I hope you guys are trying to contact Donsanto. As I wrote in a previous comment, I can picture Donsanto watching Schlozman's testimony: his face gets redder and redder, the cartoon smoke toots out his ears.
His response will be very interesting and very important.

Mr. Iglesias is not the lone ranger. Nobody believes this pipsqueak.

http://soundpolitics.com/The%20Federal%20Crime%20of%20Election%20Fraud.pdf
"Interviewing voters during active voting periods - Most voting fraud investigations require that individual voters at some point be questioned concerning the circumstances under which they voted (or did not vote). Such interviews should generally not be conducted immediately prior to an election or while voting is taking place. This is because having federal agents interview citizens about the circumstances under which they voted (or did not vote) can easily «chill» lawful voting activity by the interviewees, as well as voters similarly situated. This is not an appropriate result. Thus, the Public Integrity Section should be consulted before any investigative action is taken that anticipates interviews of individual voters during a period of active voting in their respective jurisdiction."

Schlozman said that he referred the complaint to PIS because the rules said he had to consult with them. He said that the PIS had given him the green light to proceed because no individuals would be interviewed. But to me the above (written by Donsanto) says that the Schlozman should consult with PIS "if" he intended to interview anyone. Since he didn't intend to interview anyone he didn't HAVE to seek consultation with PIS.

Schlozman appears to be twisting the interpretation, so who told him to do this? My guess is Rove via Sampson.

Is Schlozman the pipsqueak? Or is it 714Day?

Schlozman drove me nuts in his testimony...90 percent of the time he dodged questions quite moronically, and then every once in a while he'd make some unequivocal declaration, as though he was hearing voices telling him to make a stand.

One of those was his insistence that Donsanto approved his rush to prosecution against the ACORN 4. With the revelation that Donsanto was the one who literally wrote the book on these voter related cases, it makes one wonder if Schlozman is just setting up an adversary out of spite. Leahy and Schumer had to really smackdown Schlozman to give up any other names, but not Donsanto.

The DOJ fellas have trouble with their memories but are quite good at pointing fingers.

I find it amusing that most of the underling perps like Schlozman, Sampson, Goodling, McNulty, etc., have an unusual common thread. Seems to me they are from a class of legal aspirants who only possess a "color of class", that is, they come across as wanting to be competent attorneys but simply don't have the essential character or experiential traits necessary. Wannabes, if you will.

Stand them up beside Iglesias, Comey, Graves, Cummings, and any of the fired USAs and they just look like hacks! Is that the reason they were placed in those positions? Because they Were Hacks? Or is it because no self-respecting true legal professional would even sit in front of or take instruction from a Karl Rove or Pancho Gonzales?

"I find it amusing that most of the underling perps like Schlozman, Sampson, Goodling, McNulty, etc., have an unusual common thread. Seems to me they are from a class of legal aspirants who only possess a "color of class", that is, they come across as wanting to be competent attorneys but simply don't have the essential character or experiential traits necessary. Wannabes, if you will."

They strike me as psychologically immature -- psychological maturity being ethicality. I think they simply don't get ethics, the essence of ethics, the necessity for ethics. They are probably at least to some degreee -- Schlozman in particular -- confused about what they did wrong. They haven't had teachers or mentors who pointed out such things to them.

That would make them not "hacks" but wannabes. And that would be why they would be vulnerable -- non-judgmental about those who require they do wrong. And, of course, precisely why they would be chosen: on one hand, being put into such important positions would overwhelm them -- "love-bombing"/flattery -- and go to their heads. They would tend to feel they could do anything, and they would be covered.

I think it is that simple: they don't have a developed, mature sense of right and wrong. (Look at the Air Force General Mary Walker: Evangelical Christian, and arrogant -- and most obvious -- deliberate liar.)

"Stand them up beside Iglesias, Comey, Graves, Cummings, and any of the fired USAs and they just look like hacks! Is that the reason they were placed in those positions? Because they Were Hacks? Or is it because no self-respecting true legal professional would even sit in front of or take instruction from a Karl Rove or Pancho Gonzales?"

The latter is closest: they follw instruction slavishly; and having an underdeveloped sense of right and wrong, they will do anything "for the cause"; all they need be told is that it's okay, that they won't get into trouble; that their superiors will look out for them.

They are quite a contrast with the actual professionals -- who they probably idolize, until told not to.

"Posted by: BrickSykes
Date: June 6, 2007 11:13 PM"

Goodling is clearly intelligent. And she does have a sense of right and wrong -- and conscience. But I suspect that increase in maturity is quite recent. Schlozman doesn't seem to have much of any adversarial challenge in his life. He lcearly didn't know how to handle it from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SC = brain. As in, Brad "I Ain't Got No Brain" Schlozman.

The truth is right in front of us! If you can remember a majority of the important facts about your job, then you are clearly not cut out for this DOJ! SC=much There's just too much to remember

Boy the DOJ bus is getting some kind of workout, what with all these ranking lawyers throwing each other under the moving tires. its a wonder the wheels havent come off yet.

i think schloz, donsanto et al. have been playing a very cute old-fashioned game popularized by irish hoods in boston: don't speak when you can nod. dont nod when you can wink. dont wink when you can look the other way." dont be suprised if the entire firing scamola boils down to a latter-day version of "who will rid me of this turbulent US attorney." nod-nod-wink-wink.

My Dear 741 Day - perhaps you and the other Republicant Trolls need to take a deep breath & a deeper seat - as the adult ,non partisan ,& professional former & current career personel DOJ such as ex JAG Iglesias do the necessary work to protect & defend our Constitution.
.Schumer, Leahy , Conyers et al have already got the goods on BushCO. Even Ted Olson has given you all up re the NSA FISA illegalities. And Donsanto as well has ratted you all out on the voter fraud deal in Missouri .
And in a fight , I'd much rather have Iglesias on our side ,then Berensen. ALthough I will concede David Addington is pretty scary on your side. Course we appear to have drafted Bob Barr -who should be a nice counterbalance to Addington.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KYQdEt_1rOU&mode=related&search=

on that link, starting about 40 seconds, schlozie says he got permission "through email traffic." i may be missing something, but shouldn't that email be available to the committee and answer whether he was given permission?

Quote:

“I would bet dollars to donuts, given the timing that Donsanto NEVER specifically told little Bradley that he could go ahead and indict BEFORE the election, rather he simply gave him the go ahead to indict in an email WRITTEN before the election.”

++++++

Not me, I would be the opposite. Schlozman spent hours and hours reviewing the emails on this subject. He probably could have recited them verbatim if pressed. Schlozman waffled and hedged on a lot of different subjects, but not on this one. He was pretty much crystal clear that he had direct authority from Donsanto to proceed with the indictment. I don't think it is credible to think that Schlozman would blatantly lie about what Donsanto said, then *offer* up that there was an e-mail chain to back his statements up.

Now I’ve been thinking about this issue quite a bit, because Donsanto is a good-guy, and there has to be some reason why (a) Schlozman would finger point Donsanto, but also (b) why Donsanto would have approved this indictiment on the eve of an election. And I think that there may be some more subtle legal substance here. Bear with me.

Schlozman did give a hint that there may be a technical explanation as to why Donsanto allowed the case to proceed. He explained that the DOJ "book"/guidelines are about giving direction for the conduct of "investigations" of election fraud as it pertains to intimidation and impact on the ability of individual voters to exercise the franchice (i.e. chill voters from voting).

In the ACORN case, since no voters were to be interviewed, the investigation could proceed since no individual voter would be intimidated from exercising their right to vote.

To elaborate a bit, it seems that the subtle point is that DOJ will allow an investigation to proceed, in a public way, if the investigation might influence which candidates the voters will vote for, but will stop the investigation if the investigation will influence *whether* voters will vote or not.

I can see some logic to this. Ongoing investigations that implicate widespread fraud in the voting process are a matter of public interest that should be disclosed to the public in real time. But NOT to the extent that such investigations chill or discourage any individual voters from voting.

As that argument goes, the ACORN investigation was an ongoing matter of public interest and thus the public had a right to know about it. Likewise, that the government had an indictable offense ready to go, there was no public interest in holding back that indictment. It is absolutely true that issuing the indictment could influence the *outcome* of the election, as people could change their mind of who to vote for based on the facts of the alleged fraud. But, in theory, a credible case can be made that the public has a right to know this information and consider it. Just because an indictment can influence the outcome of the election, it could be said that the indictment itself would not have a meaningful impact voters right to cast a ballot.

Let's also consider that the DOJ guidelines really seem to discuss investigations and how/whether to conduct them during elections. Not indictments (formal criminal charges) and whether to bring them.

I think this is not a totally clear cut and obvious issue here. That's why I can see that perhaps Donsanto made a highly complex, technical and fairly subtle call, and Schlozman agreed. This kind of decision, on this thinking is really a "lawyer’s" way of thinking and not a politician’s way. A political thinker will say it is totally obvious that this indictment affects the election -- but a head-in-the-sand lawyer may not see it that way.

I'm not buying into anything. I'm just trying to figure out why a guy like Donsanto would approve this particular indictment to go forward on the eve of the election.

On this particular issue, it seemed to me that BS was probably telling the truth because it was so easily verifiable. So this leaves open an pretty interesting question.

Was Donsanto ordered by someone else to allow BS to file the indictment? Or is there a more subtle complex reason why it was allowed?

**One thing I found curious was Brad's insistence that he not only had permission to indict the ACORN people, but that he was told to issue a press release stating it was part of a "National" investigation. When questioned about the "National investigation," BS claimed it was something he could not discuss, because it was an ongoing investigation. Top Secret, you know? So doesn't this seem like a very big deal? Isn't this the office who should be protecting the vote, putting false information out there, just before an election, about a "national" investigation of Dems that did not exist? And you will remember, that there was a news article in the local paper from the Republican party, stating just that?

code: regret (where to begin?)

I seriously doubt BS got any formal go ahead from Donsanto. BS like his leader Alberto (I don't recall) Gonzales operate from a very low threshold of integrity. If there is no law against it they do it, regardless how tacky, slimy, partisian or unethical it is. BS has rationalized everything for his own convenience just like Goodling, Gonzales and Sampson did before him. Recall that Senator Whitehouse showed how to Gonzales that U S Attorneys nearly had to obstruct justice before their behavior was considered improper.

BS claims Donsanto gave him a go ahead via email. An email from Donsanto saying "there is no law against filing charges" would be all BS would need.

"[Joseph] Rich suggested that Schlozman may have appealed to Donsanto’s superiors. “I’ve heard that Schlozman talked to [Michael] Elston, which indicated he may have gone over Donsanto’s head to get approval,” said Rich. At the time, Elston was the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty."
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/07/schlozman-indictments/

When is a lie a lie?

when it is told knowingly.

This administrations ability to lie and lie and lie is amazing.
and what is sooo sad is that the Democrats seem unwilling to do anything about it.

Gonzales should go. if he can't remember all that stuff, then he can't do his job and the real question is why is it so important for him to remain?

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
aal associate international profit

ok.. bitte