My opinion on the Schlozman Missouri ACORN prosecutions is that they were appropriate and done by the book. Bottom line: It is an undisputed fact Schlozman asked for, and received permission to proceed with the indictments, from the non-political Public Integrity section of the Department Justice.

Facts:

ACORN itself reported its own workers to the government.

Schlozman checked with the non-political ethics group in Washington to make sure that the timing of his prosecution before the election was appropriate.

Craig Donsanto, the guy who wrote the actual manual on DOJ policy regarding timing of election crime prosecutions, gave Schlozman the green light to proceed with the prosecution, even on the eve of the November election. Donsanto told Schlozman that his prosecution did not implicate DOJ policies because individual voters were not being interviewed, investigated or indicted. Schlozman actually was asked point blank by Senator Schumer if Donsanto either ordered or told Schlozman it was ok to proceed with the ACORN prosecutions on the eve of the election. Schlozman confirmed that he had received such direction by Donsanto. Neither Donsanto nor DOJ, nor any other government official has ever disputed that Schlozman had approval from the non-political Public Integrity Section to proceed with the prosecution as planned. Moreover, Schlozman was not accused of perjury on this point by anyone.

All of the Missouri ACORN defendants pled guilty to voter registration fraud.

Those seem to be the facts, and they seem to be undisputed. Now here’s what I think. Schlozman’s prosecution of the ACORN defendants was not only “by the book,” but he had an ethical obligation to proceed with the indictments before the election if the indictments were ready to proceed (as they were).

The Democratic Senators made a big deal that Schlozman’s election eve prosecution would influence the outcome of the election and thus should not have been brought. But I think that Schlozman was a coward on this point. If our government has information that rightfully influence **how** voters should vote, they actually have a moral imperative to disclose that information **before** the election and not withhold it until afterwards. Voters are entitled, in my view, to transparency of our government. So if the government has relevant information that can sway our vote, then we have a right to know. That’s almost a basic civics 101 lesson in our democracy.

The DOJ policies on pre-election prosecutions are to prevent government prosecutors from intimidating, influencing, or otherwise interfering with the *exercise* of the right to vote. The DOJs policies are designed to prevent prosecutors from interviewing voters, indicting voters or conducting other investigatory actions that could have the effect or even the appearance of dissuading even one voter to cast their ballot. The DOJ’s policies are about preserving and protecting the franchise.

The DOJ polices in this regard are not about protecting the *outcome* of the election. To the contrary, if anything, when the government has information that could be perceived as relevant to how voters are going to vote, then the government should be obligated to release that information.

I feel Schlozman should have faced the Judiciary Committee that day and told them that he felt that the prosecutions of the four ACORN workers *were* relevant to the outcome election. He should have said that he felt that the voters of Missouri were entitled to know that the government believed voter registration fraud took place in their state, and that the citizens were entitled to consider that information as they saw fit before heading into the ballot box. Schlozman should have defended the people’s right to know what the government knows as long as there is no chance it will interfere or improperly influence anyone’s right to exercise the vote itself. Schlozman rightfully testified, in my view, that the ACORN prosecutions would have no effect on anyone’s willingness, ability, or likelihood to go or not go to the polls.

That ACORN of Missouri had canvassers who submitted bogus voter registration forms to the extent that they committed a voter registration crime is relevant information that the voters of the election have a right to know about *before* they cast their ballots. The government should not sit on that information until after the election.

If I recall correctly, 4 or 5 Bush cabinet members resigned within 2 weeks after his re-election to a second term. My view is that if those cabinet members intended to resign upon his re-election, they had an ethical obligation to disclose that intent to voters before the election. Because the intended mass resignations of a president’s cabinet is relevant information that voters have a right to know about before they cast their ballots. Holding the resignation decision until days after the election is, in my view, unethical.

Either we have transparency in government or we do not.

“The explanation, which Schlozman repeated at least nine times during the June 5 hearing, infuriated public integrity lawyers, who say it implied the section ordered him to prosecute, said two Justice Department officials. Public integrity attorneys handle sensitive cases involving politicians and judges and pride themselves on staying out of political disputes.”

“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.”

Next, you are ascribing statements to me I did not make. You say that my opinion “stat[ed] that [Schlozman] did not move quickly to secure indictments.” But I never said anything of the sort. All I suggested was that you added a Boston Globe quote to your story (which you have now subsequently removed) that used a carefully selected fact as damning proof of the paper’s opinion all the while omitting some key factual details. I never said that Schlozman’s indictments weren’t rushed, just that the factual evidence cited by your story (and the Globe) didn’t do a good job of backing that claim.

My opinion is that the detail and color you have now added to the Missouri ACORN indictments in what now seems to be the third revision is, on balance, an improvement to the piece. Though I think you have done a disservice by explaining that Schlozman’s case against Carnahan was dismissed while conveniently omitting the fact that his case against the ACORN canvassers led to guilty pleas and convictions.

Likewise, I am curious to know the source for your statement in your recent reply to me that, “[Schlozman] then changed his testimony after questions were raised internally at the DOJ about the veracity of his claims and as a result was close to be indicted for perjury, which Holder decided not to pursue.” Because that suggests that he “changed” his testimony only after he was “close” to being indicted for perjury. I would like to know your source for this information

The facts as I understand them are as follows: Schlozman testified before Congress on June 5, 2007. Now I don’t know what he prepared in advance, or what questions he was told to be ready to answer. I do know that Schlozman stated that he was directed to file the Missouri ACORN lawsuits by Craig Donsanto of DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. However, Schlozman made a written submission to the Committee — while the record for the hearing was still open — clarifying his testimony (or changing it if you will) dated June 11. That’s just 6 days later. Again, while the record was still open. The Committee could have recalled him to grill him further on this point but they didn’t. You are suggesting that Schlozman knew, in those six intervening days, that he was close to being indicted for perjury. Seems unlikely, seeing that the record for the hearing was still open. Still, if that’s the case, cite your source.

It is true, that months later, in March 2008, the DOJs Inspector General referred Schlozman’s testimony to the US Attorney for DC for a perjury investigation. But Schlozman clarified or corrected his testimony almost immediately after he stated it. As far as I can tell, the first record of any perjury referral on Schlozman happened 6 months after he “corrected” his testimony, and not because he “was close” to being indicted for perjury as you state.

Of course, we now know that the DOJ declined to prosecute Schlozman for perjury not once, but twice! (you fail to mention this in the article). Two separate independent reviews by career (not political) prosecutors — one review by the US Atty for DC and a second by AG Holder’s staff — both concluded that Schlozman made no statements that rose to the level of perjury that were prosecutable. But both of those reviews happened months and now years after Schlozman both testified and clarified his testimony.

So in your comments, and somewhat less so in the article now, you are asserting that Schlozman changed his testimony ***only after*** he was about to be accused of perjury. I would like to know your source for this information. It seems to fly in the face of the facts.

“My tentative plans are to gerrymander all of those crazy libs right out of the section,” Schlozman said in a 2003 e-mail. “I too get to work with mold spores, but here in Civil Rights, we call them Voting Section attorneys,” he told a friend. Schlozman said, according to a DOJ watchdog report released in January, that it was his desire to rid the DOJ of the “Democrats” and “liberals” because they were “disloyal” and replace them with “real Americans” and “right-thinking Americans.”

During his Senate testimony, Schlozman testified 10 times that he brought the indictments against ACORN “at the direction” of Craig Donsanto, the director of the Election Crimes Branch in the Public Integrity Section. He then changed his testimony after questions were raised internally at the DOJ about the veracity of his claims and as a result was close to be indicted for perjury, which Holder decided not to pursue. He changed his testimony to state:

“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.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy said in response to Schlozman’s reversal:

“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.”

It is the belief of many career USA’s, including David Iglesias, John McKay and Todd Graves, that this was a politically motivated move and hardly representative of a national scandal as the Republicans had claimed and continue to claim.

Wow, thanks. You improved the piece and corrected that inaccuracy. I’m impressed. I will point out that you quoted the Boston Globe saying, “Schlozman moved fast, so fast that his office got one of the names on the indictments wrong,”

The fact is that one of the names on the indictment was wrong. That is true. But saying it was because Schlozman “moved so fast” is a bit deceptive. This fact was used by the Boston Globe as further evidence that Schlozman was in a rush to get the indictments handed down before the election. But if you know the real story, Schlozman’s error on the indictment doesn’t really seem nearly as sinister.

In is testimony before Congress, Schlozman addressed this, and pointed out that one of the ACORN defendends was using a false identiy, and in fact was subsequently indicted on both voter registration fraud **and** identity theft, and plead guilty to both. That defendent used somebody elses SSN to get the job with ACORN and Schlozman’s office erroneously named the wrong person in the indictment. It was a mistake for sure, but probably not a politically motivated error. They corrected the indictment and convicted the right person.

Secondary sources, like the Boston Globe, just aren’t nearly as reliable as researching real primary sources. A truly balanced and neutral report states the full story and lets the reader (or editorial writer) decide if there was a sinister motive.