What Indictments Did Schlozman Speak to Elston About?

/in /by

Brad Schlozman remains unresponsive on a few of the questions he (finally) returned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Take this question that asks for very specific details about any conversations he had with Mike Elston about indictments in WD MO:

Did you speak with Michael Elston regarding any other indictments filed while you were U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri? If so, which indictments?

Mr. Elston, who is a former federal prosecutor and appellate chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, and I are personal friends and we spoke about various cases from time to time. I am certain that, given his position as chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Elston spoke with many U.S. Attorneys about their cases and other matters affecting U.S. Attorneys’ Offices.

I guess Shorter Schloz doesn’t understand what the question "If so, which indictments" means. Because he sure dodged answering that very specific question.

Unfortunately, when they get around to asking Schloz about indicting Democratic politician Katheryn Shields, they only ask Schloz about whom he consulted on the timing of the indictment–not the indictment in general.

image_print
  1. P J Evans says:

    They ought to issue a subpoena just because of that non-answer. If nothing else, he shows a remarkable lack of unserstanding of the English language. (I’m sure he knew exactly what was being asked.)

  2. Anonymous says:

    Michael Emmick out as head of Lewis investigation; DOJ Main forcing him to retire under a provision they had previously been waiving for him. The obstruction of justice continues on and on (not that Emmick is any loss, he isn’t; just that this is cover for further delay and obstruction).

  4. emptywheel says:

    bmaz

    Yeah, I’m going to come back to Emmick later this weekend. Curious that they’re going to such lengths to protect Lewis, while everyone whom Abramoff touched is purportedly going down.

  5. casual observer says:

    â€Dodge†doesn’t seem quite the word for it. He is flat blowing the committee off. They don’t call it â€contempt†for nothing–these guys are all responding late, incompletely, and contemptuously. And the age-old question comes yet again–What is Leahy prepared to do about it?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Cheney. At some point, the San Diego and LA cases intersect at a ganglion that contains Goss, Foggo, Cunningham etc. and leads in a straight line to 4th Branch.

  7. Anonymous says:

    â€he sure dodged answering that very specific question.â€

    In this age of lies and liars, thier obfuscation is often the best evidence of their conspiracy.

    Wherever Schlotzie avoids direct answers, it represents a smoking gun or a mushroom cloud being covered-up, or some sort of intra-DOJ conspiracy. We can follow their trail of lies, like breadcrumbs through the woods, and it will paint a whole picture.

    It wouldn’t be very hard to rack up all the obvious lies and half-truths that Goodling, Sampson, and the rest of this wayward cast of characters have cursed us all with.

    A whole picture of patent deception begins to be unveiled by these pieces, a conspiracy so broad and pervasive that now it can not be secreted away by their conspiracy. Their denials become admissions, whenever they fudge an answer, just read between the lines, if they are fudging, it means they are covering up the conspiracy.

    Like I said before, by their lies we will know them.

    Their denial has become their confession.