« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Schlozman May Revise Testimony
Bloomberg is reporting that Bradley Schlozman may revise some of the testimony he gave to a Senate Judiciary Committee panel this week.
Schlozman testified that he brought voter-fraud charges in Missouri on the eve of the 2006 midterm election under the direction of the Justice Department's Office of Public Integrity:
The explanation, which Schlozman repeated at least nine times during the June 5 hearing, infuriated public integrity lawyers, who say it implied the section ordered him to prosecute, said two Justice Department officials. Public integrity attorneys handle sensitive cases involving politicians and judges and pride themselves on staying out of political disputes.A clarification of Schlozman's testimony would stress that he consulted with the section and was given guidance, not direction, said the officials, who asked to remain anonymous because the matter is being deliberated internally. The clarification wouldn't say that Schlozman's Senate testimony was inaccurate, the officials added.
Schlozman's testimony angered Democratic senators during questioning. He eventually said named Craig Donsanto, the head of the election crimes branch at the agency as the official who gave him permission, despite Justice Department policy not to bring voter fraud cases right before an election. Donsanto literally wrote the manual outlining the policy, which has some people questioning Schlozman's account.
Josh
Zachary
Rut roh. Lil Schloz does not has any wriggle room on this one. I recall him using the words "absolutely" or "uneqivocally" at the direction of Donsanto, and had an email to back it up. The clarification would have to acknowledge the innacuracy of his repeated testimony.
June 8, 2007 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't get a second try on 'telling the truth.'
This Gonzales "I mis-spoke" business absolutely DOES NOT pass the smell test.
June 8, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
When are we going to hear from Donsanto on this?
June 8, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that these idiots get a second chance to tell the truth? The truth is the truth, no matter how you cut it. I can see where someone could state something in a way that could give a wrong impression, but "absolutely" and "unequivocally" are VERY affirmative regarding what one knows. What is going on here?
June 8, 2007 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So this is how the Bush Presidency will be remembered.
Bush got the presidency by questionable voting shananagins. And now near the end of his rein, little B. Sleazeman, is reminding us that this administration is all about voter-fraud.
Only the ones who need to be prosecuted are, "All the Presidents Men."
June 8, 2007 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No retestimony consarn it. Just call (with threat of subpoena)Donsanto. Simple, direct, and good politics.
code: warm
As in, Scholzman "Is it warm in here, or is just me?"
June 8, 2007 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess I was right. Bradley told a bald-faced lie when he said that Donsanto ordered him to do this.
Where is this guy working now? He should be fired, ASAP.
And isn't there something about lawyers having to tell the truth in order to maintain their law license? Can he be dis-barred for this little "fib?"
Security code: small, as in its a small world out there Bradley and there are "some" people who won't forget this.
June 8, 2007 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donsanto did not ORDER that guy to do anything.
He's a career GS-15 attorney.
Scholtzman was a presidentially-appointed U.S. Attorney.
GS-15's do not ORDER or TELL presidentially-appointed U.S Attorn eys to do anything.
All they can do is counsel.
Scholtzman exercised really bad judgment in this matter.
June 8, 2007 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could we have the state in which these goons are licensed added to the bios?
June 8, 2007 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is typical of Schlozman to take personal credit for the work of career civil servants, and to blame them for his personal misconduct. He did both dramatically and unabashedly in his testimony.
But it was far from the first time for either.
Schlozman is a walking, sitcom-ish caricature of an amoral, mean-spirited coward.
Scores of fine civil servants have had their careers unfairly damaged or destroyed by this person.
But Schlozman goes in and on, even keeping a high-paying do-nothing job at Justice while he contrives his excuses and diversions.
June 9, 2007 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
As survivor observes, Schlozman (and his behind-the-scenes willing twin Wan Kim) attempted to damage and destroy many fine and dedicated civil servants who worked for years on behalf of all citizens at the Civil Rights Division. They watch with relief as Schlozman is exposed for who he is. However, please do not make fun of Schlozman's voice and his mannerisms. The teasing smacks of sexism and homophobia. He can't help his voice and his "mannerisms." But he certainly can help his attitude -- which was contemptuous and disdainful of any perceived "liberal" civil servants in the Civil Rights Division. He needs to apologize to those he targeted as well as to the American people for causing really good people to leave the jobs they loved, with sorrow in their hearts. In just a few short years, the Department lost decades of institutional knowledge, judgement and experience that will take a long time to recover.
June 9, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, This guy should be disbarred for mis conduct and should definitely be banned from holding any public office. Schlozman emotionally blackmailed his bosses by his very nature as they just wanted to avoid conflict with him and his bitching,threatening and angry tirades.
His bosses no doubt told him, "this just isn't done " and then watched him go into some spin about how serious this voter fraud was and how he had information showing how "wide-spread" the fraud had become and their "neglect" and "avoidance" right now was actually more detrimental to free elections than his indictments. Then he would demand they not obstruct justice,and then rant and rave in that irritating mouse-y voice etc., etc., etc. His bosses probably said "well if you feel that strongly about it then,...I mean it's not illegal to do it...it's just not usually done. But since you're so insistent and feel it is absolutely necessary to stop voter fraud then go ahead...but only if you feel it is absolutely necessary. Just keep in mind that it's not usually done so I'm leaving it up to you to decide."
Schlozman's performance evaluation should include that he is irritating, rude, and has a negative effect on everyone around him That his negativity is so strong that it interferes with job performance. He is a horror to work with or around and the evidence is self-incriminating.
June 9, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schlozman is a little weasel who is a poster child for the corruption and hubris or this sorry administration. Give him a choice. Spill the beans on Rove, Cheney, Gonzales,et.al. or face perjury, disbarment, imprisonment, and hopefully severe abuse in a federal pen..
June 9, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that at his hearing, the only time that Schlozman wasn't distorting, spinning or outright lying was when he gave his name. For instance, recall at the outset of his prepared statement when he presented seemingly impressive statistics showing the dramatic increase in the number of human trafficking cases brought in the last six years by the Bush administration? Schlozman failed to note that it was Congress that dramatically expanded the reach of the federal criminal law six years ago to allow the feds to reach more trafficking situations. ANY administration would have been able to dramatically increase the human trafficking stats because the LAW CHANGED! And Schlozman even managed to upset his own staff people by his association with human trafficking. One person still there two years ago reported they were offended when Schlozman laughed and bragged about taking "boondoggles" (his word) around the world and squandering needed trafficking funds. Schlozman enjoyed seeing alligators in Tanzania and visits to Thai highlights. Look at the trafficking newsletter on the DOJ website. In the photos of his trips, Schlozman and his traveling pal are the only ones grinning! The other government's representatives seem to regard trafficking as the serious issue it is.
June 11, 2007 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
WTF!
Why have "more sworn testimony" from Rethugicans like this turkey. What an unbelievable exercise in futility. Interspersed with a whining mantra of "I don't recall" is just shit they make up! When they find that the shit they made up does not comport with some other Rethugican's made up shit or has upset someone who hasn't made up his shit yet, they offer to "clarify" the old made up shit with freshly new made up shit. It's sort of like watching the multitude of clowns at the circus getting out of the tiny car. You keep watching in wonderment- the clowns just keep flopping out of the car and Rethugicans just keep spouting more shit. Eventually the clowns stop - would that we could be so fortunate that the Rethuglicans stop spouting shit. Never gonna happen - it's in their genes... we gotta get these turds outta of the f***ing gene pool!
June 11, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know there is a problem with the ACORN prosecutions because the USA-WDMO deleted Schlozman's 11/06 press release about them. Link below.
In his press release, Schlozman referred to a national effort to go after ACORN in his press release - "This national investigation is very much ongoing."
If you search the news archives in Lexis-Nexis for "Bradely Schlozman" between 10/31/06 and 11/8/06, you don't get any news stories about Schlozman's indictment of four ACORN workers.
What is terribly disturbing is that if you search Lexis-Nexis for "ACORN and vote" in that same time period, you get a bunch of entries from right blogs like Atlas Shrugged and the Volokh Conspiracy which refer to the ACORN indictments in a very negative fashion.
The Wall Street Journal never covererd the ACORN indictments from the news side, but the day after Schlozman announced them, the WSJ editorial board viciously attacked ACORN on all fronts.
June 11, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink