Typo in your headline: "Conlict" instead of "Conflict"

lot of partial implications there that leave many questions about general policy of the DOJ, iglesias behavior here as well. what is the task force? does that have doan or rover's footprints on it? I understand the red book says what you don't do, now explain how the other info fits in. is there a scheduled date that they begin talking about election violations? Or, is that task force a political tool?
why haven't any of these guys blown the whistle on this crap? these USA's seem to know a lot more than their partisan nature will allow them to say. I still don't get the impression that their "coming out of the closet" with these revelations wasn't to protect their own backsides.

are they hiding a very corrupt structure they work around? and why does congress have to feel like they are in such a hurry to get to the bottom of this cesspool? wouldn't thorough investigation by a special prosecutor have been in order weeks ago?

"He will state--explicitly--if we ask him, that he ordered or okayed you to go ahead and do it?"

"That is correct."

If he does, he's going to have an interesting time explaining how that comports with his own procedures manual.

On t'other hand, I still feel like there's a whole lot of bark and no bite here. The stonewallers keep stonewalling, Leahy gets pissed off, but what threat stands behind his anger? I see him (in the other clip) getting all huffy but in the end he's reduced to asking incredulous questions about whether Schlozz ever reads a newspaper. As opposed to any sense that "You're going to be looking down the barrel of a criminal indictment asshole."

I feel like the D's think it's enough to drag the thing on for whatever political points they may (or may not) be scoring. I keep thinking of that Sam Spade line at the end of the Maltese Falcon, to the effect that "other methods are no good unless the threat of death is behind 'em," thus calling the Fat Man's bluff and defusing his bluster. So far the amnesia defense seems to be working fine. Sure it's completely unbelievable, but so what? Where are the consequences? These guys are calling the D's bluff, and so far it's working. Do the D's know that? Sure hope so.

(And yes, I have an incredibly apt security code, but man that joke is getting stale. Worse than the "first/frist" thing that drove me off of FDL.)

All these attorney probe hearings have shown me is that if I ever get dragged into court and am obliged to tell the truth, all I have to do is answer "I don't recall" to any question. they can't prove that I'm not a moron. apparently this is an acceptable answer to a prosecutor's questions. :|

ps: I had a particularly long security code: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." but it seemed appropriate and everyone else posts their code so I had to add it :)

Re: SkippyFlipjack comment...
Sorry Skippy, but your premise is amiss. For those in high places, I don't recall is perfectly valid. For the rest of us, it is the equivelant of a no contest plea, and jail time awaits. Sad fact is, none of us common folk would ever be brought in front of congress for any reason, because it would not benefit their station or advancement. No, we would get the quick prosecutor, investigation, trial and conviction, without the spotlight.
See, spotlights are just for advertisement purposes... they really have no lasting affect... just for show.
It's a shame, though. I remember something in school which said that these honorable people elected and appointed worked for us to further our democracy.
Must have been a history class, because that does not appear to be the current intent...

I am going through the news media web sites.
There is no mention of the testimony today in
ABC, CBS, MSNBC or CNN. All they're talking about is Libby. Gee' you would think that our voting rights would be of some interest.

OCPatriot: I'm with you. Like I posted in my previous, I'm seeing lots of high dudgeon and very little that indicates any of that is going to amount to some jailtime for somebody. The amnesiacs all seem to be working from the same playbook, as usual, and as usual it's not clear to me that our team even has one. I'd gladly forego the meager satisfactions of these clips for a sense that there's actually a hammer somewhere that's going to be brought down on these criminals.

LIES ALL THE WAY DOWN

Watching today, I had the distinct impression that I was being lied to constantly, but in a way that was designed to take as long as possible to prove. Fortunately, however, heckuva-job-Bradley is no better at lying than he is at being a big DOJ mucky-muck. (Seriously, would this guy even make it past intern at a major law firm? And if so, does my cat have a shot? Even though I don't HAVE a cat?) There is probably nothing that he said more often during his testimony than "Donsanto said it was all right!" or words to that effect--except of course, "I don't recall."

And you just KNOW that was a lie, too.

MisterEd ALMOST has it. The caption should read: "Here's video of Schlozman testilying." It's a word I learned in Mike Grey's incredibly excellent book, Drug Crazy. It's what all the drug cops do.

Was there a specific target for prosecution being obliquely referred to in Iglesias's email? Or was it just a standard general announcement.

My suspicious nature wonders if someone was pushing a specific indictment aimed at a Republican, and the blanket email was written to squelch that without leaving fingerprints. Muppet-mouth Schloz could be telling the truth.

are they hiding a very corrupt structure they work around?

The idea is to raise more questions than they answer.

Did Schlozman pin it on Donsanto because he wouldn't authorize pre-election suits, and he's trying to trash him by assocation? Or does he foolishly think Congress won't verify Donsanto's story, supported by probably half a dozen peers who know his work?

Schlozman's demeanor is like the stereotypical lawyer whose principal interest is how to break the law, not follow it, and how to trip up opponents foolish enough to think the reverse is hwo it's supposed to be.

He seemed a tad too arrogant and self-relieved not to have left a buffalo herd-sized trail of manure behind him. A little hard looking and I suspect Congress would find it aromatic enough to prosecute.

But someone loves Bradley a lot, enough to have made him an interim USA with NO trial experience and to have made him a senior aide in the dept that oversees ALL the career and politically-appointed USA's. Now who could that be, and why would their judgment be so impaired?

My theory is that Schlozman brought up Donsanto to put another name into the mix. That, and passing the buck.

Seems like a real squirrel to me. This should be fun to watch. Jail time for perjury.. I think is 3 years. Isn't it?

They have govt appointed jobs, but they have no balls. They are todays eunuchs. they sing for the king.

I know a liar when I see and hear one, but I agree w/drBB too. I dont see this going anywhere w/out special prosecutor. Neither house has shown me anything, except making faces. So until some unknown character steps up to lead this investigation to the court or well of congress I'll be watching with growing disgust..

rl @ 9:15

No.

(They need to be taken to Alamogordo and Nevada, so they're less clueless than St Ronny was.)

Jeez, on this particular issue, let's face the facts. Schlozzie is probably telling the truth. He covered his ass quite well and likely can back it up.

Today the guy testified under oath (and of course he knows he's under oath) that he specifically checked with the guy who literally "wrote the book" on whether it was ok to file the indictments, and he got the OK to do it. He even testified that there were e-mails to back him up.

Sometimes, you have to face reality. Why on earth would Scholz write his own pass directly to jail if what he's saying isn't both true and verifiable? He didn't. That's why he didn't take the 5th or "I don't recall" himself out of this issue. He just up and told the truth. We asked the guys whether or not to file, and they said "go ahead." He has no reason to make this up.

Now, I very much doubt that the D's have the balls to call in Mr. Donsanto from DOJs public integrity section, a respected career DOJ lawyer, and grill him on the technical reasons why he made the call he made on this issue.

But if anyone still has issues on the timing of the ACORN indictments, it seems to me that Donsanto is the guy to ask, b/c Schloz did indeed cover his butt on this one.

who can find a link to the actual document outlining this policy.

I can't find it on the web anywhere. All I can find is some quoted language that suggests that DOJ should not conduct "overt investigations" during a pre-election period, but doesn't say anything about bringing indictments.

Can anyone direct me to the actual policy so I can read it for myself? This could shed some light on why this Donsanto guy may have cleared the indictment

"Girlie man" Schlozman was lying, lying, lying.

"Girlie man"?

Well, Schlozman either inhaled some helium before appearing, or he's auditioning as a "Soprano" extra.

Watching some of the members of the Bush administration talk their way around the truth is like watching Mobsters testifying before a congressional hearing.

And one could tell when "Girlie man" Schlozman was lying...his eyes started blinking rapidly while he looked off to the side.

Re: Donsanto's authorization, see also Schlozman's testimony to Whitehouse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuWYg3uAArw

***CSPAN ALERT***

12:35 AM EDT
length 1:07
Senate Committee
Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys
Judiciary
Patrick J. Leahy , D-VT
Todd Graves , Department of Justice

If anyone's still awake and interested.

This little girl is lying out of his fundament. Definitely a gender challenged and very confused little boy-girl who never matured normally but got stuck on one of the prongs of the phallic phase when his tiny organ stopped growing at 12 years of age.

Pathetic image of a human being. Reminds me of the lineup of diehards surrounding Adolph in his end of days. Frightened little boys who without some imaginary father figure fueher would just go back to reading comics and swapping pokeman cards. W. Bush the entirely fake man with the phony codpiece and phony cowboy strut like a guy off his horse looking badly for the nearest crapper would be just the caricature that most appeals to a little boy in first love with toy guns and chewing gum.

If Leahy and the other creaky old democrat wannabes can't come up with a practical solution to such shameless stonewalling and perjury than they deserve nothing but ignominy and scorn. This is all a clown show. Its a grotesque insult to my intelligence and is unacceptable in any culture that hasn't already consigned itself to the dust bin.

Are there any lawyers out there in the ether that have practical suggestions to make via this blog as to the immediate threat of prosecution for contempt and perjury of these scum fish and bottom feeders? Someone please releive me of my anomie.

Sadly, the dems have been given tee-ups for one home run after another and all they do is act indignant while in the meantime the criminal gangsters running the executive branch are two steps ahead into the next set of crimes.

If only they'd do something serious like call someone a "nappy headed ho" instead of committing war crimes, pulling off the greatest financial scandal of all time, rigging elections, etc.

Maybe then there'd be some consequences.

It would be very interesting to have Donsanto come in and testify now.

I wonder if Donsanto will be willing to sacrifice his reputation to protect Schlozma?

Eventually, I have to believe that the Senate will find SOMEONE in the DOJ that has some sense of integrity and honesty.

"It seems they knew he was lying and they were trying to get him to repeat his lie several times.

"Posted by:
Date: June 6, 2007 01:20 AM"

It is a rule in adversarial proceedings -- which these obviously are -- never to ask a question to which you don't already know the (actual) answer (and the answer) you will be given.

As for appointing a special prosecutor. Regardless the assertions to the contrary, the Democrats don't yet hae sufficient votes to do so. Howver, with 21 Republican Senators facing re-election, that should begin changing in Sepatember.

DrBB's sentiments are mine as well. I don't see how the voting percentages of the Dems and Republicans matter frankly. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me there is prosecutable/indictable criminal behavior uncovered already, and unless somebody is put onto the path toward to the 'House of Many Doors', the Rove functionaries will keep on chuckling at Leahy and spinning new tales.

Am I the only one scared sh*tless that most of the Republican candidates just used their debate time to advocate preemptive nuclear war?

Posted by: rl
Date: June 5, 2007 09:15 PM
----------------------------------------------

No. You are not the only one.

But what concerns me more is that they think that type of chest beating and pandering is going to HELP them get elected.

I am more terrified if they're right.

SC: screw

Starwheel: Right now the best outlet are the hearings and investigations. What show would devote the time and concerned commentary the issue deserves?

The blogsphere is perhaps the best tool, at the present, to keep the public informed, while pointing out the deficencies of the MSM.

Why is everyone so eager to see the Democrats move on what they have at the moment. Is the evidence going to become less damning over the next few months? Is the noose around Gonzales's neck going to get looser?

You're like a bunch of little Pete Domenicis "Where's my indictment?", "This Iglesias guy isn't moving fast enough; it's time he was removed!".

Get a grip.

"Damn it, they have to FIGHT for those votes. They need to EMBARRASS the Republicans. They need to rally the American people. We're not here to pat them on the back for trying. THEY need to rally US. We elected THEM to lead.

"Posted by: starwheel
Date: June 6, 2007 07:58 AM"

The no-confidence vote will accomplish several things: get a "sense of the Seante" at present. And force the Republican'ts -- 21 face re-election in 2008 -- to make a decision: an election is coming up -- do they support Gonzales? -- and election is coming up -- do they not support Gonzales?

Once the Republican'ts declare themselves on the issue, those who don't support him remaining can be worked on.

Meanwhile, even though Gonzales is at this point rather beside the point -- he's neutralized, and causing damage to Bushit, et al., and the Republican'ts -- he's a place-marker. He prolongs the issue, and prolongs the investigation into "him". Eventually the Republican'ts are going to have to make some hard decisions about whether they want to be re-elected. Whether they want Gonalzes hung around their necks during their campaigns.

Nixon would have kept fighting -- except that REPUBLICANS wnent to him and told him, "It's over." They doubtless did that more to save their own asses than for justice. But if Gonzales stays, it may come to that again: the REPUBLICANS begin pushing for impeachment.

Due process and proper investigation takes time. Patience is imperative.

Those emails are quie clear and strong on Desanto's position on the question. So Schlozman is going to have to come up with a document which is "signed off on" by Desanto on the question.

I don't think such a document exists because I don't believe Donsanto -- career professional -- "signed off on".

I suspect, instead, Schlozman was given his orders when sent to MO, by Rove, and that was not communicated through Donsanto's office. I doubt Donsanto heard word one about it.

So Schlozman lied under oath, and it's easily proven by the non-existence of that document.

I wonder what's in the "email traffic" he volunteered as existing.

The no-confidence vote will accomplish several things: get a "sense of the Seante" at present. And force the Republican'ts -- 21 face re-election in 2008 -- to make a decision: an election is coming up -- do they support Gonzales? -- and election is coming up -- do they not support Gonzales?

I expect and hope that most of those 21 will try to be "too cute by half" and not show up for the vote. That will really hurt them in the elections.

Schlozman also said that John Tanner was assigned the task of outreach to various groups. The Senate committee will verify this with Tanner.

Googling Donsanto shows that he has 30 years or more in Justice. He apparently is a career guy, so not likely in Bush's pocket. I found little on him other than his books. No Federalist Society, etc.

"Donsanto has been the director of the Justice Department’s election crimes branch for three decades. He manages all federal criminal investigations and prosecutions involving campaign finance and corruption of the election process." (his picture is shown, too)
http://www.ifes.org/newsinbrief.html?title=U%25S%25%20Election%20Fraud%20Experts%20Speak%20at%20IFES

Remember how Monica Goodling's lawyer said "Around the time Ms. Goodling became White House liaison in April 2005, Mr. Kyle Sampson told her that Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin had advised that Immigration Judgeships were not subject to the civil service rules applicable to other career positions."

Perhaps someone similarly "told" Schlozman that Donsanto had okayed the ACORN investigation days before the November election -- or that Donsanto had said "get tough" and they took that to mean "go ahead and ignore the manual." If so, who told Schlozman that kind of thing? And my guess is Kyle Sampson. So who told Kyle Sampson to deliver misinformation to murky the waters? Karl Rove, I would assume.

In short, Mr. Schlozman was mauled by the committee’s Democrats. Although I do believe that Mr. Schlozman quite likely perjured himself by not resorting to the ‘I do not recall … ‘ defense often enough, it will be difficult to prove unless someone presents direct and convincing evidence that exposes his lies.

However, notwithstanding his possible perjury and the admitted wrongdoing by some Justice Department employees such as Monica Goodling, I have come to the conclusion that this scandal will not go much further because of the lack of direct evidence of White House wrongdoing. Indeed, I believe that this is the most likely scenario even though both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees will issue subpoenas to several members of the White House staff.

This is a most unfortunate result because all of the players know that wrongdoing has occurred. The senators, the congressmen, and the attorney general and his underlings all know this. However, the ‘I do not recall … ‘ defense provides no legal recourse; it only makes the defendants appear to be grossly incompetent lackeys of the White House.

Perhaps the upcoming no confidence vote in the senate will result in Mr. Gonzales’ downfall. This however is not a certainty.

Has anyone seen a press release or other statement explaining why NO republican senators attended the Schlozman hearing June 5?

I have had a theory developing for a couple of years, which has been boosted quite a bit lately with all this testimony etc.

We are looking at a sub-breed of perps, of whom Cheney is one of the higher ranking visible members, whose defining characteristic is a total lack of compassion. They all share that lack because, as one subparagraph in the theory notes, compassion is hard to fake convincingly, especially now as so many of us humans are watching for it.

This personality may be the same one defined in literature as sociopath, of which some 3 to 6 percent of us are afflicted. But in the rush to exert total power over the govt, the breeding and selection process was sped up so that imperfect specimens had to be fed into the population. Like those with a short fuse who might shoot a fellow hunter in a sudden panic, and those whose shortcomings include a high voice and an inability to lie persuasively. The common trait in this group most valued is probably absolute loyalty to his minder, along with a refusal or inability to apply common sense or ethics in his management style; obedience only.

This recent (50 years) invasion of the sociopaths has been made much easier by the refusal of the 95% who would be expected to see thru the scam and do something about it, to recognise that trait and root it out or at least isolate those who have it.

Where this theory breaks new ground is in its recognition that at least some of these sociopaths are created, bred, inserted into key positions over time by a non-human race (from which they get the non-human outlook) which has its eye on the Earth as a new home for themselves.

One broadening variation is that this alien race is already here but deep underground and perhaps developing a way to emerge openly. Another is that there are a number of alien races, at least one of which is benevolent and looking out for our own (human) race.

I've inserted this bit of an OT post in response to the millions of words I read on sites like this one, which treat this govt criminality as a sort of abnormal abcess in an otherwise smooth system, to be corrected by our own institutions. It can't be that simple. I've watched Cheney for years now and he ain't no human being.

Elston & Donsanto--c'mon down!

They lie.

They do bad things.

We can't do anything: we don't have the votes.

When we GET the votes we will have other excuses.

Power corrupts.

True of people, party, politicians, nations,
empires.

Why on earth am I having the time of my life?

I'm not influential. I'm powerless, poor.
(lessens my corruption...:-)

I believe that it's a good time to be 79
...but that's my selfishness talkin'

Gad, but you are an interesting group!
Cheers!

Is it some kind of requirement at DoJ that these kinds all have voices pitched like their underwear's a dab too tight?
:-/
pjw

Here is a snippet from the guide by referred to in the post above - The Federal Crime of Election Fraud Prepared by Craig C. Donsanto Public Integrity Section
http://soundpolitics.com/The%20Federal%20Crime%20of%20Election%20Fraud.pdf

"All federal election fraud investigations must avoid the following procedural pitfalls: - Non-interference in elections. Overt federal investigation of election fraud matters should be held to a bare minimum necessary to preserve evidence and elicit the evaluative facts until the election in which the alleged «fraud» occurred has been certified. Once a federal criminal investigation is conducted openly in a matter concerning an as-yet unresolved election, the investigation will inevitably become a central feature in the election's outcome. Yet the issue of «who won» is an issue for state - not a federal prosecutor - to perform. Absent allegations of civil rights abuse actionable under the Voting Rights Act, it is not a proper function of federal criminal justice to interfere with the conduct of elections, the tabulation of votes, the resolution of election contest litigation, or the certification of winners. In most instances, this process is concluded within a few weeks of an election. Thus, in election matters lacking Voting Rights Act overtones, and except where as is absolutely necessary to preserve evidence or to round out a seemingly valid complaint to a point where an analysis can be performed on it, no overt federal investigation should be conducted in election fraud matters before the outcome of the election at issue has been certified by appropriate state authorities. The only exception to this rule is where a very limited pre-election inquiry is determined to be absolutely necessary in order to preserve evidence or to round out a seemingly valid complaint to a point where an federalization evaluation can be performed."

So Shlozman is the latest republican to employ the services of the mastermind republican lawyer Ike Ferguson. You can read all about him at http://schapira.blogspot.com/2007/03/welcome-ike-ferguson.html

My excursion into Google confirmed that 4 ACORN workers were indicted in November, but I have been unable to find out what happened to these guys. Anybody know?

Please visit the Schapira blog, What we know so far ... at http://schapira.blogspot.com

"... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"

What is the point of all these hearings? The dems are bunch of geldings who won't even attempt to do anything about these crimes. It is also interesting to see that the repukes didn't even show up to the hearing. Were they not invited? I think all of this is going to be just another free air time for these senators. Cmon, impeach the bugger and get it over with. Let's see what the dems can do.

I have been learning alot about our system of laws from this hearing and testamony form Schlozman. I used to believe one was to obey the laws.... I now know that laws come secondary to advise or direction coming from a superior. After all, going to prison for an employer is always the better, ethical choice!
This reminds me of numerous blatent disregards for our Constitution in favor of a powerful person.
Many of these folks take an oath to uphold our constitution. None, that I am aware of take an oath to obey a beauracrat ABOVE the Constitution. This is the choice more and more, however, since most of these clowns lose nothing for disregarding the laws. Oliver North was exempted from prosecution, Nixon is pardoned, numerous others are given immunity... very seldom is anyone actually paying substantial penalties for completely disregarding our Constitution and withering away our democracy. These are not small crimes. These acts affect the integrity of our entire country and future, yet an individual who is caught breaking and enterring will spend more time behind bars and pay more of a penalty than these scroundrels...