I wrote last week about a Justice Department official testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Committee's ongoing investigation of the politicization of the Justice Department.
At the hearing, DOJ official Bradley Schlozman testified at least ten times that, when he was a U.S. Attorney in Missouri, he was "directed" by the Justice Department's Office of Public Integrity to charge four members of a liberal voter-registration group with election fraud mere days before the 2006 elections, despite the fact that Department guidelines mandate such charges be brought after the election (the suit was later dismissed by a judge due to a lack of evidence).
Almost certain that such testimony was false, and that Schlozman himself chose to file the charges for political purposes, I opined later that day that the testimony "...should result in perjury charges against the man."
Mr. Shlozman probably reached the same conslusion, and today issued a "clarification" of his testimony (i.e., complete and utter reversal of his testimony). In this "clarification," Schlozman says:
while I relied on the consultation with, and suggestions of, the [Office of Public Integrity], I take full responsibility for the decision to move foward with the prosecutions...
Essentially, Schlozman now admits that the entire basis for his line of defense during his testimony was fabricated. I ask now,
why has Mr. Schlozman has not been charged with perjury?
Maybe they will wait until a few days before the presidential election.
