Why Might Schlozman Have Been Referred to a Grand Jury

While I’m waiting to hear from the next President of the United States, I thought I’d make some suggestions about what Brad "Shorter" Schlozman said that got him a perjury referral to the grand jury for. In this post, I laid out several things Schlozman said when he testified before the Senate which are probably truth-challenged.

The ACORN Investigation Is/Is Not National
You’ll recall that Brad Schlozman indicted 4 former ACORN workers (one of whose name he got wrong) for submitting fraudulent voter reg information. Well, he strongly suggested that the indictments were not part of a national investigation (a few Senators hammered him on this point–suggesting that, since the investigation was not national, it shouldn’t have been filed before the election). But, at the same time, Schlozman indicated over and over again that the investigation is national.

There needs to be follow-up on this. Did Schlozman and some other flunkies dream up a national campaign against ACORN based on the 4 flimsy indictments in MO?

[snip]

Schlozman Claims He Didn’t Know of MO Job Until It Was Publicized
If there is one claim, of many, that I think Schlozman will eventually get busted on, I suspect it’s this one (which is remarkably similar to Rachel Paulose’s claims, I might add). Schlozman argued he didn’t apply–or know about–the potential opening in WD MO (Todd Graves’ old job) until it was published. Only once it was, Schlozman tells it, did he apply for the job.

As Schumer elicited, it’s not like Schlozman should have thought he was qualified for the job. He had never prosecuted a case, neither civil nor criminal at that point.

But he applied for the job and–only because they needed someone within 2 weeks, Schlozman said–he was hired.

Schlozman Claims He Didn’t Tell Monica about the MN Voting Rights Case
You’ll recall that (as perhaps first reported here), there was a voting rights issue that may be behind the planned firing of Thomas Heffelfinger. The Republican SOS wanted to prevent Native Americans from using tribal IDs to vote. And an AUSA in Heffelfinger’s office wanted to make sure they could do so.

For the record, Schlozman claims he didnt’ spike the investigation. Rather, he told the AUSA to refer the investigation to the SOS, rather than investigate allegations at the county level. You know, the same Republican SOS who ruled against tribal IDs in the first place? Yeah, that investigation is going far.

Well, Schlozman claims he didn’t tell Ms. Goodling about this investigation. Which might mean one of three things:

  • Schlozman is lying (again)
  • Someone else–like the White House, after having heard from someone in MN–told Monica
  • The Voting Rights issue is not the Native American issue that got Heffelfinger placed on the firing list.

Then there’s the issue that Schlozman had to issue a correction about within days of his testimony: whether or not he had been advised it was cool to indict those ACORN workers just before an election. But as I pointed out, Schlozman was still trying, desparately, not to admit that he was hte one who decided to ignore DOJ guidelines.

My written testimony explicitly stated that the Department’s informal policy of not interviewing voters during the pre-election period, which is intended to avoid actions that could conceivably have a chilling effect on voting, does not forbid the filing of any charges around the time of an election. While the ACORN matter arose in October, Department policy, as confirmed by the Elections Crime Branch (the director of which authored the Department’s election crimes manual), did not require a delay of this investigation and the subsequent indictments because they pertained to voter registration fraud (which examined conduct during voter registration), not fraud during an ongoing or contested election. Consequently, the Department’s policy was not implicated in this matter.

Shorter Schloz: This one’s tricky, Mr. Democrat [sic] Senator, so watch closely. First, yes, I admit that my written testimony also suggested it was cool to bring indictments before the election. I will insist that the Department’s policy, inscribed in a fancy red manual you all seem to have read closely, is just informal. Because, you see, I’m a Republican and … never mind. Anyway, I’m going to pull a fancy trick of grammar, now that I’m not sitting right in front of you any more, and blame the "Elections Crime Branch"–and not Craig Donsanto himself–for allowing me to file the indictments before the election. You like that trick, how I blamed the "Elections Crime Branch," but then followed it immediately with an unrelated reference to Craig Donsanto? You don’t? Damn, you elected Democrat [sic] Senators have no sense of humor. And how about how I use the passive in that last sentence, "the Department’s policy was not implicated"? A pretty fancy way of avoiding any mention of who made the final decision here, right?

If I were Leahy, I’d haul Schlozman’s ass back before the Committee and keep asking questions until he provided the subject of that now-passive sentence. Who made the decision to go forward with the indictments? Because this "clarification" does nothing but continue to obscure the key facts.

And then there’s the question which Schlozman flat out decided not to answer: which indictments he spoke to Mike Elston about.

That leaves a lot for federal prosecutors to choose from, huh?

image_print
29 replies
  1. klynn says:

    Well, it could be a perjury trifecta… It could also be all five issues of concern.

    I’ll take just one charge, but I think it’s more than one…

  2. BooRadley says:

    Thanks ew.

    Bradley Schlozman, Mike Elston, and Monica (“but, I didn’t mean to”) Goodling all rank very high on my personal list of white collar thugs.

    digg

  3. klynn says:

    EW, what, if anything, do you think they snagged in the Bloch raid that may have had an impact on this news since Iglesias filed two complaints with Bloch’s office and investigation started in April. Do you think there is any relationship?

    • emptywheel says:

      Probably not, but curiously, those the reports on what Bloch spiked included the Iglesias investigation, there was less on the Civil Division stuff.

      • klynn says:

        So you don’t think any of this is related to Igelias’ filing of Hatch Act violations?

        I think this is the beginning of the road to snagging Rove…

        • klynn says:

          So you don’t think any of this is related to Iglesias’ filing of Hatch Act violations?

          I think this is the beginning of the road to snagging Rove…

          My regrets for flubbing Iglesias’ name! Proofreader is my friend!

  4. MarkusQ says:

    He’s just like the rest of that croud. Bringing these guys up on perjury charges should be like shopping at PriceSmart / CostCo / PriceClub; sure, you only need a little but for about the same price you can get a shrink wrapped 48 pack that will last the rest of your life. Prosecute perjury in bulk, and save!

    – MarkusQ

  5. MarieRoget says:

    That leaves a lot for federal prosecutors to choose from, huh?

    Any one of the things cited in yr. post should be enough to nail Scholzman, who, like Gonzales, didn’t bother to perfect his perjury technique before testifying. During Pat Leahy’s questioning he remarked astonishedly to Scholzman @ one point, “You’re amazing!” The Schloz smiled & nodded as if it was some sort of compliment.

    Time to be “amazing” once more, Alvin.

  6. MadDog says:

    OT via CREW:

    Crew Responds To Court Ruling That White House Office Of Administration Is Not An Agency

    16 Jun 2008 // Washington, DC – Today, D.C. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued an opinion in CREW v. Office of Administration, finding that the Office of Administration (OA) is not an agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)…

    OA Order here.

    OA Opinion here.

    Congress needs to fix the FOIA definitions so that the poor ol’ Federal courts aren’t forced by the current weasel-wording to help criminals hide their crimes.

    And while they’re at it, they should also give the Federal courts a much-reduced and more focused definition of what constitutes “Executive Privelege”, “Pre-decisional” ruminatings, and just general “hide-the-ball” BS.

    This is our fookin’ government and we insist on knowing what it does in our name!

    And if the denizens of our government don’t like it, fook ‘em!

    If they can’t/won’t live up to standards of ethics and morals, they ought not to be in fookin’ government! Plenty of prison cells available if they need a place to stay.

    • klynn says:

      And this is why I’m glad MadDog is back!

      This is our fookin’ government and we insist on knowing what it does in our name!

      And if the denizens of our government don’t like it, fook ‘em!

      If they can’t/won’t live up to standards of ethics and morals, they ought not to be in fookin’ government! Plenty of prison cells available if they need a place to stay.

      BTW, I was not around that much last week. A belated welcome back. Glad they were able to get you back up and running.

      • MadDog says:

        And this is why I’m glad MadDog is back!

        LOL! klynn always gives me a pass on my “French”. My mother however, would have been reaching for the soap. *g*

        BTW, I was not around that much last week. A belated welcome back. Glad they were able to get you back up and running.

        Glad to see you back yourself! Tain’t no place as comfortable as home, is there?

        • klynn says:

          Well, I do reach for the soap. I give the “pass” because of the “neutral” spelling…As a Mom, those four lettered words get my hand itching for the bar of soap! You just alluded to four lettered words;thus, the pass!

          Bushie @13

          Excellent question. Don’t know but here is Scott Horton’s post on this:

          http://www.harpers.org/archive…..c-90003088

          • Bushie says:

            Thanks, that’s a great article and shows this is one of many in the hopper. PTL, some justice at Justice might just happen!

      • Leen says:

        I’m “fookin” glad to.

        Marcy is just “fookin” amazing. Wakes up breathing fire and justice

  7. Bushie says:

    Anyone know the AUSA assigned the case? I hope this isn’t a pro forma grand jury just to placate Congress.

  8. WilliamOckham says:

    Today, the Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Mukasey compelling the production of FBI interview reports of Vice President Cheney and President Bush and other documents regarding the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.

    http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2016

    No link to actual subpoena…

    • FrankProbst says:

      Can CREW appeal Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order? If so, do they plan to?

      I would assume so. Melanie “I had the FBI for breakfast” Sloan isn’t really one to back down.

      • Waccamaw says:

        Thanks for the reminder….it’s time to send CREW a little green love for the work they do.

    • PetePierce says:

      Yessiree bob. A district court order is appealable in this case to the D.C. Circuit where 18/21 judges are little Bushie Martinette Robots and Melanie Sloan a former AUSA filed a notice of appeal this morning before lunch.

      CREW RESPONDS TO COURT RULING THAT WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION IS NOT AN AGENCY

      Melanie Sloan is an excellent litigator but she faces some steep odds given the politicization of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. I mean to dig in to precedents that I think impact the decision this morning and Melanie will do a good job in her brief.

  9. SaltinWound says:

    Wasn’t part of the problem with Congress’ US Attorney purge investigations that there wasn’t an underlying crime they could cite to combat claims of Executive privilege? Does this help at all?

  10. JohnLopresti says:

    Schlozman’s hearing May 29, 2007 was interesting for the fact that many Democratic party members on the Senate Judiciary Committee attended, but the Republicans boycotted that hearing, the fifth in the series on politicization of the US Attorney’s office, without admitting that was why no Republicans showed up. So far I have yet to locate a GPO transcript of the proceedings, though Schlozman and Leahy posted formal statements preHearing; however, the SJC site provides the a video archive link. I tend to tire with video’s linearity and unsearchability. WSJ has a notice posted re the GJ process in Schlozman’s future, paywalled. Somewhat OT, Bauer has written about libertarians who were critics of the politicization of the voting section at DoJ, some of whom are consulting for McCain, evidently, in an interesting review of the condition of FEC. And, somewhat more onPoint, League of WomenVoters at last notice had tried a court action to discredit the acornSuppressive schedule of fines in FL, a month ago, though I need to follow that initiative as it develops, LoWV, had checked out of the voter registration business after 60 years, in FL, as of that writing. And drifting still somewhat offTopic, I found a nice history of yet another regulatory body related to Schlozman’s chosen area of vote discouragements, EAC in an AP article published two days ago, linked. I am glad DoJ has continued to read the Schlozman file, as there is much disarray in the usual oversight agencies this election cycle. I noticed, too, that in FL there is an unusual opening for the Republican governor to shift the balance on their state supreme court, which might reverse the balance seen in the Y2k showdown between that bench and the Republican legislature over things like chads and noCounting of votes.

    • PetePierce says:

      Republicans don’t acknowledge the existence of the hijacking of DOJ or the fucking up of Main Justice by a cast of hundreds. I’ve caught snippets of hearings where they pretend nothing is amiss at DOJ. David Iglesias expressed amusement over the Schloz’s pending indictment on Jon Stewart while plugging his new book.

  11. PetePierce says:

    So in the prison law library would it be “Yo mah man Schloz how many stamps will it cost for you to do my 2255, or yo Big Schloz mah boo lez git down n do mah 2255? Will Brad the man no how to Shepardize by hand without his Westlaw and Lexus, and how will he like waiting for months to get paper Federal Reporters and grinding out them 2255s on the shit typewriters his new orientation to DOJ will provide him?

  12. BlueStateRedHead says:

    What did happen to the Acorn who plead guilty? and the other four,I believe. Googling got me the indictment, but not the decision.

    If Alvin in indicted in this case, does Acorn have remedies civil or federal.

    and while on the topic of AUSA who “overperformed”, what chance of prosecution for the wrongful imprisonment of Georgia Thompson, whose only remedy has so far been reinstatement, recovery of lost pay, and IIRC although Wiki does not say so, legal costs. It was a TPM story, but I have greater faith in the memory of EW and her readers than in TPM’s search engine.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Biskupic

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Thompson

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04…..6mon4.html

Comments are closed.