Some Schlozman Details

I haven’t found a transcript online, but here are some details from the Schlozman hearing that–at least according to my notes–are significant and underreported.

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?

Schlozman Was Personally Monitoring DOJ Emails
In a discussion about a case being investigated by Office of Public Responsibility, Schlozman admitted he had given himself the ability to monitor Department emails.

Apparently, OPR was investigating a Department employee who had contacted someone DOJ was suing and offered to defend him (I think the implication is the DOJ employee would quit and then defend the defendant). "At the direction of OPR," Schlozman started monitoring emails … not just of that employee, apparently, but of the departments’ employees. Leahy asked Schlozman how he came to be directed by OPR to start reading Department employees’ emails. But I don’t think Schlozman ever provided a real answer.

Share this entry

Well, That Didn’t Take Long

Share this entry

Welcome to My Personal Half of the Lefty Blogosphere

Share this entry

Bork Tries to Fire Another Prosecutor

Share this entry

Nadler Puts Cheney in His Sights

Share this entry

On Those Letters

My mother is in town, so I’ll be visiting rather than writing. I’ll start catching up to my blogging on Saturday. But I did want to make an initial comment on the letters written in favor of leniency for Scooter. Sidney Blumenthal has a superb column at Salon on the letters in general:

One after another, the letter writers declare that Libby’s "character"is "inconsistent" with the jury’s verdict. These same words –"character" and "inconsistent" — appear dozens of times.

[snip]

The act of procuring these letters is further evidence of Libby’sstove-piping of disinformation. Libby could not reasonably haveexpected to sway the judge, but there is a higher authority to which heis appealing. These letters constitute the beginnings of the LibbyLobby’s pardon campaign.

Blumenthal is right. The letters weren’t going to win Libby the Probation that his supporters were seeking. And judging from the look on Judge Walton’s face as Ted Wells read the Wolfowitz letter (which, incidentally, was submitted after it became clear that these letters would be released publicly), the letters were too saccharine to do the job.

But I’d like to poach from my Guardian column of today, addressing much of the same ground Blumenthal did, to point out the glaring conflicts some of these letter-writers had.

Share this entry

Hold > Get Agency to Answer That …

Share this entry

Libby’s Turnaround

Share this entry