1115.org

(1)
Bradley Schlozman has written a very nice letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The reason why he wrote (instead of, say, calling it in) probably has to do with his voice. I’m not sure how I would describe it, but luckily I don’t have to. The day Schlozman appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Matt described it to me thusly: “Dude has the voice of a 9 yr old.” (My response was a dark observation on Gonzales’ propensity to surround himself with poorly qualified people with little boy and little girl voices. Put that together with Gonzales’ grim obsession with protecting the children, and what do you come up with?)

I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify my testimony with regard to the timing of the voter registration fraud indictments against four employees of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (”ACORN”). Although I later clarified my testimony in responding to Senator Whitehouse’s questioning at the hearing, I did state in response to various questions (ed: that’s his charming way of saying “over and over and over again”) during my testimony that the long-time career head of the Public Integrity Section’s Election Crimes Branch had “directed” me to file the indictments prior to the November 2006 election.

As required by Section 9-85.210 of the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, at my direction, the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case consulted with the Election Crimes Branch prior to the filing of the indictments. I want to be clear that, while I relied on the consultation with, and suggestions of, the Election Crimes Branch in bringing the indictments when I did, I take full responsibility for the decision to move forward with the prosecutions related to ACORN while I was the interim U.S. Attorney.

Just so we’re clear, he wasn’t directed to do anything, he only received suggestions. And they didn’t come from “the long-time career head of the Public Integrity Section’s Election Crimes Branch”, or from any other individual, but from the Election Crimes Branch itself.

Okay. So how come he testified repeatedly that Craig Donsanto, that long-time career head, had directed him to bring the indictments? How come he said yes when he was asked — point blank, and in a tone of great incredulity — by Sen. Charles Schumer whether Donsanto “would state explicitly and without reservation that he did in fact OK the issuing of the indictments”?

Shlozman didn’t say, but we can easily guess.

Moses went up the hill, and the burning bush spoke unto him, and gave unto him commandments ten. Shlozman went to the Public Integrity Section, and the Election Crimes Branch spoke unto him. Which so blew his mind, that until just a few days ago he went around convinced that he had spoken to Craig Donsanto, and received a commandment.

Don’t laugh. If you think there’s a more credible explanation for Schlozman’s testimony being so much at odds with the facts as he himself now relates them, let’s hear it.

(2)
Now that I’ve had my little joke, let’s get serious.

Schlozman is saying — with a straight face, and no doubt under the advice of counsel — “I have committed perjury, but I’m owning up to it myself, before any one charges with perjury, so that makes it all good, doesn’t it, ha ha?”

And that isn’t funny at all, because apparently Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy is agreeing with the operative part of that. Which is “so that makes it all good, doesn’t it”.

Leahy has gone ahead and done what Democrats running key committees in the House and the Senate have been doing all year: made it very clear that Schlozman’s conduct is totally unacceptable. And that he plans to do nothing at all about it other than point out how totally unacceptable it is. Some fine phrases in the letter: “deeply troubling” and “yet another senior official was less than forthcoming” and “lost trust or eroding confidence”. No doubt someone somewhere is giving him the style points he has clearly earned. But no indication whatsoever of any real action by Leahy or his committee.

If shadowboxing were an Olympic sport, no doubt we could send a team of three Democrats — headed by Sen. Leahy — to China, and sweep the medals.

Enough with all the posturing already! When will someone actually do something? Can someone somehow bring home to these guys that oversight is not just a spectator sport? That at some point you have to stop watching, and jumping up and down in place with every appearance of apoplexy, and actually start doing something?

Don’t just rap people on the knuckles when they commit perjury. Charge them. Don’t just angrily threaten to subpoena documents that are not produced for weeks and weeks and weeks.* Don’t just authorize subpoenas. Issue the damn things.

What keeps this whole oversight thing real is a small dose of “off with his head” every once in a while.

Mr. Senator Leahy, what Shlozman did was not just deeply troubling, it was a clear violation of the laws against perjury. He came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, after (as you pointed out) “weeks of preparation”, and systematically and deliberately made statements that have proved to be false. How does the fact that he — no doubt under the advice of counsel — has owned up to the perjury himself make a damn bit of difference? Perjury is perjury. Confessing to it doesn’t erase the bloody crime. So do something about it.

And, yes, I’ve heard all the tired arguments about how perjury isn’t so easy to prosecute because you have to prove the dude lied deliberately and wilfully. One, if that’s a reason for not prosecuting somebody who clearly lied, why do we have the damn laws in the first place? Two, if Libby could be prosecuted, and found guilty, why not Schlozman? Three, better to have fought and lost than never to have fought at all?

* I’m understating the problem, if anything. Case in point:

On May 21, the Senate Judiciary Committee made at least its ninth formal request for documents related to President Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program. Committee chiefs Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) gave Alberto Gonzales until June 5 to provide answers. He sent nothing.

So what did Leahy do?

Leahy said today that the Justice Dept. stonewalling was “unacceptable and shows, yet again, its disdain for any kind of constitutional oversight of its activities.”

Oh, snap!

Stonewalled nine times in a row, and Leahy is still just using words. And pretty mild words at that. Maybe if he steps it up to “thoroughly unacceptable” and “total disdain”, Gonzales will suddenly cave?

*** Update, 9 am ***

What do you know? Real subpoenas!
Two congressional committees are issuing subpoenas for testimony from former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor on their roles in the firings of eight federal prosecutors, according to two officials familiar with the investigation.

Democrats probing whether the White House improperly dictated which prosecutors the Justice Department should fire also are subpoenaing the White House for all relevant documents, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the move had not yet been formally made public.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont issued Taylor’s subpoena for her testimony July 11. His counterpart in the House, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan, issued a subpoena for Miers’ testimony the next day.