When it comes to the investigation into the U.S. Attorney scandal, a whole lot of Justice Department officials have been playing fast and loose under oath. But few have been caught the way Bradley Schlozman was.
Quick review for those just joining us (for those who need a refresher). Last fall, Schlozman — the former U.S. Attorney for Kansas City and controversial deputy head at the Civil Rights Division — rushed a series of 11th-hour indictments against ACORN, a left-leaning group registering voters in Missouri (home to a very competitive Senate race). Schlozman charged the group with submitting false voter registration forms as part of an elaborate fraud.
Of course, the Justice Department has a long-standing policy of avoiding election law prosecutions immediately before voters head to the polls, so it was unusual that Schlozman got indictments literally just a few days before the election.
The Senate Judiciary Committee brought Schlozman in to answer questions about the indictments, and Schlozman insisted that he pursued the case “at the direction” of Craig Donsanto, the director of the Election Crimes Branch in the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department.
The claim was very hard to believe. Donsanto literally wrote the manual on election law and would never approve these 11th-hour indictments. And yet, there was Schlozman, testifying under oath, repeatedly, that he got the green light from Donsanto.
Today, after a week of pushback from Donsanto’s office, Schlozman started backpedaling.
Schlozman sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) revising his sworn statements to Congress:
“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 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. (emphasis added)
In other words, given weeks to prepare, and with full knowledge that this one controversy would be the central focus of his hearings, Schlozman repeated a key falsehood over and over again.
Realizing that he’d been caught, and unable to spin his lie away, Schlozman “clarified” the record today. Not surprisingly, Leahy perceived this as more than just a “clarification.”
“It is deeply troubling that after weeks of preparation Mr. Schlozman appears to have misled the Committee and the public about his decision to file an election eve lawsuit in direct conflict with longstanding Justice Department policy.
“I asked him repeatedly about this case at the hearing because of concerns that it was done to use law enforcement power improperly to affect the outcome of the election, which is the reason the Department instituted the policy as a safeguard against such manipulation.
“This Justice Department and this Administration already suffer from a severe credibility crisis, and learning that yet another senior official was less than forthcoming during his testimony before Congress does little to restore any of the lost trust or eroding confidence in their leadership. It is difficult to get to the facts when Administration officials fail to come clean, but the Committee will continue to pursue the truth behind this matter.”
In terms of the broader investigation of this scandal, Bush said yesterday, “[T]his process has been drug out a long time, which says to me it’s political.”
Finally, the president said something I can agree with.