bradley schlozman -- VIDEO low-lights -- his testimony clearly seems to lack candor. . .

well, in part two of this busy
news day in washington -- news, of all
manner of misdeeds -- by the bush-cheney-
rove-elections-by-"math"-and-invent-
intel-to-justify-an-iraq-war-machine
(whew!), here is some of bradley
schlozman's testimony before the
senate judiciary committee, of this
very afternoon. . . in a word: blech.

this six-minute clip of questioning
distills the alleged use of bogus
voter-fraud criminal indictments, timed
to influence the outcome of elections
in various swing states -- all in vio-
lation of long-standing department of
justice policies on non-partisan prosecu-
torial decision-making, especially at,
or near, election-time. . .

schlozman all but admits to this charge. . .
but in the next breath, he indicates that
he got approval from higher-ups to time
the indictments near the election. . .

and that is actually very bad news for
alberto gonzales -- schlozman is not paint-
ing himself as some rogue agent, here -- he
had the imprimatur of the DoJ as he did
these things.

[his later testimony -- in front of sen.
charles schumer -- delves into his earlier
work for team rove -- including, allegedly,
supressing african american votes in florida,
in 2000, via the unlawful practice of "caging". . .

UPADTED: 06.06.07 @ 4 p.m. --

josh marshall at talkingpointsmemo has done
a fabulous job of capturing, in five minutes, or
so, of those exchanges -- and the clip below
includes some excellent background, by josh,
for the "voter supression" neophytes -- do take a look:]

senators feinstein and leahy are
appropriately incredulous at many
of bradley schlozman's semi-answers,
semi-don't recalls, and his generally-
telling verbal-ticks (and coughs) that
seem to evince a lack of candor when
asked a question he'd prefer not to
answer, or not answer, fully. . .

now, todd graves is on, as i write this,
and one cannot imagine a more striking
contrast -- steady, sure, confident and
forth-coming is graves. . .

schlozman? not so much.