« Did Cheney's Personal Lawyer Release Dick's Statement on Libby? | Main | A Few Interesting Details on Comey's Answers »

June 09, 2007


Is it possible we are going at this the wrong way. I realize congressional hearings are great for alot reasons. It would seem however that a civil suit brought by say state AG's or the ACLU would be of greater value. A civil suit against the Fed AG's office as well as personally against Gonzo and his gang for voter fraud or not enforcing the laws. You could include Rove, Meiers and the RNC. This would allow for greater use of the civil evidentiery laws. What about "gross negligence"? Anyone got a thought or two on this?

Helium Head Alvin lied and the DOJ should absolutely not be conspiring with him to fix this. That action is conflicted, obstructionistic and reeks. The DOJ should be terminating him immediately, not helping him rewrite the books.

Mr. Schlozman's repeated assertions concerning Donsanto were not unequivocal; they were among his clearest and most assertive statements. Even so, it seemed obvious that Donsanto was simply the name Schlozman pulled out of a hat or the guy he wanted to slam for unrelated reasons, rather than somebody he actually remembered consulting with or receiving instructions from.

Does that mean Bradley thinks he can avoid a perjury rap or lying to Congress charge by inverting the Sam Spade defense: He knew Congress knew he was lying, so they didn't believe him and didn't rely on his statements. (I guess that means Bradley has to leave out the part about paying more than if he'd been telling the truth, and enough more to make it all right.)

As far as DOJ's role in all this, I can only guess that they are running ragged trying to keep Karl and Shrub's name out of everything. Their usual work and routine management tasks like hiring, budgeting and case management must be going virtually undone.

I can't believe he's going to be allowed to amend/correct his remarks. Just subpoena the public integrity lawyers, and than, once they contradict Schlozman's testimony, recall Gonzalez, ask him to explain who he's going to fire and prosecute for lying to Congress. Maybe even pin him down nine ways from Sunday and lay some nice perjury/obstruction of justice traps for him.

Mr. Schlozman's repeated assertions concerning Donsanto were not unequivocal; they were among his clearest and most assertive statements.

Fixed yer typo there: the 'Donsanto made me do it!' line was the only thing Alvin said that wasn't wrapped in equivocation and I-cannot-recall.

Thanks. I meant to say that Bradley was "not equivocal" in blaming Donsanto; he was out to get him - because he said those things, or more likely, because he hadn't. Schlozman's action usually has the same equal and opposite reaction in a bureaucracy that it does in physics. Can't imagine it happening to a nicer guy.

I walked out of that room believing that Schlozman's testimony put himself, Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales, and Michael Elston at risk for perjury.

This sounds like it'll be worth waiting for! Say hi to Mrs. Emptywheel and have some fun. Apparently, you're not only addicted to oversight hearings, you're addicted to shredding bunk and laying it bare for all to see on the toobz ...well, on you half of the toobz, (and you know we love you for it.)

Here's the question that's starting to bug me: Are these guys so unused to oversight that they can't get their story straight on the simplest details or is their strategy to have everybody lie so it is impossible to discover the truth?

Schlozman had to have been prepared for questions about the ACORN indictments. He was evasive about all sorts of things, but very precise in choosing the word "directed" in this instance. Watching the questioning over the "toobz", I was struck by the fact that everybody in the room seemed to know he was lying. On the face of it, the story is ridiculous. He said the guy who literally wrote the book directed him to do something that was prohibited by the book. Which would only be believable if Schlozman could explain why Donsanto would do that. Which he couldn't.

"Helium Head Alvin lied."


Thanks so much emptywheel. Hugh over at FDL identified "Alvin" as one of the worst of the worst.

More brilliance by you EW :-) I want Congress to have Donsanto testify publicly, my guess is he'll slap down Schlozmen pretty darned good. And I agree with one of the above comments, talking Helium Alvin into changing his testimony, if done by the DoJ, is obstruction.A few questions: When the heck does RICO kick in? And could you do an article on the Office of Public Integrity, and who is in charge of it? Is it a political position or career? And what the heck do they have to say about their division being bandied about with such disdain by HeliumBoy? And also, why hasn't Donsanto made a public statement, clearing his name? Is it because he's still there and can't talk publicly because he hasn't been given clearance? And why hasn't some enterprising journalist contacted him, for even an unattributable statement? Again, thank you for all you do. Tell Momma EW that she should be proud.

What is this crap, now they get to get there story straight AFTER they testify. Come on! The guy was under oath - and his testimony is his testimony. Signed, sealed, delivered. Does this new advisement he's getting count as witness tampering? What ever happend to getting your lies straight before you go before the judge. This is BS.


I was in that room. I agree--everyone in the room knew he was lying.

Brad Schlozman flat fucking lied, and if my bluedog democrat representative don't want to impeach him, I'm gonna start knocking on doors in my neighborhood looking for a replacememnt for my piece of shit representative

if that putz thinks he can act as MY REPRESENTATIVE and let this lying shit go free, my piece of shit representative has another thought coming

anybody else out there who doesn't like being lied to ???


SEN. LEAHY: Well, then, did you go to anybody in the Justice Department to approve what you were doing insofar as it apparently goes against what is in the prosecutor's handbook?

MR. SCHLOZMAN: Yes, Senator. At my direction, the prosecutor the U.S. attorney assigned to this case, who's a 27-year veteran of the department, contacted the head of the Election Crimes Branch, which is a unit within the Public Integrity Section --

SEN. LEAHY: Who did you contact?

MR. SCHLOZMAN: The head of the Election Crimes Branch.


MR. SCHLOZMAN: Craig Donsanto.

SEN. LEAHY: Is he still there?

MR. SCHLOZMAN: Yes, he is.

SEN. LEAHY: And you contacted him, or the assistant --

MR. SCHLOZMAN: My assistant U.S. attorney contacted him.

SEN. LEAHY: At your direction.

MR. SCHLOZMAN: And my direction, yes.

SEN. LEAHY: And what was the response?

MR. SCHLOZMAN: The response was, when we explained the nature of the investigation and the indictments, we specifically asked whether we should be able to go forward or he wanted us to delay. And his response was, "Go ahead. If you've got the investigation ready to go, go ahead and indict. There's no need to wait until after the election."

Copyright 2007 Federal News Service, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Federal News Service

June 5, 2007 Tuesday


LENGTH: 17241 words



You can hazard a guess that almost everybody who frequents this particular site is offended by lying and obstruction and the creeping tentacles of corruption throughout our government.

If Schlozman lied during his prepared testimony, it was deliberate, and he ought not escape a perjury indictment. We might make mistakes if caught off guard or unprepared for a question (check calendar or notes and come back with right answer), or perhaps we confuse two similar names (Bolton/Bolten). Being dyslexic, my tongue sometimes trips even though my mind knows what it is trying to say.

However, prepared testimony should be fact-checked and vetted. These guys practice their testimony!

Given how often these lawyers are saying "I do not recall", deliberately and repeatedly slamming or blaming someone else in lieu of using the memory defense is especially offensive. Given that what is left of the DoJ is covering each other's asses, the less time they have to create diversions and obstructions into the investigations, the better.

What is left at Main Justice? Would it be possible to close down the shop entirely, take all their computers and binders as evidence (RICO), and perform all the necessary forensics? They can not investigate themselves! The USAs and the district offices could be left to continue the necessary work of managing cases and bringing crooks to justice while the political mess at the home base was cleared out and fumigated. The USAs could run unsupervised for a few months, and without attending meetings might get more actual work done.

Hauksdottir - Well, no; according to the Amici in the Libby case, there is no way to investigate justice. And if you can't trust Bork, then who can you trust?

I trust you bmaz

in fact, don't be surprised if I show up at your back door needing legal council some day ...(Wink)

Freepatriot - I was in a foul mooed all week, and took it upon myself to deal with a couple of interloper crazies. That action on my part only seems to draw more of them. Therefore, I cede all responsibility for perimeter patrol of the idjiots to you. Good luck mate.

Hey! Looks like I got an extra e in mood. Might work either way, but that was not my intent.

"What is this crap, now they get to get there story straight AFTER they testify. ... What ever happend to getting your lies straight before you go before the judge. This is BS."
Posted by: Dismayed | June 09, 2007 at 17:03

The different messes created by Bushism are really hurting Americans. It's not just the war.

One advantage of letting him 'correct the record' is that with the stupidity and arrogance of these people he might well let slip more important information and make it possible to indict even more people for perjury or other crimes.

The more they talk the more they convict themselves.

Aside from that I don't think any of us wants to hear from any more of these Bushies -- ever again.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad