Tuesday, June 12, 2007

scholzman, on his own "truth-i-ness"? -- erh, not.so.much.

this stuff just writes itself!

last night, bradley schlozman "corrected"
his testimony before the senate judiciary
committee of june 5, 2007
, by the below
letter. well -- it does less "correcting"
than arguing-finer-points-of-policy -- to
my eye, and from my perspective. . .
[click it, to view full-size:]

it also remains wholly-silent as to the
civil rights matters about which he was
asked, and demurred. . . see the videos, here,
and here.

when set against the cofident, cogent
and credible testimony of todd graves,
a.a.g. james comey and david iglesias. . .

it seems, even now -- even after his
non-correction/correction -- a
charge of lying before congress may
still be readily-proveable.

but that is just my opinion -- and,
for what little it is worth -- i'd
opt to save such a charge for mr.
gonzales, himself
. it may be time
to charge attorney general gonzales
with perjury -- before the house and
senate judiciary committees. . .

L A T E R. . .

senator patrick leahy clearly
seems to think so, as well:

Comment of Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
On Bradley Schlozman’s Letter
Clarifying His Congressional Testimony

June 12, 2007

“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.”>

and, yes -- i do think that is a rather
broad -- and direct -- hint at the continuing
possibility of charges against mr. schlozman.

now, in green, below, are excerpts of
mr. scholzman's june 5, 2007 testimony:

Excerpts from CQ Transcript
of June 5, 2007 Senate
Judiciary Committee Hearing

LEAHY: What about a role in the timing of the filing or prosecution of any lawsuit? Did you ever talk to anybody that this may affect an election one way or the other?

SCHLOZMAN: I don't recall making any comment.

And, again, I did what I did at the direction of the Public Integrity Section.

LEAHY: Well, and at your instigation. You could have also just followed the manual and waited a couple weeks, could you not have?


LEAHY: Would it have affected the prosecution, would it have affected your ability to bring the prosecution if you had just waited a few weeks until the election was over?

SCHLOZMAN: The Department of Justice does not time prosecutions to elections.

LEAHY: Well, yes, they do. That's what the manual says. And you, rather reluctantly, I felt, admitted you actually did read it when you became the interim U.S. attorney.

The fact is, would it have changed the outcome of your prosecution had you waited a few weeks to bring it?

SCHLOZMAN: I don't know. I doubt there would have been any impact on the actual prosecution.

Again, I acted at the direction of the Public Integrity...

* * * * * * *


I wanted to ask a few follow-up question on the ACORN indictments. Senator Leahy asked you about them.

As you know, the four workers voluntarily turned over evidence to investigators and they were cooperating fully with the investigation. And yet you went ahead and shortly before that election, you brought these indictments.

FEINSTEIN: And on page 61 of this book, it is rather clear that that is effectively a no-no.

Why did you do that?

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.

FEINSTEIN: And who was that that ordered you to go forward?

SCHLOZMAN: Craig Donsanto, the head of the Elections Crime Branch.

* * * * * * *

SCHUMER: Wait a minute.

He didn't even read the document. All he had to do was see that this was a few weeks before the election, and you don't do it.

Those of us -- I'm not a U.S. attorney. But those of us who are around elections and the system of justice know that those are the rules.

And no one before I heard has come up with the tortured explanation that you did to Senator Leahy that this isn't going to deter a voter from voting. That's not the point of this. The point of it is it might influence an election. Isn't that right?

SCHLOZMAN: Senator, I did not think it was going to influence the election at all. And I contacted...

SCHUMER: But that's not your judgment. You used your own judgment, being 35 years of age, not having a wide range of experience here, and you overruled something that is very explicit in the book, in the manual. Right? Isn't that what you did?

SCHLOZMAN: I got my -- I got my direction from the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice.

* * * * * * *

FEINSTEIN: Of course, you can understand how some of us might feel that it's politically directed.

SCHLOZMAN: Senator, I'm not aware that the state was ever -- I mean, these are violations of a federal statute, the anti-fraud provision of the National Voter Registration Act. So I'm not aware that the county prosecutor's office was ever even looking at this.

ACORN certainly did send a letter to the county prosecutor. And then the next day, the Kansas City Board of Elections commissioner sent a letter to the FBI, to the U.S. attorney's office and I think also to the county prosecutor.

But I'm not aware that the county was ever even looking at this.

FEINSTEIN: So you're saying, then, the only decision you made was the decision to file an indictment prior to the election?

SCHLOZMAN: At the direction of the Public Integrity Section, yes. . .

No comments: