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:

Given the "parade" of DoJ officials who have come before Congress and delivered weak testimony claiming to know nothing about how the US Attorney, the next step for congressional investigators is obvious, the New York Times says:

Especially after this week's laughable testimony from former Missouri US attorney Bradley Schlozman, it's become clear that answers are not going to be had from Department of Justice officials who appear to be suffering from a worrisome memory loss epidemic.