Well that explains nothing.

Perjury certainly is grounds to revoke his license to practice law. If it can be proved that he lied under oath whatever state and federal bars he is admitted to should be alerted and an action taken.

So much for justice.
And change?????????

Pipsqueak lied his buns off. He made A. Gonzo look like an honest man. If perjury was the only thing they were asked to examine, it would appear they'd have plenty to work with.
This is a pathetic miscarriage of justice, but that's become standard m.o. hasn't it?

Just so I have it straight: Clinton tried to "lie" about a private affair between two consenting adults, and for that Congress was tied up for years and eventually impeached him.

The Republicans commit treason, obstruction of justice, lie directly to Congress and to the American People, and nothing happens.

Ok, now that we have that settled.

I think it is worthwhile to note that a lot of this crap - various bad doers getting off, failure to investigation the Bush Admin - this is the result of the country's failure to make Nixon accountable. To make Reagan accountable. And now Bush. It's for the 'good of the country.' 'We need to be united, not divided.'
It gets worse with each iteration. And guess what?
The next iteration doesn't have much more to go to reach that blessed nervana the brownshirts have always craved.

Because we're looking forward rather than backward. You see, unless you prosecute WHILE THE CRIME IS BEING COMMITTED, the crime occurs in the past and we must look forward rather than backward.

When you don't live by the RULE OF LAW, President Elect Obama, it doesn't matter WHAT LAWS YOU PASS. You've already demonstrated your willingness to DISREGARD THE LAWS.

Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.
Changed we were deceived in.
To think I had the audacity to hope that Obama would be different.

There is a conclusion to be drawn from all this.

The United States is a nation of laws, and those laws have no connection to the concept of justice.

I was very curious myself to see why there would be no prosecution in this case, because it seemed at first glance to be a no brainer. But, the issue here is whether the government can prove perjury (intentional lying) and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If you take close, hard look at the case for a successful perjury conviction against Schlozman, you see that it is a weak case.

Looking at the OIG report, their first grounds for perjury is that Schlozman lied when he testified that he never violated the Hatch Act. Even if Schlozman did violate the Hatch Act (which would be it's own separate trial), the issue is really that this question is asking Schlozman for his own opinion of what he did. The question effectively is, "Do you believe you violated this civil service law?" Answer: "No." It is hard to convict someone for perjury when the gist of their comment is to express their own opinion that they did not violate the law. To convict, prosecutors would likely have to prove BOTH that (a) Schlozman himself believed that he had violated the Hatch Act and lied about it; AND (b) that he actually did violate the Hatch Act. May be true but tough to prove!

Next, is Schlozman's written answer to a question about whether he considered applicants' party affiliation, ideology, etc. in hiring decisions. But his written answer is sufficiently vague here to make it hard to prosecute. In the first paragraph, Schlozman doesn't answer the question at all, saying only generically that applicants' were not hired "based on" party affiliation, membership in a specific nonprofit org, or loyalty to the President. To begin, he skips over the question about "ideology" at first and comes back to it. Then he never directly answers the question as to whether he "considered" these factors. Rather, he says that applicants were "not hired based on" political party, etc. As for ideology, Schlozman kind of actually *admits* that he may considered a candidate's ideological views in hiring. But that admission, makes a perjury conviction really tough. He more, or less, admits to considering ideology. However, hiring based on ideological beliefs is not a violation of the Hatch Act (only politically affiliation is). So it's a slimy answer, for sure, but since he doesn't really answer the question asked, and the admits to something that is technically legal, it becomes hard to convict him for perjuring himself on it. I'm not saying it would be impossible to convict here, just very very difficult.

Next comes the issue of Schlozman denying, under oath, that his decisions to transfer attorneys out of his section were not made to fill positions with others who would adopt more conservative view. All the testimony here comes from witnesses. Very "he said" vs. "she said" stuff. Written memos or e-mails in Schlozman's own words makes an easy case to prosecute. Hearsay (even if admissible as would be in this case) is unreliable to make a good perjury case stick on a point like this. Remember, the people who would likely testify against Schlozman probably hate his guts, probably have told lots of people that they hate Schlozman's guts, and *would probably have to admit it* under oath in front of a jury. It is hard to convict someone of perjury when all you have to prove he's a liar is the testimony from witnesses who hate the defendant's guts. Just sayin'.

Last issue is about a similar statement about considering political affiliation while Schlozman was a US Attorney. However, Schlozman's perjerous statement made during oral testimony got "covered" in is written answer. The OIG report concedes defeat on this point saying that Schlozman's did not make a "false statement" but that the response may have been "misleading." Would be practically impossible to convict on perjury on this point.

Please be patient; justice will be with you shortly...

It's amazing how much the sound of Slozmann's own voice makes and defines the man. The pure SOUND of his voice grates on the mind and has a way of broadcasting "I AM A LIAR NOT TO BE TRUSTED, SINCE THE PURE DIALECT AND PITCH OF MY VOICE OOZES "WEASEL" . Psy-ops is obviously not his strong suit and has done him no such favors.

It also seems that for him, he doth protest too much, and his choice by both his attorneys and his own vigilant, highly public defense of his actions might spell his demise.