« Should Libby Go to Jail? Congress Says Yes | Main | Doan's Lawyers Convince Bloch to Go Harsh »

June 12, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200e008c44cd38834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Well, That Clarifies Everything:

Comments

EW--As always, thank you. But what does he mean--"relied on consultation with"? Is this English as we know it? What does it mean? What would Donsanto say--how would Donsanto define "rely" and "consultation"?

Thought Schumer already came out and talked about all the inconsistencies?

Is it possible that The "consultations" might have been taken on a non-government e-mail account, and to a non-DoJ type, perhaps in the WH, and AL-VIN is scared to death that he is going to have to tell the committee he no longer has those e-mails, that the dog ate them?

whenwego

Oh, Leahy has expressed his disappointment that Schlozman's testimony before the committee was misleading (and, as an added bonus, he includes some of the transcript excerpts where Schlozman blames Donsanto).

But Leahy didn't point out that Schlozman continues to weasel in ways that only Kyle Sampson could love.

Seamus

No, I rather suspect Donsanto told him no (on the phone), and then after Mike Elston got involved, Schlozman called the summer intern (you know, the one hired because she's a Federalist Society member who likes short men), who said he could go ahead (also on the phone).

schlozman still ain't desperate enough to try telling the truth

but the circle is getting tighter

is Congress ever gonna stand up for themselves ???

the Democrats better stand up soon

that's all I got to say

(you know, the one hired because she's a Federalist Society member who likes short men)

ouch

ROTFLMAO

thanks for that one, ew. there's a vicious streak in you that I'm just begining to appreciate

Or let me put it this way--how would Donsanto testify re: that "reliance" and that "consultation"?

Maybe Im just tired at the end of a long day, but what does "Consequently, the Department's policy was not implicated in this matter." mean? I'm serious, WTF is he talking about? Schloz says that he consulted with the Elections Crime Branch, relied on and consulted with the ECB, but takes full responsibility for the decision to move forward with the indictments. I presume he is giving the impression that the ECB agreed with him, but he doesn't actually say that - he merely states ECB was consulted, but not what they said, just that it was a factor in whatever decision he has "decided to take responsibility for", or in other words take a bullet in the shoulder for Rove. EW, as a student of our beloved English language, you are well aware of the fuckery that the passive voice can conceal, but I will also point out that the strategic placement of the subordinate modifying clause, like a bikini, can conceal all the important stuff while arousing your interest in other areas. Note the use by Schloz of "Department policy, as confirmed by the ECB," - it does not state which Department policy (the "informal" policy? the big red binder policy?) or how and when the said policy was "confirmed" by ECB, or even if he asked them about it! These guys could make a breadstick into a pretzel!

After seeing Sampson and Schloz, I have to pile on to EWs snark about short men - there is a distinct element of George Costanza to all of these guys, "It's not a lie, if you believe its true!"

Schlozman is still trying to pull a bait and switch trick with DOJ policy. He keeps referring to the US Attorney's manual Section 9-85.210, which reads:

With regard to all other election crime matters (other than those described in USAM 9-85.200 (Federally Protected Activities)), namely, alleged election fraud or patronage offenses, United States Attorneys shall consult with the Public Integrity Section before an investigation beyond a preliminary inquiry is requested or conducted. In this connection, the Department views any voter interviews in the preelection and balloting periods -- other than interviews of a complainant and any witnesses he or she may identify -- as beyond a preliminary investigation. Thus, the Public Integrity Section should be consulted before such interviews.

This section just spells out that voter interviews are beyond a "preliminary investigation" (which obviously precedes an indictment). It doesn't, as Schlozman would have you think, specify voter interviews as the sole reason for holding off on election eve indictments. Schlozman is very deliberately avoiding mentioning the Election Crimes Manual because that one can't be explained away so easily.

OT: Waxman is keeping busy. He's postponed next week's testimony for Sec. Rice, saying in part:

The Committee has been conducting interviews and depositions of senior government
offcials with knowledge of prewar intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program, including George Tenet, former Director of Central Intelligence; John Mclaughlin, former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence; Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell; and Carl Ford, former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. The Committee plans to conduct additional interviews over the coming weeks. In addition, the CIA and State Department have begun to provide important documents to the Committee.

Well that must be reassuring for Ms. Rice. Heh heh.

Hey Schlozman, TNH will be hosting a class on "bell un-ringing" It will be Feburary 30th. Head West on Route 69 (just follow the signs) until you are one hour West of Phoenix. North end of the spring-fed lake. See you there.

sir "schloz" ALSO remains wholly-silent as
to the civil rights matters about which he was
asked, and consistently demurred. . .

when set against the cofident, cogent
and credible testimony of todd graves,
james comey and david iglesias. . .

it seems, even now -- even after his
non-correction/correction -- a
charge of lying before congress may
still be readily-proveable.

senator patrick leahy clearly
seems to think so, as well
. . .

EW, I have never had the pleasure of meeting you, but having followed this site for a while -- well, a person can begin to get into your head a little bit...

Why do I have this feeling that you were gleefully (even laughing out loud!) writing those 'Short Schlozman' asides while holding a pencil in your teeth? I'll bet the words just FLEW off of your fingers ;-)

Marcy, I just have to say I love you!!!

Laughin' my ass off!

Why does Schlozman remind me of Lord Farquaad character from the movie Shrek for some reason. Wow, he was so certain of himself during testimony stating Craig Donsanto's name about a bajillion times as the individual he spoke to that gave him the green light on filing this indictment. Funny how those repukes love to toss out names of people and events/comments that never happened(hello Scooter) all the while under oath. Funny thing that. Guess those 25 hours of prepartion for his testimony skimmed over that portion...or is it more of the kkKarl Rove school of Testifying under oath for dummies. After reading this Schlozman testimony correction, just makes me wonder what whoppers kKKarl told to the FBI and Grand Jury and what he had to do and say to correct the record for Fitz?

I've been hanging out here without sayin' anything for a couple months now. I really enjoy the conversations at this place and like the rest of you so enjoy the truly high quality posts. Thanks a ton. I definately wouldn't be able to keep with these stories without EW. Big fan in Portland, OR.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad