decision and pinning it on a Department veteran.

Now Schlozman is changing his story:

As required by Section 9-85.210 of the U.S. Attorney's Manual, at my direction, the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case consulted with the Election Crimes Branch prior to the filing of the indictments. I want to be clear that, while I relied on the consultation with, and suggestions of, the Election Crimes Branch in bringing the indictments when I did, I take full responsibility for the decision to move forward with the prosecutions related to ACORN while I was the interim U.S. Attorney.

In other words, somehow, some way, Schlozman was able to get a green light for the indictments.

Sen. Leahy, reacting to Schlozman's letter, thinks it's more than a "clarification" -- and points out that it's far from the first time a Justice Department official has misled Congress over the past few months:

“It is deeply troubling that after weeks of preparation Mr. Schlozman appears to have misled the Committee and the public about his decision to file an election eve lawsuit in direct conflict with longstanding Justice Department policy.
I asked him repeatedly about this case at the hearing because of concerns that it was done to use law enforcement power improperly to affect the outcome of the election, which is the reason the Department instituted the policy as a safeguard against such manipulation.

“This Justice Department and this Administration already suffer from a severe credibility crisis, and learning that yet another senior official was less than forthcoming during his testimony before Congress does little to restore any of the lost trust or eroding confidence in their leadership. It is difficult to get to the facts when Administration officials fail to come clean, but the Committee will continue to pursue the truth behind this matter.”

Comments (136)

Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 11:48 AM:

Pursue contempt charges. Make an example of him.

Jalbert wrote on June 12, 2007 11:54 AM:

Basicaly it's ok to lie to congress until you get caught, and at that point all you have to do is simply change your statement.

james hamlin wrote on June 12, 2007 11:55 AM:

When is Donsanto going to speak out about this?

chisholm wrote on June 12, 2007 11:56 AM:

Is it just me or are these hearings amounting to nothing more than an object lesson in impotence?

FlyOnTheWall wrote on June 12, 2007 12:00 PM:

I think you're underselling the extent of the 'clarification.' Schlozman doesn't claim to have received a green light; in fact, he doesn't even say what ECB told his deputy in the consultation.

We get a hint later in the letter when he writes that he was told Justice guidelines "did not require a delay" in the filing of charges. That's a long way from a green light.

It sure sounds like he went to Donsanto and argued that the manual forbade *investigations* because interviewing voters might intimidate them, but that there was nothing in the manual to forbid the investigation of those registering voters, or their indictment. In other words, he felt he'd found a loophole - he was investigating registration, not voting, and the manual only dealt with the latter. Reluctantly, Donsanto confirmed that - but apparently made 'suggestions,' perhaps to mitigate the impact. The problem is that this reading, while technically correct, clearly flouts the spirit of the regulation. ECB couldn't stop him at the time, because they'd never put it in writing, but wasn't prepared to be blamed for it afterward. Hence, the clarification

Glenna Harris wrote on June 12, 2007 12:01 PM:

Senator Leahy: I want to thank you and the other committee chairmen for the investigations that are finally being lodged against a very secretive and corrupt executive branch. However, isn't it now time to press charges based on the prevarications and equivocations so many have felt immune enough to commit? Schlozman and Gonzales and a legion of others have lied to Congress. Isn't that a felony?

gregor wrote on June 12, 2007 12:01 PM:

Why the hell are the Democrats so powerless even when they win elections?

Security code 'fear'.

spencers mom wrote on June 12, 2007 12:02 PM:

This is NOT a clarification, it is an attempt to packpedal on PERJURY!

Schulzman should be indicted immediately, no requests for additional hearings, no more requests for information or "lost" e-mails. Just swift issuance of an indictment for perjury and contempt of congress.

Let's get the ball rolling. Much more to come...assuming the Dems can somehow find a backbone.

PEACE

code word: goat, as in Judas

Jeff wrote on June 12, 2007 12:03 PM:

What's been infuriating about the structure of the Senate and House Judiciary Committee investigations of USAGate, is the serial testimony of the witnesses. When you bring them in one at a time and the witness du jour pins blame on someone else or passes the buck, you set up a "he-said, she-said" that requires time to backtrack and unpack. Wouldn't it make sense to have a hearing with Gonzo, McNulty, Goodling, and Sampson all present AT THE SAME TIME? Or in this case Schlozmann and every person at the Election Crimes branch that he or his assistant USA could have "consulted with...and relied on?" This is taking forever. Get all the lying a$&holes in one room at the same time under oath and before the cameras. Just do it!

FlyOnTheWall wrote on June 12, 2007 12:04 PM:

I think you're underselling the extent of the 'clarification.' Schlozman doesn't claim to have received a green light; in fact, he doesn't exactly say what ECB told his deputy in the consultation.

We get a hint later in the letter when he writes that he was told Justice guidelines "did not require a delay" in the filing of charges. That's a long way from a green light.

Mimo wrote on June 12, 2007 12:04 PM:

Its not just you. Seems like what they are hoping to do is to shame people who have no shame, which is pointless. Stop shaming, and go after them where it hurts, please.

Paul Rosenberg wrote on June 12, 2007 12:04 PM:

HE LIED!

Why is it so difficult to say that? L-I-E-D, LIED!

It's so much simpler than "appears to have misled" or "was less than forthcoming" or "fail to come clean."

We need the truth. And we're not going to get it from the GOP. So let's have it from Dems investigating the GOP: They LIED!

Ximines wrote on June 12, 2007 12:04 PM:

I agree with chisholm, above. It's time for the Dems to Sh*t or get off the pot. It pains me to say this, but the repubs are laughing at this committee, and - if the dems can't do anything substantive - the repubs are right to laugh.

The doggie has to stop barking and decide whether it's going to bite.

ghost wrote on June 12, 2007 12:08 PM:

re: contempt charges: doesn't that eventually have to go through the prosecutor for the DC district (or whichever district has jurisdiction), i.e. a Republican appointee who wasn't fired, who's still reporting to Abu G, and therefore to el Preznit?

Or am I mixing up cases here?

Glenna Harris wrote on June 12, 2007 12:09 PM:

travy wrote on June 12, 2007 12:14 PM:

so how long before criminals convicted by loyal bushies start appealing their sentences?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 12, 2007 12:15 PM:

Does anyone have Schlozman's original press release about the ACORN indictments? It was removed from the USA-WDMO 2006 archive.

A search of news about "Schlozman" in the period rom 10/31/06 to 1//8/06 doesn't turn any news about the ACORN indictments but it does turn up a few other items about USA-WDMO Schlozman's office.

Another Lex-Nex search for "ACORN and vote" in the same time period turns up a couple of very brief hard news items about the ACORN indictments. What is disturbing are the items from right wing blogs about the ACORN indictments. Looking into the future, am I going to have to rely on Atlas Shrugged and the Volokh Conspiracy when I research today's current events?

If anyone thinks Schlozmnan's indictments weren't timed to be a media event, read the 11/3/06 WSJ editorial about them which I posted at the TPM Cafe (link below). The WSJ news staff did not think the ACORN indictments were worth covering but the WSJ editorial staff sure did.

From the 11/3/06 WSJ:

"The Acorn Indictments"

So, less than a week before the midterm elections, four workers from Acorn, the liberal activist group that has registered millions of voters, have been indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms to the Kansas City, Missouri, election board. But hey, who needs voter ID laws?

We wish this were an aberration, but allegations of fraud have tainted Acorn voter drives across the country. Acorn workers have been convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado, and investigations are still under way in Ohio, Tennessee and Pennsylvania.

The good news for anyone who cares about voter integrity is that the Justice Department finally seems poised to connect these dots instead of dismissing such revelations as the work of a few yahoos. After the federal indictments were handed up in Kansas City this week, the U.S. Attorney's office said in a statement that "This national investigation is very much ongoing."...

travy wrote on June 12, 2007 12:18 PM:

so how long before criminals convicted by loyal bushies start appealing their sentences?

ghost wrote on June 12, 2007 12:18 PM:

Or am I mixing up cases here?

slb wrote on June 12, 2007 12:22 PM:

George Bush is the USA's King John. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_England)

Unfortunately, our "barons" lack the audacity to force his hand.

ghost wrote on June 12, 2007 12:23 PM:

Or am I mixing up cases here?

slb wrote on June 12, 2007 12:24 PM:

ooops, I meant to ditch the link in the sig -- it's from an older post.

Nina Katarina wrote on June 12, 2007 12:26 PM:

He represents the Lollipop Guild. Between him and Monica II and Fredo, you have to wonder how much helium is in the atmosphere over at Main Justice. Maybe that's why they can't remember doodly.

FlyOnTheWall wrote on June 12, 2007 12:27 PM:

The Boston Globe, 5/6/07:
"The department said Schlozman's office got permission from headquarters for the election-eve indictments. It added that the department interprets the policy as having an unwritten exception for voter registration fraud, because investigators need not interview voters for such cases."

In other words, everything Schlozman offered in today's clarification was already a matter of public record back in the beginning of May. The question had been asked of a DoJ spokesman, and answered. It's not as if he was ambushed here. His testimony before Congress *contradicated* the information that had been provided by DoJ a month before. He must have known that, but assumed that no one would call him on it, either because of his senior position within the department or because ECB is among the most taciturn units, scrupulously holding itself above the media fray to maintain its impartiality.
Sleazeball.

brendan wrote on June 12, 2007 12:28 PM:

So what's Leahy gonna do now?

Ooh, I know: he'll send a sternly worded letter. That ALWAYS works.

code word: "false" as in "false promises".

William Ockham wrote on June 12, 2007 12:28 PM:

Mrs. Panstreppon,

The story on the press release is here:
http://buzzblog.kcstar.com/?q=node/528

anon wrote on June 12, 2007 12:29 PM:

...Basicaly it's ok to lie to congress until you get caught, and at that point all you have to do is simply change your statement...

Sure seems like that's the case. I don't understand why the Dems aren't playing hard ball. What do they possibly have to lose?

Code: meat

ron wrote on June 12, 2007 12:30 PM:

What an interesting name: Schlozman.

Just change the "z" to a "k" and we are dead on!

Sharon A wrote on June 12, 2007 12:32 PM:

Schlozman is a L-I-A-R.

Democratic politicians are S-P-I-N-N-I-N-G.

And I am D-O-N-E believing in them.

via wrote on June 12, 2007 12:34 PM:

That is the trouble with this weak Dem congress. It isn't "deeply troubling" Pat, it is a damned lie, under oath, to your committee. So, what the hell are you going to do about it?

Rusty wrote on June 12, 2007 12:36 PM:

Agree with those above who are wondering what now. I need someone to telll me "things are okay, all is going according to plan" because it seems (with their numbers tanking) that the Dems are capitulating on in just about every issue and alienating the people who put the in power. How many people will come before the Judiciary Committee and have to clarify their testamony before someone gets in trouble? Why did anyone ask him or Monica about the external email system in detail while they were under oath? I swear I feel like the longer this investigation goes on, the worse the Dems who are investigating it look. It's enough to cause a person to lose faith.

So, someone tell me it's okay and going according to plan. Anyone? Hello?

(SFX crickets)

mo2 wrote on June 12, 2007 12:37 PM:

The last thing Senator Whitehouse said at the closing of Schlozman's testimony was that the record would be kept open for one week. So I assume that means Schlozman had one week to revise his testimony before being charged with perjury. Someone else may know more about the legal meaning of Sen. Whitehouse's comment.

Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 12:38 PM:

The DOJ and Schlozman was hot to pursue ACORN for voter registration fraud.

Why wasn't the DOJ hot to pursue candidate petition fraud in the Santorum-Casey race? You might recall that Santorum staffers were themselves (in addition to hiring paid canvassers) out getting petitions signed to put Green candidate Carl Romanelli on the ballot. GOP thought was that Romanelli would dilute Casey's voter base - and Santorum would win.

Romanelli did not make it to the ballot because a large proportion of the petitions signators were not voters or forgeries.

Yet "loyal Bushie" US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan didn't so much as even contemplate a case.

Anyone care to wonder why?

theWalrus wrote on June 12, 2007 12:39 PM:

Leahy: "Mr. Schlozman appears to have misled the Committee..."

OK. So...what is he going to do about that? Anything??

Everytime I express my frustration over the lack of ANY kind of charges against these Loyal Bushies [tm] I'm told..."wait, they are laying the groundwork." Groundwork for what? Maybe if criminal charges were leveled at these underlings we might start getting the real story from them. This is just insane!

And,yes, get all of these people at a hearing together! Why are they being questioned individually, so they can simply lie without contradiction?

Subpeonas, special prosecutors, criminal charges...isn't it time? Why are the Dems dragging their feet?

theWalrus wrote on June 12, 2007 12:40 PM:

Leahy: "Mr. Schlozman appears to have misled the Committee..."

OK. So...what is he going to do about that? Anything??

And,yes, get all of these people at a hearing together! Why are they being questioned individually, so they can simply lie without contradiction?

Subpeonas, special prosecutors, criminal charges...isn't it time? Why are the Dems dragging their feet?

via wrote on June 12, 2007 12:42 PM:

Well, that really makes me feel better. The Judiciary committee will let him lie under oath and then give Karl Rove a week to twist the story before closing the record. This is beyond belief. Dude, where is my country?

JL wrote on June 12, 2007 12:44 PM:

My opinion of the way Leahy's and the dems handling of the events is still mixed. I'm waiting for Sen. Whitehouse's next interview.

JL wrote on June 12, 2007 12:45 PM:

My opinion of the way Leahy's and the dems handling of the events is still mixed. I'm waiting for Sen. Whitehouse's next interview.

chisholm wrote on June 12, 2007 12:46 PM:

I guess the biggest question for me here is whether all this highly embarrassing and frustrating impotence is due to legal constraints--ie, something procedural is blocking this thing from having any teeth, etc.--or whether its due to the fact that Leahy, Feingold, Feinstein, Whitehouse et al are by nature weak and fearful. Because I need a clear answer as to why nothing prosecutorial/investigative is going on here. If I sat on the Senate Judiciary Committee I would have sought to have computers seized at this point--people are blithely ignoring my subpoenas? Hello?--but perhaps that goes to show that I don't know what I'm talking about (ie, there are legitimate legal obstacles to going forward, etc).

anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 12:49 PM:

So, why aren't they calling him back to testify exactly what the process was and what information or guidance he (or his assistant - I see Schlozman can play the scapegoat card too) received from the Election Crimes Branch.

For that matter, why isn't Donsanto being called to testify?

mo2 wrote on June 12, 2007 12:51 PM:

Laying the groundwork for causing Bush to have to deny the public their demand to have Rove fired. The more tightly Bush clings to Rove, the more Republicans who will lose their Congressional seats in 2008. And Reid demonstrated yesterday that he is seven Republican votes away from impeachment. Bush may not give a darn about 2009 and beyond, but other Republicans do.

litigatormom wrote on June 12, 2007 12:52 PM:

I have a question. How is it that an alleged voter registration fraud doesn't involve interviewing the newly registered voters? Doesn't voter registration fraud necessarily involve the registration of people who shouldn't be voting where they've been registered, or shouldn't be voting at all? So how is it that an indictment of ACORN wouldn't involve interviewing voters, or even if it didn't, wouldn't intimidate voters who knew they'd been registered by ACORN and might have decided to stay away from the polls as a result?

Am I just stating the obvious here, or is there something I am not understanding? What exactly was ACORN alleged to have done that was improper that didn't involve registering people who shouldn't have been voting?

litigatormom wrote on June 12, 2007 12:53 PM:

I have a question. How is it that an alleged voter registration fraud doesn't involve interviewing the newly registered voters? Doesn't voter registration fraud necessarily involve the registration of people who shouldn't be voting where they've been registered, or shouldn't be voting at all? So how is it that an indictment of ACORN wouldn't involve interviewing voters, or even if it didn't, wouldn't it intimidate voters who knew they'd been registered by ACORN and might have decided to stay away from the polls as a result?

gnomad wrote on June 12, 2007 12:54 PM:

Not that I'm a fan of lying snivelling whimps covering their arses, but in his original testimony there was at least one exchange where he clairified that the decision was his. It seemed more like incompetent use of language rather than disembling at the time. One of the senators asked him about it directly and he said it was his descision based on their consent.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 12, 2007 12:58 PM:

@June 12, 2007 12:28 PM

Thanks, Mr. O. According to Dave Helling of the Kansas City Star Buzz Blog (link below), the USA-WDMO's office sent copies of the indictments to the KC Star which were accompanied by the following memo from Don Ledford, Schlozman's PIO:

"Attached are four separate indictments returned this afternoon by a federal grand jury in Kansas City. All of these defendants are KC residents who were employed by ACORN. US Attorney Bradley J. Schlozman is not available for interviews, but issues the following statement:

Those who commit fraud in the electoral process dilute the votes of their fellow citizens and undermine the integrity of our democratic system. The Department of Justice will not allow such fraud to go unpunished.

This national investigation is very much ongoing."

Helling doesn't say what day the KC Star got the indicments but it must have been on 11/2/06 or earlier because the WSJ editorial is dated 1//3/06.

Maybe someone should ask Don Ledford if he usually sends copies of local indictments to the WSJ editorial board. Ask him, too, what day he sent the news about the ACORN indictments to the WSJ editorial board and who in particular he sent them to.

Too bad the open window for questioning Schlozman is closed. It would have been interesting to ask him if he was in touch with the WSJ or any right wing blogs about the ACORN indictments.

johnnydoughey wrote on June 12, 2007 1:00 PM:

Least anyone out there believes there will be no consequences for lying to congress, there will be a multitude of consequences... problem is, they will all be borne by the honest citizens of this nation who are quickly losing their democracy.

Two separate sets of laws... one for what used to be referred to as public servants (sorry, we lost those the moment we took away their accountability)... and the other one for the rest of us... is not new. It has occurred in many nations throughout history. As with many definitions which have recently changed meaning (torture, civil war, etc.), we are still calling our country a representative form of government, but even this meaning has been altered. It does bring fond memories, though, when our current boss stands up and says things like "freedom brings peace" and "we're helping them build a democracy" and "trust me".

Too bad... hopefully, we will at least end up with a benevolent dictator somewhere down the line.

sy wrote on June 12, 2007 1:01 PM:

Pat:

Stop sitting on your hands and issue the damned subpoenas.

johnnydoughey wrote on June 12, 2007 1:03 PM:

Too bad... hopefully, we will at least end up with a benevolent dictator somewhere down the line.

Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 1:06 PM:

I seem to recall some of the Justice Department cronies (in Wisconsin, perhaps?) saying that they did something "in consultation" with Democratic career officials, when in actuality, the latter were opposed to what they were doing...

Unmitigated sophistry.

tbhull wrote on June 12, 2007 1:06 PM:

Cut off DOJ funding.

Steve5117 wrote on June 12, 2007 1:14 PM:

All is not lost. We know that the Bush administration is, but a lot of people don't. Who have you written to expressing your disappointment with whatever issue you're concerned about.

Why has the President hired a bunch of new lawyers? The Whitehouse is well aware that there is a battle coming over the illegal activities that have transpired. Meanwhile, we will continue to chip away at dam they have built, piece by muckraking piece.

Barry Champlain wrote on June 12, 2007 1:14 PM:

Man, that is some loophole, if indeed it is one.

Loyal Bushie goes before Comgress, for the sole purpose of producing a sound byte. This is a clip that anyone running the story will use, and it is simply a brazen 180 flip on the truth; a LIE. This lie will run as a sound byte, repeatedly, and becomes the only reality, related to the story.

Then, at the eleventh hour of "keeping the record open", the operative sends a letter under cover of the night, "clarifying" his statement... basically by revoking it. There are no lights, no camera, no audio, no sound byte. In a sound byte culture, the comparative few who know anything about the issue at all only know the "she said" portion of it... which was always intended as a complete fabrication. With a get out of jail free card at the end.

Pure Rove.

Agathena wrote on June 12, 2007 1:14 PM:

The voter-suppression kingpin (I love that title) LIED as he tried to pass the buck. But isn't there a grace period during which a witness can revise their testimony? I vaguely remember this coming up during the Libby trial.

So the voter-suppression kingpin cannot be charged with contempt or perjury.

As Leahy's diplomatic-speak goes "he misled."

Austin Cooper wrote on June 12, 2007 1:14 PM:

I don't know who said it, but: Even if Bush started shooting five-year-old children on the South Lawn of the White House, in full view of the press corps and a bevy of cameras... by the end of the day it would be spun as something positive, and Scarborough would be shouting at a guest, "So you think it's better for the President to be a softie? Not do things that are tough so we're a better country? Huh? Huh? That what you're saying? No, don't weasel around; I wanna know that's what you're saying!"

People like Big Brad have gotten away with all manner of breaches of law during the past six years: Torture, theft, wiretapping and eavesdropping; assault, coercion, perjury... even murder, in this clown college that calls itself a government.

And what penalties have they really paid?

exdem wrote on June 12, 2007 1:16 PM:

I really think that part of the problem with Leahy, a good man of tru conscience, is that he has such passion and belief in our system of government and the Constitution itself, that he is simply unable to see the the insidious malignancy of the neocons. Like the mother who can't see the clear signs of her child using drugs. That they have completely subverted the Constitution is unimaginable to someone of his integrity and sense of public duty. I saw the same thing with my father who served in the US Senate during Viet Nam and Watergate: we tried to tell him, for instance, that the FBI had our phones tapped but it was just inconceivable to him...until he received documentary evidence once the FOIA was passed. It was a devastating wake-up....

Dennis wrote on June 12, 2007 1:32 PM:

“It is deeply troubling that after weeks of preparation Mr. Schlozman appears to have misled the Committee and the public about his decision to file an election eve lawsuit in direct conflict with longstanding Justice Department policy."

Sen. Leahy makes a political point, "appears to have misled", tho perhaps not in the way the Senator would like. What's wrong with saying Schlozman (as sleazy a character as we've seen in awhile) is a LIAR?

The Senator may have faith in the political system, but most of us no longer are willing to believe in it or even say it.

If the Bush administration has done any good, it's to show Americans just how corrupt their political system (including the Supreme Court) is.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Expat wrote on June 12, 2007 1:38 PM:

Sen. Leahy and Rep. Conyers are playing right into Karl Rove's hands. The Republicans want to run out the clock and Leahy and Conyers are allowing that to happen with their foot dragging. They act as if they are in a parlor game when in fact it's a back alley knife fight. Their handling of these investigations is lackluster at best.

Shep wrote on June 12, 2007 1:42 PM:

QUOTE 12:37 PM "The last thing Senator Whitehouse said at the closing of Schlozman's testimony was that the record would be kept open for one week."

Well that's interesting, for sure.

Still if we stick to the substance of the ACORN indictments, and not the form of Sclozman's testimony, we are left twisting in the wind.

Schlozman is sticking by his guns that he *specifically* requested guideance from Public Integrity on the timing of the investigation and indictments. And he did, indeed, get the green-light to proceed. That's really the story here. On the ACORN issue, did Schlozman do anything illegal or against DOJ policy? Not really. He asked/argued that the policy was not implicated, and he was told it wasn't.

He the proceeded to act at his discretion. That would be prosecutorial discretion -- pretty standard, hate to say it.

I know I'll be slammed on this, but no individual voters' right to cast a ballot are implicated by the indictment, then doesn't the public have the right to know about the case before the election?

Let's suppose a USA had a massive voter registration fraud case against a conservative group (really, a massive one) but they "held back" in disclosing this until after the election. People would scream bloody murder that the public has a right to know if conservative groups are trying to illegally influence the election and they have a right to know before they vote.

Sticking to the substance of the ACORN issue, I can see both sides of it. It's not a slam dunk.

Ned Kay wrote on June 12, 2007 1:52 PM:

"Blessed are those who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed"
Expecting Leahy or, worse yet, Conyers to do anything is an exercise in self-delusion. Despite all their fulminations and implied threats, like the Wizard of Oz, there's nothing there.
And that's what makes reading the current blog so disillusioning. Nothing is going to happen to Schlozie, Gonzo, et al until Leahy gets some balls. In Conyers' case that's so improbable as to be just another case of wishful thinking.

ralph489 wrote on June 12, 2007 1:52 PM:

My God, the Dems need a backbone. Are they still afraid that if they subpoena people and try pushing court cases, that the White House will not cooperate?

William Ockham wrote on June 12, 2007 1:58 PM:

Mrs. Panstreppon,

There is a bit more information here:

http://buzzblog.kcstar.com/?q=node/529

Apparently, the Star got the statement in the afternoon on Nov. 1 and reported on it on the blog the same day. The paper carried the story the next day.

modmom wrote on June 12, 2007 2:00 PM:

ACORN's recent press release:

As U.S. Attorney, Schlozman took the unusual step of issuing indictments and making statements to the press about the case shortly before Election Day, contrary to written Justice Department policy. It remains unclear how or why Schlozman took jurisdiction over the case. When the indictments were handed down Mr. Schlozman issued a statement that read, in part: “Those who commit fraud in the electoral process dilute the votes of their fellow citizens and undermine the integrity of our democratic system. The Department of Justice will not allow such fraud to go unpunished.”

The statement neglected to mention that ACORN itself brought forward the evidence against these four workers who had defrauded the organization; that civic organizations are required by Missouri law to turn in all signed voter registration applications; or that the organization had assisted in the investigation.

Schlozman’s assertion that these crimes "dilute the votes of their fellow citizens" was inaccurate-- because no votes or voters were involved in the case.

The statement came at the heels of an intense campaign by partisan officials and activists to disparage ACORN’s voter registration drive, which was focused on low income and minority communities.

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=8540&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=19125&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=8359&cHash=cba7ac48aa

jolene wrote on June 12, 2007 2:05 PM:

Shep:
ACORN indictments were not at all "massive," so your entirely hypothetical comparison doesn't really hold water. There were 4 individual indictments, and ACORN itself as an organization turned the folks in and cooperated with the investigation. There was nothing at all systemic about what happened, as investigators readilly concluded at the time, and thus no pressing need to proceed with - and publicize - the indictments the way Schlozman did. He did far, far more than exercise "prosecutorial discretion..." he went over the head of Dosanto, the guy who WROTE the manual, twisted arms left and right, to get the green-light for the indictments. Then rushed the indictments out in such a hurry that he actually got one of the names of the indicted WRONG. His glaringly obvious motivation in all this was VOTER SUPRESSION. If he wasn't trying to hide that as his motivation, why else would he LIE (and then need to "clarify") that he was "directed" to indict? He knows what he did stinks to high heaven of voter suppression and he's trying to cover it up.

The whole "public's right to know" question is a willfull obfuscation. Prior to any election, complaints and allegations of voter fraud spike all across the nation. Do we have a "right to know" about all of these? If so, then WHY did the DOJ publicize and pursue THIS ONE in such a rabid, full-court-press kind of way? This context is integral, and its ridiculous to make any kind of argument that ignores it.

notKeith wrote on June 12, 2007 2:05 PM:

Goodies for everyone:
Schlozman gets contempt charges for lying to congress.
Goodling loses her immunity for the same reason.
Gonzales gets waterboarded. Maybe he'll "remember" something.

WHERE THE HELL IS ASHCROFT? Why doesn't the judiciary committee haul his lame ass in, and make him swear to ..um.. forget stuff?

The Ale and Quail Club wrote on June 12, 2007 2:05 PM:

You're all just witnessing the announced process of "gumming it to death."

Part of that strategy is relying on the decorousness of the Congress, and a slowness born of tradition.

This mob is giggling away, thinking they've got everything bottled up in procedure. I don't think it's done yet. Clearly they were all angry with Bradley the Chipmunk. Let's see if they enjoy being made fools.

pariswhite wrote on June 12, 2007 2:06 PM:

I look at this 'clarification' and see the third point in a predefined communications plan: 1) delay appearance before the committee, hoping the story loses traction and the public loses interest in the meantime; 2) lie if needed during actual testimony before the committee, so that the electronic record that sticks in public awareness optimally misleads; 3) soften the electronically recorded lie(s) under oath by issuing a letter of clarification that at most becomes an item on one or more of the talkinghead shows.

The committee could call him in again, right? How many times would a weasel do the dance?

anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 2:13 PM:

So, why didn't anyone ask Schlozman, if they didn't, why he asked for consent to pursue indictments right before the election?

Why hasn't he been asked what was so important that the policy should be set aside for this particular set of cases?

malcontent wrote on June 12, 2007 2:22 PM:

The time is nigh to start administering some good old fashioned vigilante justice, French Revolution style.

pariswhite wrote on June 12, 2007 2:26 PM:

The committee could call him in again, right? How many times would a weasel do the dance?

anon wrote on June 12, 2007 2:28 PM:

Hmm. I just went digging around on the DoJ site for various press releases and documents related to vote fraud investigations, etc. in AL and it looks like most or all of them have been removed from the site. IIRC, there were some interesting appointments, announcements, and investigations from the weeks just before the last couple AL elections. I was suprised the documents hadn't shown up here. Prompted by Scott Horton's piece in Harper's showing the connections between AL politics and Rove/Abramoff, I tried to track them down again and post them but, alas, they all seem to have been purged from the DoJ server. Perhaps they will show up cached in google... Anyway, interesting that they left the AL stuff until the Siegelman-Rove story surfaced. I think someone else mentioned missing materials on the DoJ website in Mukraker recently.

mo2 wrote on June 12, 2007 2:33 PM:

Todd Graves, Former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, testified after Schlozman about murder cases that are still yet to be prosecuted because Schlozman did not pursue them. Can the families of those murder victims file civil suits against Schlozman for his "responsibility for the decision to move forward with the prosecutions related to ACORN?"

Anne wrote on June 12, 2007 2:35 PM:

If you watch or listen to enough hearings, you would see that it is pretty standard practice to keep the record open for some agreed-upon period of time. This isn’t solely for the purpose of someone – like Schlozman - avoiding a perjury charge, but is also for allowing additional written remarks, statements or answers to written questions to be made part of the record; it can be a matter of there not being enough time to get it all on the record through open and oral testimony. With Schlozman, it takes on a nefarious overtone because we all suspect that he did, in fact, lie to the committee.

It is s..l..o..w. Snail’s-pace slow. The inability to get cloture on the no-confidence vote was disappointing, even if not unexpected, but at least it was not strictly along party lines, which takes away the argument that this was only about Dems wanting to open a can of whoop-ass on Gonzales.

I have to believe there is a lot going on behind the scenes with the committee counsel and staff. At this point, I’m thinking there are whiteboards, post-its, push-pins and string involved in diagramming the connections between and among the DOJ, the WH and others. I think it is much more of a tangled web than we realize, and I would rather they be careful about untangling it than to go so fast they miss something that could be very important to the whole thing.

I don’t see them giving up. McNulty is appearing next week to counter some of what Goodling testified to, and the more the committee can get them to fight among themselves, on the record, the closer they get to the point where there is going to be an obvious need to have a special prosecutor appointed and a grand jury empaneled.

That it isn’t going to happen on OUR timetable doesn’t mean it isn’t ever going to happen. That nothing is happening in front of a committee doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot going on behind the scenes, and none of it means the Dems aren’t committed to seeing it through.

Jennifer wrote on June 12, 2007 2:36 PM:

> Basicaly it's ok to lie to congress until you
> get caught, and at that point all you have to
> do is simply change your statement.

Isn't this what Rove did through the whole Plamegate investigation? How is it legal?

Jane wrote on June 12, 2007 2:37 PM:

We need the same rules for everybody. When you hire the down and out or the highly partisan to do your signature collecting for you, the collectors have an incentive to pad the signature collection. This happened in a few cases to Acorn -- this is of little value to Acorn they need actual voters not ones subject to challenge for fraud. Highly visisble prosecution before the election. In PA Santorum and company padded signatures to get a Green senatorial candidate on the ballot which they anticipated would give them a substantial enough benefit to win that election but the voters had wised up. No prosecution by Mary Beth Buchanan who should be called to testify on why not.

DOJ needs to be even handed or under indictment itself (honest career officials always excepted and kudos to those who have stayed in office to fight the bad guys.)

tamiasmin wrote on June 12, 2007 2:37 PM:

At the hearing, Sen. Schumer asked Schlozman, "He [Donsanto] will state, if we ask him, explicitly, with no reservation, he ordered you to do it or said it was OK to go ahead and do it?"

Schlozman answered, "That is correct." [YouTube on TPMmuckraker June 5, 2007, 07:20pm]

That seems clear enough to need no clarification.

tamiasmin wrote on June 12, 2007 2:40 PM:

At the hearing, Sen. Schumer asked Schlozman, "He [Donsanto] will state, if we ask him, explicitly, with no reservation, he ordered you to do it or said it was OK to go ahead and do it?"

Schlozman answered, "That is correct." [YouTube on TPMmuckraker June 5, 2007, 07:20pm]

That seems clear enough to need no clarification.

Jane wrote on June 12, 2007 2:41 PM:

DOJ needs to be even handed or under indictment itself (honest career officials always excepted and kudos to those who have stayed in office to fight the bad guys.)

cevrero wrote on June 12, 2007 2:43 PM:

Isn't registering to vote part of the voting process? So his clarification says:
1) He didn't follow orders from ECB(Dosante), but made his decision based on their advise.
2) He calls the redbook "informal" again, after the Senators argued it was not informal.
3) He says fraud in registering to vote is not voting fraud. He points out that the investigation happened during the voting registration period. Although the indictments were brought out only a couple of days before voting. I would argue the investigation continued until the indictments were served.

Well, I don't see much difference in his testimony than in his clarification except he says he takes full responsibility. That's the same tactic Gonzales used,..."He wasn't involved but he take responsibility"

Well, we know he's a loyal bushie. Can we do anything about it?

josh s wrote on June 12, 2007 2:44 PM:

How come no one has commented, anywhere, that the guys sounds like he inhaled a tank of helium before he testifed? Could he sound more like a total weasel? Everytime he spoke two things were clear: 1) He is a total liar and 2) If he were ever anywhere near me, I would go over and punch him in the mouth because his voice would be like nails on a chalkboard. Who are all of these people? What rock does the current administration have to look under to get these dregs of humanity to work for them? Why doesn't anyone state what is so clearly obvious about all of this mess? Our country is run by LIARS. Everytime any one of them opens their mouths THEY ARE LYING. Can someone, besides Olbermann, just say that once? Thank God I live in NYC and never have to deal with shmucks like him.

josh s wrote on June 12, 2007 2:46 PM:

josh s wrote on June 12, 2007 2:50 PM:

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 12, 2007 2:54 PM:

@June 12, 2007 01:58 PM

Thanks again, Mr. O. To sum up, Schlozman's PIO, Don Ledford, sent the ACORN indictments with a memo to the press on the afternoon of Nov 1, 2006.

The Wall Street Journal did not report any news about the ACORN indictments but on Nov 3, 2006, the WSJ published a scathing editorial about ACORN, "The ACORN Indictments".

The WSJ anti-ACORN editorial was replete with a quote from American Center for Voting Rights director and general counsel, Mark "Thor" Hearne:

"Acorn and its affiliates have pulled some real stunts in recent years. In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a Congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained Acorn's practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.

"You have to wonder what's the point of that, if not to overwhelm the system and get phony registrations on the voter rolls," says Thor Hearne of the American Center for Voting Rights, who also testified at the hearing. "These were Democratic officials saying that they felt their election system in Ohio was under assault by these kinds of efforts to game the system."

Bradley Schlozman told the SJC that he had no idea that the ACORN indictments would be a politically charged issue yet Bradley Schlozman worked in the DOJ Civil Rights section when the American Center for Voting rights submitted complaints about ACORN to the DOJ.

Did Schlozman read the ACVR March 2005 and the August 2005 reports about voter fraud that were submitted to Chairman Bob Ney's Government Administration Committee?

Forget the WH. What was the nature of Schlozman's correspondence with Mark "Thor" Hearne before the ACORN indictments were issued?

josh s wrote on June 12, 2007 2:57 PM:

nolo wrote on June 12, 2007 3:05 PM:

it seems mcnulty will be
next, over at the house judiciary
committee -- but let's not lose
sight of the fact, here that
gonzales is th goal -- not schlozman.

now, as a former prosecutor, leahy
know that hinting broadly at lying
before congress charges as to schlozman
brings new pressure to bear on gonzo. . .

look for letters, or perhaps a subpoena,
directly, to gonzo -- asking for the truth
about caging, and the vote supression, and
the ACORN matter. then, look for an end-game
asserting gonzo lied to congress -- sweating
schlozman to give the details of said lies.

much more at the link under my name, below.

nolo wrote on June 12, 2007 3:08 PM:

B R E A K I N G:

it seems paul mcnulty will be
next, over at the house judiciary
committee -- but let's not lose
sight of the fact, here that
gonzales is th goal -- not schlozman.

now, as a former prosecutor, leahy
know that hinting broadly at lying
before congress charges as to schlozman
brings new pressure to bear on gonzo. . .

much more at the link under my name, below.

Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 3:11 PM:

Slightly off topic...
but...
reminder that Wednesday, June 13, 10:00 a.m. Eastern, Committee on Rules and Administration
HEARINGS will hold Nominations to the Federal Election Commission hearings, carried live via Real Player on their website
http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2007/061307hrg.htm

wherein we may follow nomination of the Von
Sponsky ( sp???) rat and see if the comm. members have gotten all of our e-mails .

yeah yeah yeah...I know...
but I am an optimist....
perhaps worth watching if only to see if he has an annoying voice, big head, and no nouns in his sentences.

mo2 wrote on June 12, 2007 3:22 PM:

SCHLOZMAN: Senator, I acted at the direction of the director of the Election Crimes Branch in the Public Integrity Section.

We asked whether he wanted us to go forward or delay until after the election, and he said, "Go forward," in e-mail traffic.
***
Then Scholzman revises thusly: "the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case consulted with the Election Crimes Branch prior to the filing of the indictments"

*****
I hope he is asked to produce his "email traffic" and the AUSA assigned to the case is asked for their correspondences, too.

rlogan wrote on June 12, 2007 3:52 PM:

Congress has earned the contempt all of these witnesses have for it.

Woodhall Hollow wrote on June 12, 2007 4:06 PM:

I normally wouldn't make fun of someone's voice. But Scholzman's voice is worth talking about. When a person is not speaking authentically, their throat tends to constrict (fear), thus they don't speak from their diaphram (gut). They go into their 'heads' (like Goodlings high voice). Sometimes it comes out all nasally, like Scholzman's. When a person has spent a lifetime being inauthentic, it becomes habit.

When people are really speaking what they really feel, their voices tend to drop. There is more 'air' so to speak, they are letting it flow.

tockeyhockey wrote on June 12, 2007 4:12 PM:

this will be fun to watch. democrats make a big fuss. nothing happens.

yawn...

Mark F. wrote on June 12, 2007 4:23 PM:

This is all well and good, but are we starting to see some serious mission creep here? And is part of the reason for that mission creep possibly due to the fact that the committee wants to appear to be doing something while still avoiding taking any real legal action? When are we going to see some real subpoenas with some real teeth? When will we move beyond pointless votes of no confidence and on to impeachment proceedings for the AG? When will we finally see those "lost" emails? When, in short, WILL SOMEONE FINALLY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS OBVIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?

Or is this all just political theater like the Republicans claim it is?

eliot wrote on June 12, 2007 4:23 PM:

Hey Josh and TPM crew. Is there any reason you guys are choosing to knowingly ignore the video interviews with the fired US attorneys posted on truthout and reported by Jason Leopold?

Is it a personal decision based on you're fear of saying something nice about the reporter? If so, grow up. You're depriving your loyal readers of news.

If anyone wants to see a good interview with McKay and get his take on Schlozman here is the linkhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061207J.shtml

eliot wrote on June 12, 2007 4:25 PM:

Hey Josh and TPM crew. Is there any reason you guys are choosing to knowingly ignore the video interviews with the fired US attorneys posted on truthout and reported by Jason Leopold?

Is it a personal decision based on you're fear of saying something nice about the reporter? If so, grow up. You're depriving your loyal readers of news.

If anyone wants to see a good interview with McKay and get his take on Schlozman here is the linkhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061207J.shtml

eliot wrote on June 12, 2007 4:26 PM:

Hey Josh and TPM crew. Is there any reason you guys are choosing to knowingly ignore the video interviews with the fired US attorneys posted on truthout and reported by Jason Leopold?

Is it a personal decision based on you're fear of saying something nice about the reporter? If so, grow up. You're depriving your loyal readers of news.

If anyone wants to see a good interview with McKay and get his take on Schlozman here is the linkhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061207J.shtml

eliot wrote on June 12, 2007 4:26 PM:

Hey Josh and TPM crew. Is there any reason you guys are choosing to knowingly ignore the video interviews with the fired US attorneys posted on truthout and reported by Jason Leopold?

Is it a personal decision based on you're fear of saying something nice about the reporter? If so, grow up. You're depriving your loyal readers of news.

If anyone wants to see a good interview with McKay and get his take on Schlozman here is the linkhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061207J.shtml

eliot wrote on June 12, 2007 4:31 PM:

sincere apologies for the quadruple posting. that was an error on my part and unintentional

David McGiffert wrote on June 12, 2007 4:33 PM:

Another weasel from the pack.
I can just imagine having this goof-ball sic'ed
on a case.
It stands credibility on it's head when these
people are asked to explain themselves.
If it weren't so dangerous, it might be humorous.
But these people are dangerous; to us, to the country and to the Constitution they supposedly work to uphold.

Get these guys out of here!

David

Mark F. wrote on June 12, 2007 4:34 PM:

Thanks Jason, err... eliot for the link. Interesting interview.

You might want to write to Josh and send him the link. Or you could continue to just make pointless and ineffective accusations on this board, I guess. Whatever gets the job done most effectively...

jb wrote on June 12, 2007 4:40 PM:

Donsanto is the key. When will he testify? The 'bang' of this story is slowly, depressingly drifting towards whimper. That's great news for Gonzales & Schlozman and very bad for the rest of us.

mo2 wrote on June 12, 2007 4:45 PM:

McNulty will be back next week. He tried to tiptoe the first time and the next day Gonzales threw him under a bus (from the same fleet as Goodling's bus). McNulty will be more interesting this time.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 12, 2007 4:57 PM:

Thanks, Eliot. Jason Leopold's interview with David Iglesias is worth watching, too (link below).

Early on in the interview, McKay says something I never heard before. First, he talks about Todd Graves being replaced by the very person who had been pressuring him, Bradley Schlozman.

Then McKay says that Schlozman supervised the submittal of a number of voter fraud cases to a grand jury for indictment. But, according to McKay, the indictments were thrown out by a district judge.

What is McKay talking about? All we've heard to date is about the ACORN indictments. Were there other ones? Who else was Schlozman targeting?

Someone needs to clarify this point asap.

Paul? Laura?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 12, 2007 4:57 PM:

Thanks, Eliot. Jason Leopold's interview with David Iglesias is worth watching, too (link below).

Early on in the interview, McKay says something I never heard before. First, he talks about Todd Graves being replaced by the very person who had been pressuring him, Bradley Schlozman.

Then McKay says that Schlozman supervised the submittal of a number of voter fraud cases to a grand jury for indictment. But, according to McKay, the indictments were thrown out by a district judge.

What is McKay talking about? All we've heard to date is about the ACORN indictments. Were there other ones? Who else was Schlozman targeting?

Someone needs to clarify this point asap.

Paul? Laura?

eliot wrote on June 12, 2007 4:57 PM:

typical knee jerk reaction Mark F.

Is there a problem with me coming here to post something under my name, which happens to be Eliot, without you automatically assuming, WRONGLY, that I am someone else? Apparently, facts don't matter to you.

I am who I say I am and I challenge you to prove otherwise

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 12, 2007 5:23 PM:

Shut up, Eliot. You're the one who is accusing Josh Marshall of knowingly ignoring Jason Leopold's John McKay interview when it only came out today.

What you should be focusing on is the intreview itself. Listen to what Mckay has to say about Schlozman's indictments that were thrown out.

McKay said that Schlozman's conduct was "very disturbing to all of us." He also says that the judge throwing out Schlozman's indictments was "very unusual circumstances."

"Very disturbing" and "very unusual"? A number of Schlozman's indictments for voter fraud were tossed out by a US district judge?

Did John McKay just hand the smoking gun to the SJC?

McKay is really, really pissed off at Sampson's suggestion that he was fired over the Tom Wales case.

"Paybacks are a bitch" is what I always say!

Long Memory wrote on June 12, 2007 5:23 PM:

There are repeated references above to the weakened state of the Democrats in charge of Congress, and while it's true they bring much of the current distrust on themselves (especially you, Harry Reid), let's not forget that they ARE stuck at 50-50 with with Judas -- er, I mean, Joe -- Leiberman having already sold out his soul and his party.

They are weak. I wish it weren't so. But I don't believe the electorate is enamored of the GOP, which won't do the right thing, but WILL snicker at the other side because the GOP can getaway with wiping its collective ass with the Constitution

Mark wrote on June 12, 2007 5:35 PM:

What a total crock. Schlozman says that, as required by Section 9-85.210 of the U.S. Attorney's Manual (a document that it was not at all clear he had read, as evidenced by his lame testimony when asked that specific question at the hearing), at his request, the Assistant USA assigned to the case "consulted with" the Election Crimes Branch prior to the filing of the indictments. He goes on to say, for the sake of "clarity", that he "relied on the consultation with, and suggestions of, the Election Crimes Branch" in bringing the indictments (and takes "full responsibility" for the decision to do it, whatever the fark that means.)

If Craig Donsanto had been involved in those consultations, don't you think the clarification would have mentioned Donsanto by name (as Schlozman did several times under intense questioning by Leahy, Feingold and others) and if the Election Crimes Branch (or Donsanto) had given them "the green light," don't you think that the clarification would have said that explicitly, instead of referring to "consultations" and "suggestions" of the ECB as the basis for going forward so close to the election? I would guess that a lower level Bushie in the Election Crimes Branch, probably a graduate of the Regent College School of Theocracy . . er . . I mean School of Law who was appointed to the job by Dubya, told the Assistant USA that even though the manual says you shouldn't indict so close to an election unless the case is prejudiced if you don't, nevertheless, you are damned if you do indict now (for violating the policy stated in the manual) and damned if you don't (for waiting until after the election when you are ready now), so we think it's up to you.

There is no limit to how this administration will misuse power for its partisan political ends. That might be understandable (though still reprehensible) if they actually had won the 2000 election that put the chimp in the White House in the first place. But that election was won through GOP election fraud (of the type that you can bet the Election Crimes Branch simply won't investigate) and 9 months later, Bush's illegitimate presidency had new life breathed into it by 9/11, and they have never looked back when it comes to corrupting the government for politics. If this isn't a centerpiece in Rove's strategy to create a permanent GOP majority (by supressing the votes of those who would oppose them), then I don't know what is.

Steve Gabel wrote on June 12, 2007 6:49 PM:

Read it carefully:
"I want to be clear that, while I relied on the consultation with, and suggestions of, the Election Crimes Branch in bringing the indictments when I did, I take full responsibility."

First, even a non-lawyer knows that when you ask a lawyer a question, the question matters a lot. In my work, I don't ask our attorneys whether I can do something; I ask them how. Second, Schlozman does not say what questions he asked. My guess is he asked them after he'd decided what to do, and asked how, or for an analysis. And, my further guess is that his answer was "on the one hand .... but on the other."

His answer is not inconsistent with a scenario such as this. He does not even say that the suggestions were to act. Weasel words.

eliot wrote on June 12, 2007 7:22 PM:

shut up?

How old are you?

No you shut up :)

Shep wrote on June 12, 2007 7:46 PM:

tamiasmin wrote QUOTE:

"At the hearing, Sen. Schumer asked Schlozman, "He [Donsanto] will state, if we ask him, explicitly, with no reservation, he ordered you to do it or said it was OK to go ahead and do it?"

Schlozman answered, "That is correct." [YouTube on TPMmuckraker June 5, 2007, 07:20pm]

That seems clear enough to need no clarification.
++++++++++++++++
END QUOTE

So, the problem is that is a compound question to which the answer was "yes." Q: Were you (a)ordered to do it, OR (b) told it was OK to proceed? A: Yes.

Quality of the Question: F-
Quality of the Answer: F+
Quality of the Follow Up to clarify: F-

Even in his "clarification" Schloz says that he consulted with Public Integrity and was told that the "policy" didn't apply. If that isn't a "green light" to proceed at will, not sure what is.

Todd Elkins wrote on June 12, 2007 7:54 PM:

The Kansas City Voting Rights Massacre justs gets better and better.

Those of us at ground zero, knew at the time that they were out to get us. The question still remains about who "they" is.

I hope TPM can answer the big question, but I'm still concerned about the little guys in this. Who is going to support a call for Pardoning the ACORN4?

Todd Elkins wrote on June 12, 2007 8:12 PM:

The Kansas City Voting Rights Massacre justs gets better and better.

Those of us at ground zero, knew at the time that they were out to get us. The question still remains about who "they" is.

I hope TPM can answer the big question, but I'm still concerned about the little guys in this. Who is going to support a call for Pardoning the ACORN4?

Sara wrote on June 12, 2007 8:18 PM:

Yesterday, Tom Paine had a very interesting article on ACORN. Please read, as much of the detail about the problems ACORN has faced with Voter Registeration = education are described here.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/11/out_to_get_acorn.php

This is an article by John Atlas, published June 11th 2007, should the URL not have come out properly.

It seems that ACORN has been targeted for several election cycles by Bush Appointees -- and time is for either Conyers or Leahy to ask ACORN to come in and describe their encounters with DOJ on a national basis. Sclotz made the argument that it is a national investigation, grand jury material, and he can't talk about it -- but that doesn't mean ACORN's lawyers can't describe what has happened -- and this goes back at least to 2000.

ACORN projects sadly have been targeted by Republican Operatives out to discredit the voter registeration projects -- but ACORN also got a reputation among other groups that do Democratic voter registeration drives, as not being particularly interested in co-operation. In 2006 I think they learned from past problems and criticism that it is better to co-operate, particularly with respect to using training programs for workers so as to avoid being the victim of those who do not wish ACORN well. I think the improvement in 2006 indicates they have taken the well intentioned criticism seriously, and have taken steps to avoid previous problems. It would be useful for Conyers and Leahy to hear the specifics from them -- probably a lot more honest that what DOJ could provide.

Sara wrote on June 12, 2007 8:19 PM:

Yesterday, Tom Paine had a very interesting article on ACORN. Please read, as much of the detail about the problems ACORN has faced with Voter Registeration = education are described here.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/11/out_to_get_acorn.php

This is an article by John Atlas, published June 11th 2007, should the URL not have come out properly.

Sara wrote on June 12, 2007 8:20 PM:

Yesterday, Tom Paine had a very interesting article on ACORN. Please read, as much of the detail about the problems ACORN has faced with Voter Registeration = education are described here.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/11/out_to_get_acorn.php

This is an article by John Atlas, published June 11th 2007, should the URL not have come out properly.

Todd wrote on June 12, 2007 8:50 PM:

Sarah, you keep repeating yourself! As did I. We both kept on getting 500 errors.! ;-)

bohdi wrote on June 13, 2007 1:14 AM:

I said this weeks ago. The old men stumbling thru this investigation are pathetically impotent gasbags with no cajones. Their balls are shrunken down from years of carpet-munching abuse. The best game by far was played by the bush-jacobins. WAit out the media, exhaust the public with minutia and legalese and then watch the old farts who's best prosecutorial years are far behind them struggle to summon anything resembling an atmosphere of accountability.

Because Leahy lacked the courage to threaten these slinking little bastards with serious jailtime while they were lying in the midst of their appearances he lost control of the show. You back these nimrods down very easily by threatening them on camera. All of them are lightweight wannabes. Once truly cornered anyone of them would have sung like a canary. But Leahy and Schumer are charlatans playing at the game of prosecution and investigation. They are not real players. Simply examine their adherence to polite formality, their hesitation when given opening after opening and their body language. They failed their country miserably and they failed their Constitution. These limp old farts should have been shouting, climbing walls and screaming with red-in-the-face passion. Either that or they should have had immediate legal and passionate retorts and followups every single time they got skunked.

Duckman GR wrote on June 13, 2007 2:46 AM:

Dear Senator Leahy,

I'm very tired of your whining. Now is the time for Men to Stand Up and take ACTION.

IOW, DO something, god dammit!!

JohnVA wrote on June 13, 2007 9:49 AM:

The media has often said that the Dems where over reaching on thier Iraq funding bills and even in these Justice Department investigations and now that there is polling to suggest that we are unhappy with Congress; the media is pointing to over reaching as the cause.
They have missed it again, people are dissapointed with Congress because they are not doing more; not because they are over reaching. They investigate and investigate but no one is held accountable other than looking stupid sometimes which we all know looking stupid doesn't bother this administration at all.

Perfect code word for my post "Tooth" as is when are these investigations or Iraq bills going to have some "Teeth"?

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 10:15 AM:

Posted by: Expat
Date: June 12, 2007 01:38 PM

Continue to be clueless, and to bash the Democrats because the REPUBLICANS are foot-dragging.

Pro-Bushit troll.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 10:20 AM:

"So what's Leahy gonna do now?

"Ooh, I know: he'll send a sternly worded letter. That ALWAYS works.

"code word: "false" as in "false promises".

"Posted by: brendan
Date: June 12, 2007 12:28 PM"

"LEAHY TO SUBPOENA WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING DOCS
The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a business meeting on Thursday to authorize subpoenas for any legal opinions and advice the Bush administration has received regarding the NSA’s domestic spying program.
(Think Progress)"

Stop being a clueless know-it-all twit.

Stop being a pro-Bushit troll who bashes Democrats because the foot-draggers are REPUBLICAN.

In simpler language you might be able to understand: stop being an ass.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 10:32 AM:

So, someone tell me it's okay and going according to plan. Anyone? Hello?

(SFX crickets)

Posted by: Rusty
Date: June 12, 2007 12:36 PM

The Democrats aren't alienating anyone. The politically disengaged neophytes who refuse to accept the facts -- if they are even aware of those basics -- are alienating themselves by relying on their ignorance of how investigations are conducted. Such investigations continue between the public hearings you falsely believe are the only aspects of investigation going on.

As for the complaint, "Why aren't the Democrats playing hardball?" Is there only one way to play hardball? No.

First: Congress knows more -- especially about what it is doing -- than do you. And yet you presume to know better than Congress.

Stop the whining. And if you feel motivated to bash, then bash the REPUBLICANS: they are the foot-draggers and obstruction, not the Democrats.

The low polls on Congress are precisely the result of the disengaged having opinions based upon not having a clue, and not knowing that they haven't a clue. Thus they expect instant gratification.

Deal with the facts: Buhsit, et al., have been in power for over six years, and while they were establishing their extreme secrecy, they were totally unchallenged. The Democrats have only been in power for some six _MONTHS_. Yet you expect six years of covered-up criminality to be rolled back in six _MONTHS_!?

Instead of whining, use your time to inform yourself as to the proper functioning of Congress in keeping with rule of law -- due process. You bitch that you hate how the Republicans operate; and then you bitch because the Democrats don't act like Republicans.

Make up your mind: be intelligent, or be a pro-Bushit troll.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 10:38 AM:

My God, the Dems need a backbone. Are they still afraid that if they subpoena people and try pushing court cases, that the White House will not cooperate?

Posted by: ralph489
Date: June 12, 2007 01:52 PM

Obviously you know more of the facts than Congress, and better than Congress how Congress is to conduct investigations.

Why not tell them "how to do it," Mr. Expert?

KTM wrote on June 13, 2007 10:45 AM:

And what will come of this...nothing. How many officials have lied under oath and nothing's been done? How many have outright said they broke the law and nothing's been done?

Dear Pat, your rhetoric means nothing unless you DO SOMETHING!!!!!!

No wonder the Democrats in Congress have such low poll numbers right now...they're not doing anything to set an example. Where are the charges?

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 10:50 AM:

Posted by: jolene
Date: June 12, 2007 02:05 PM

Thank you much for those details. You're absolutely correct: context -- and the details -- are all important.
-------------

You're all just witnessing the announced process of "gumming it to death."

Part of that strategy is relying on the decorousness of the Congress, and a slowness born of tradition.

Posted by: The Ale and Quail Club
Date: June 12, 2007 02:05 PM

You believe they're being made fools of? You presume they're stupid?

Step back : at the moment, Schlozman is small fry. Let him think he's off scot free. (Or suffer the sleepless nights of the paranoid.)

Even Gonzales is for the moment irrelevant. The sort of case to be proven requires a great deal of detail because it so far must be by-and-large circumstantial. If there are to be admissions providing direct evidence, it will be later, once the circumstantial evidence proves guilt, thus that deals must be made.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 11:06 AM:

Posted by: mo2
Date: June 12, 2007 02:33 PM

I find it interesting that McKay, former WA AG, was criticized by main DOJ for "spending too much time" on his concern with investigatiing the murder of an AG from his office. Even being Republican roadkill doesn't matter to these "compassionate conservatives".

------------

"If you watch or listen to enough hearings, you would see that it is pretty standard practice to keep the record open for some agreed-upon period of time. This isn’t solely for the purpose of someone – like Schlozman - avoiding a perjury charge, but is also for allowing additional written remarks, statements or answers to written questions to be made part of the record; it can be a matter of there not being enough time to get it all on the record through open and oral testimony."

Exactly. Not unusual.

"With Schlozman, it takes on a nefarious overtone because we all suspect that he did, in fact, lie to the committee."

Yep. And the open period within which to add comment or corretion can include a watch on the apparently dishonest.

"It is s..l..o..w. Snail’s-pace slow. The inability to get cloture on the no-confidence vote was disappointing, even if not unexpected, but at least it was not strictly along party lines, which takes away the argument that this was only about Dems wanting to open a can of whoop-ass on Gonzales."

Thank you. Excellent point, and well said.

"I have to believe there is a lot going on behind the scenes with the committee counsel and staff. At this point, I’m thinking there are whiteboards, post-its, push-pins and string involved in diagramming the connections between and among the DOJ, the WH and others. I think it is much more of a tangled web than we realize, and I would rather they be careful about untangling it than to go so fast they miss something that could be very important to the whole thing."

Gad, you're right. Have you been involved in investigations in the past? (BTW: just heard on NPR that there are subpoenas issued to Sarah Taylor and Miers. So much for "Dems aren't doing anything.")

"I don’t see them giving up. McNulty is appearing next week to counter some of what Goodling testified to, and the more the committee can get them to fight among themselves, on the record, the closer they get to the point where there is going to be an obvious need to have a special prosecutor appointed and a grand jury empaneled."

Yes. And the closer it gets to the election season for the 21 Republican't Senators who face re-election, the more likely the number of votes from them in support of the Democrats -- the evidence being all the stronger -- will increase.

This ain't goin' away. And the Democrats aren't about to fold their tents and retire. The issue is there;' and they'll get to it, regardless lack of cooperation.

"That it isn’t going to happen on OUR timetable doesn’t mean it isn’t ever going to happen. That nothing is happening in front of a committee doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot going on behind the scenes, and none of it means the Dems aren’t committed to seeing it through."

Exactly tight. And it's about time someone in addition to myself pointed to those facts.

Your post deserves re-posting every time some immediate-gratification whiner pops off.

"Posted by: Anne
Date: June 12, 2007 02:35 PM"

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 11:15 AM:

". . . Mary Beth Buchanan . . . should be called to testify . . . .

"Posted by: Jane
Date: June 12, 2007 02:37 PM"

During the last two weeks/week-and-one-half it was reported that Buchanan lawyered up because she has been called by Congress to testify in closed session.

What lead did Congress follow to her? We'll have to wait to learn that. But Congress knows.

I would suspect it is part of a wide investigation of voter suppressions (and "enhancements") and the methods used to accomplish those.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 11:26 AM:

"B R E A K I N G:

"it seems paul mcnulty will be
next, over at the house judiciary
committee -- but let's not lose
sight of the fact, here that
gonzales is th goal -- not schlozman."

Small fry. The goal is Rove, and from wherever it leads.

"now, as a former prosecutor, leahy
know that hinting broadly at lying
before congress charges as to schlozman
brings new pressure to bear on gonzo. . ."

On Rove, the director of it all.

"look for letters, or perhaps a subpoena,
directly, to gonzo -- asking for the truth
about caging, and the vote supression, and
the ACORN matter. then, look for an end-game
asserting gonzo lied to congress -- sweating
schlozman to give the details of said lies."

At 11 am this morning (6/13) NPR reported subpoenas to Sarah Taylor and Miers.

I wouldn't want to attempt to predict where the investigation is going, as to apparent detours. Mary Beth Buchanan, with no known to this point involvement, has lawyered up in preparation to keeping her appointment with Congress in closed session.

"Posted by: nolo
Date: June 12, 2007 03:08 PM"

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 11:31 AM:

SCHLOZMAN: Senator, I acted at the direction of the director of the Election Crimes Branch in the Public Integrity Section.

*****
I hope he is asked to produce his "email traffic" and the AUSA assigned to the case is asked for their correspondences, too.

Posted by: mo2
Date: June 12, 2007 03:22 PM

Was the director of Election Crimes Dosanto at that time? Or was it von Sakovsky?

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 11:35 AM:

Congress has earned the contempt all of these witnesses have for it.

Posted by: rlogan
Date: June 12, 2007 03:52 PM

Yeah, that's the ticket. Just like when criminals have contempt for the police shortly before getting busted red-handed.

That you don't know all of what's going on is your equivalent.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 11:44 AM:

"This is all well and good, but are we starting to see some serious mission creep here? And is part of the reason for that mission creep possibly due to the fact that the committee wants to appear to be doing something while still avoiding taking any real legal action?"

Investigation, testimony under oath -- those are "real legal action"s.

"When are we going to see some real subpoenas with some real teeth?"

This morning (6/13) subpoenas were reported as served on Sarah Taylor and Miers.

When you know more about "How to Investigate" than does Congress, let us know.

"When will we move beyond pointless votes of no confidence"

Not at all pointless. As "Anne" points out, seven Republicans voting for the resolution strips away the nonsense that it's a Democrats-only "withchhunt"?

". . . and on to impeachment proceedings for the AG?"

When will you get it through your stupidity that (1) Impeachment begins in the HOUSE, and (2) the Democrats don't yet have sufficient votes for that you demand because of foot-dragging by REPUBLICANS.

Get the facts, and speak in accordance with those. Or continue to be a pro-Bushit troll.

"When will we finally see those "lost" emails?"

You haven't seen those allegedly got by Palast?

"When, in short, WILL SOMEONE FINALLY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS OBVIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?"

"Obvious"? According to whom?

"Or is this all just political theater like the Republicans claim it is?

"Posted by: Mark F.
Date: June 12, 2007 04:23 PM"

No, it is not political theater. It is careful investigation in keeping with dure process.

You bitch about how you hate how Republicans conduct themselves. Then you bitch because the Democrats don't act like Republicans.

Focus on trying to make sense, instead of bashing Democrats because the REPUBLICANS are foot-dragging.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 11:54 AM:

"If Craig Donsanto had been involved in those consultations, don't you think the clarification would have mentioned Donsanto by name (as Schlozman did several times under intense questioning by Leahy, Feingold and others) and if the Election Crimes Branch (or Donsanto) had given them "the green light," don't you think that the clarification would have said that explicitly, instead of referring to "consultations" and "suggestions" of the ECB as the basis for going forward so close to the election? I would guess that a lower level Bushie in the Election Crimes Branch, . . . ."

von Sakovsky. He was the DOJ's expert in alternative -- partisan-serving -- views of election fraud.

Posted by: Mark
Date: June 12, 2007 05:35 PM

SC = snake. As in, The Republican Party is a snake farm.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 12:01 PM:

"First, even a non-lawyer knows that when you ask a lawyer a question, the question matters a lot. In my work, I don't ask our attorneys whether I can do something; I ask them how."

Not being concerned with whether it is legal; only how to do it.

"Posted by: Steve Gabel
Date: June 12, 2007 06:49 PM

I would ask first:

1. If it would be legal to do.

If the answer were "No," that would be the last question I asked on the point. Then again, I'm ethical. And a legal professional.

If it were legal to do, I would then ask:

2. How do I do it _within the law_?

Then again, I'm not about abusing power.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 12:12 PM:

And what will come of this...nothing. How many officials have lied under oath and nothing's been done? How many have outright said they broke the law and nothing's been done?

Dear Pat, your rhetoric means nothing unless you DO SOMETHING!!!!!!

No wonder the Democrats in Congress have such low poll numbers right now...they're not doing anything to set an example. Where are the charges?

Posted by: KTM
Date: June 13, 2007 10:45 AM

Another expert weighs in.

When will you be learnng something of due process? You know, like _evidence_ is necessary on which to base "charges"?

And who, pray tell, is to prefer "charges"? The foot-dragging REPUBLICANS?

The clueless who bash the Democrats are pro-Bushit trolls.

Tom Simon wrote on June 13, 2007 4:18 PM:

This is having an effect - the poll numbers are dismal for the Bush Administration and Congress. People are watching this unfold and seeing the lies for themselves. The closer to the election the more pressure to stop the bleeding on both sides. Who is bleeding the most will agree to stop it first.

ajdhyvnhj wrote on October 23, 2007 1:45 AM:

Hi!! Visit my site.

free gay brothers fucking pics
free gay butt fucking
free gay fucking
free gay fucking clip
free gay fucking gallery
free gay fucking movie
free gay fucking mpeg
free gay fucking pic
free gay fucking picture
free gay fucking video
free gay fucking video clip
free gay fucking video sample
free gay fucking videos
free gay guys fucking
free gay guys fucking pics
free gay guys fucking video
free gay hard fucking pics
free gay man fucking
free gay man fucking clip
free gay man fucking movie
free gay man fucking trailer
free gay man fucking video
free gay man fucking video clip
free gay men fucking videos
free gay muscle men fucking
free gay porn ass fucking
free gay teen fucking

aleidjfhru wrote on November 1, 2007 3:21 PM:

Hi all! Click links.

fucking grandmas
fucking grandmas ass
fucking grandpa
fucking grandpas
fucking granma
fucking granmas
fucking grannie
fucking grannie movie
fucking grannie picture
fucking grannie tit
fucking grannies
fucking grannies free
fucking grannies free movies
fucking granny
fucking granny boy
fucking granny girl
fucking granny vedioes
fucking grannys
fucking grant
fucking great ass
fucking great hard
fucking great password
fucking great sex
fucking great teens
fucking great tit
fucking greek woman
fucking grew i screw up up
fucking grew screw up up
fucking gril
fucking grils
fucking grils little tiny
fucking group
fucking group hard
fucking group hot
fucking group in
fucking group japanese
fucking group lesbian
fucking group movie sample
fucking group movie sample sex
fucking group old
fucking group orgy
fucking group party
fucking group pic
fucking group pic sex swinger
fucking group porn
fucking group porn xxx
fucking group sex
fucking group sex teen
fucking group tranny
fucking grudge

Map of site

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments:

Schlozman: What I Really Meant Was...

Comments (136)

Post a comment