1 / 42

The Congressional Ethics process

The Congressional Ethics process. a case study on its ineffectiveness. The rules.

elizabeth-garner
Download Presentation

The Congressional Ethics process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Congressional Ethics process a case study on its ineffectiveness

  2. The rules Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." The processes for expulsion differ somewhat between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

  3. The rules • There are a series of rules that supposedly govern the conduct of members of Congress. • House Rules that limit the gifts that members of Congress may accept in calendar year 2009 to $335. • Federal law (Ethics in Government Act) that requires members of Congress file an annual Financial Disclosure Form. • Requires reporting of gifts and loans received by members of Congress in preceding calendar year whether or not they exceed the gift limit. • The filing of a false Annual Financial Disclosure form is a felony violation of the Federal False Statements Accountability Act.

  4. The procedure • The consequence of a successful ethics investigation and prosecution can be any of • Dismissal of the charges • Formal reprimand by the House • Formal censure by the House • Expulsion from the House

  5. The record (Expulsion) • In modern history, only two House members have been expelled: • Michael Myers, expelled in conjunction with taking bribes during the Abscam investigation • In 2002, James Traficant was expelled after felony convictions of bribery, racketeering and tax evasion • No Senators have been expelled in the 20th or 21 century

  6. The record (Censure) • A Censure is a Congressional Procedure for reprimanding the President, a Member of Congress or a Judge. • The U.S. House has censured five members since 1966: • December 2010, Charles B. Rangel (breaking 11 separate congressional rules related to his personal finances and his fundraising efforts for a New York college) • 1983, Daniel Crane, sexual misconduct with Congressional Pages • 1983, Gerry Studds, sexual misconduct with Congressional Pages • 1980, Charles Wilson, improper Use of Campaign Funds • 1979, Charles Diggs, payroll fraud and mail fraud

  7. The record (Reprimand) • Reprimand is seen as a lesser form of reproval in the House • 2009, Joe Wilson for his “you lie” outburst when President Obama spoke to Congress • 1997, Newt Gingrich, use of tax exempt organization for political purposes and lying to House Ethics Committee • 1990, Barney Frank for using office to fix parking tickets and influence probation officer • 1987, Austin Murphy, allowing another person to cast his vote • 1984, George Hansen, false statements on financial disclosure form

  8. Ethics Committee action is slow and ineffective James Traficant case was not opened until after his criminal conviction on bribery charges (2002) Bob Ney case not started until 4 months after Ney stepped down as Chair of House Administration Committee (2006) Maxine Waters, independent investigator is examining committee before they proceed with case against Waters. Case already pending more than 2.5 years. Jessie Jackson, Jr.’sagents are on tape trying to buy the Obama’s Senate seat in Illinois. He claims no knowledge of it. Investigation pending since 2009. Blagojevich already investigated, tried and convicted.

  9. Ethics Committee action is slow and ineffective • Latest news -- Don Young – being investigated for taking bribes for four years – set up a legal expense fund • Took into his legal expense fund twelve $5,000 contributions from different companies, all owned by same family. • Committee said he did exceed limits, • but he did not do anything wrong and • changed the rule going forward. • They did not even make him pay the money back.

  10. Congressional Ethics process • In order to “beef up” the House Ethics Process, they added a “citizens committee” a few years ago to provide outside oversight • Called the “Office of Congressional Ethics,” they seem to actually do their job • But their work is entirely secret until released by the House Ethics Committee • They have no subpoena powers • When their work is released, it is usually accompanied by a dismissal by the House Ethics Committee

  11. The record As this presentation shows using the case of Jean Schmidt, there is utterly no consequence to the most outrageous, significant, blatant violations of House Rules or Federal law requiring the disclosure of financial affairs. Thus, House has little more than illusion of ethics process that is not only intentionally toothless Designed to whitewash even most outrageous conduct of members, with only few exceptions.

  12. Background of Schmidt v. Krikorian In closing days of 2008 campaign, David Krikorian posted on his web site and distributed flyers at a few churches accusing Schmidt of selling out to the Turks Schmidt brought a 9-count complaint against Krikorian at the Ohio Elections Commission after the election Six of nine charges dismissed, three substantiated

  13. Background of Schmidt v. Krikorian • In December of 2008, Turkish Coalition of America approached Schmidt and told her they would pay her legal fees • Two D.C attorneys and one Ohio attorney represented Schmidt • Case then proceeded into Franklin County Common Pleas Court and Federal Court • Now 4th proceeding – a $6.8 million defamation case in Clermont County, including the following: • “She was basically programmed by the Turkish lobby for that sworn deposition”

  14. The case of Jean Schmidt Acceptance of third party payment of legal fees of a member of Congress is clearly a gift Any gift over $335 is impermissible AND must be disclosed disclosed on the member’s Annual Financial Disclosure form From December 2008 through April of 2011, Jean Schmidt accepted approximately $498,587 in third party payments of her legal fees by the Turkish Coalition of America

  15. The case of Jean Schmidt Jean Schmidt failed to disclose the gifts of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees on her 2008, 2009, or 2010 Financial Disclosure Forms She thus committed three felonies for her failure to disclose the gift She violated House Rules by accepting the gifts

  16. Why might TCA care about Jean Schmidt? • Serves on House Foreign Affairs Committee and the subcommittee that addresses Turkish matters • Schmidt has engaged in many pro-Turkish activities • Wrote editorial for Turkish newspaper Daily Zaman against Armenian Genocide Resolution • Signed “Dear Colleague” letter 5/7/10 urging rejection of Armenian Genocide Resolution • Taken at least two trips to Turkey, one at the expense of the Imam FethullahGulen’sRumi Forum (one of World’s most important Muslim figures) with close ties to Turkish Islamic government

  17. What happenedSchmidt v. Krikorian The issue of whether Jean Schmidt knew she was accepting an illegal gift is key in this case But, we have this under oath from her attorney taken on August 31, 2009:

  18. Schmidt knew who was paying her legal fees In December of 2008, Bruce Fein met with Jean Schmidt and told her the Turkish Coalition of America was going to pay her considerable legal fees arising from these proceedings:

  19. Schmidt knew who was paying her legal fees • Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.8(f)(1): • “a lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from someone other than the client” unless the client gives informed consent. • District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(e) requires that attorneys disclose to their client if a third party is paying their legal fees

  20. Schmidt knew who was paying her legal fees • Her attorneys acknowledged in open court who was paying Ms. Schmidt’s legal fees: • The Turkish Coalition of America has consistently funded Fein representation of Jean Schmidt. Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum, November 10, 2010 • Well, we’ve already said we got paid by the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund.” Donald Brey at oral argument November 16, 2010.

  21. Krikorian counsel Krikorian was represented by Chris Finney and celebrity attorney Mark Geragos

  22. Schmidt counsel Schmidt represented by team of attorneys funded by TCA, Bruce Fein and David Saltzman of D.C. and Donald Brey of Columbus

  23. What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics case Through 2009, Schmidt pursued Krikorian Celebrity attorney Mark Geragos and local attorney Chris Finney represented Krikorian There were depositions in the District of Columbia, Cincinnati, and Columbus Two days of trial We knew hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees were incurred. We knew the TCA was paying these legal fees

  24. What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics case In June of 2010, Jean Schmidt’s Calendar year 2009 Financial Disclosure Form was filed She categorically stated she received no gifts, and had no outstanding indebtedness Thus, she lied about who was paying her legal fees and that she had received a gift worth hundreds of thousands of dollars

  25. What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics case On July 13, 2010, David Krikorian filed a Complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics, the citizens committee complaining of the illegal gift On May 18, 2011, the OCE reported to the House Ethics Committee their findings that in fact the TCA was impermissibly paying her legal fees Schmidt received a copy that same day On May 27, 2011, Schmidt wrote to the House Ethics Committee saying she first learned who was paying her legal fees when Krikorian filed his Complaint in July of 2010

  26. Schmidt admitted she knew who was paying her lawyers • “I would have learned of allegations that TCA was paying TALDF lawyers for my case directly at the same time and in the same manner as the Committee – through press reports and allegations set forth by the Defendant in the Ohio cases.” • -- Jean Schmidt Excepts from Schmidt letter to the House Ethics Committee dated May 27, 2011 referencing Complaint and media reports from July of 2010

  27. What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics case On June 14, 2011, fewer than three weeks after Jean Schmidt acknowledged in writing that she now knew who was paying her legal fees, she filed her Calendar Year 2010 Financial Disclosure Form with the House Clerk Again, she claimed no gifts and no outstanding indebtedness Thus for a third time, and this time irrefutably, she lied on her Financial Disclosure Form, a felony and a violation of House Rules

  28. She lied about “loan” she claimed two weeks earlier

  29. What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics case The Office of Congressional Ethics found that Jean Schmidt had knowingly accepted an illegal gift of nearly $500,000 and referred the matter for further action to the House Ethics Committee

  30. What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics case Inexplicably, the House Ethics Committee found that while Jean Schmidt had accepted an impermissible gift, she did not know of the gift, and thus did not violate House Rules No one from the OCE or the House Ethics Committee ever called Krikorian or his counsel to investigate the claims or defenses But they did order her to do certain things to remedy the situation

  31. House Ethics Committee’s August 2011 order Amend her ‘09 & ’10 Disclosure Forms to show $500,000 in impermissible gifts To “immediately” to repay ~$40,000 of illegal gifts from her personal funds To repay remaining $460,000 in impermissible gifts To re-pay the $460,000 “when funds are available from a permissible source”

  32. What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics case • As of January 25, 2012, five months after the House Ethics Committee report and order • Finally, on January 3, 2012, Schmidt amended her ethics form to admit that she received an illegal gift of nearly $1/2 Million (less than determined) • She has offered no proof that she repaid the ~$40,000 that she was ordered to re-pay immediately • She has set up the Legal Expense Fund, and has raised a total of $10 in it

  33. Schmidt joins rogue’s gallery • Only seven sitting (all ethically-tainted) representatives have Legal Expense Funds • Jean Schmidt • Charlie Rangel • Maxine Waters • Mario Diaz-Balart (illegal campaign contributions from Bacardi USA Inc., PAC) • Jim McDermott (sued by Boehner for illegal wiretapping) • Corrine Brown (favors for her daughter lobbyist) • Don Young (under federal investigation for taking bribes and unreported gifts [sound familiar?])

  34. The Rogue’s gallery(Former members legal expense funds) • Some former members with legal expense funds (all crooks) • William J. Jefferson • Tom Delay • Randy (Duke) Cunningham • Robert W. Ney

  35. What happened further inJean Schmidt Ethics case CREW has named Jean Schmidt one of the 14 most corrupt members of Congress

  36. What happened further inJean Schmidt Ethics case CREW has filed a supplemental complaint with the OCE claiming (correctly) that Jean Schmidt lied when she told the House Ethics Committee that she did not know who was paying her legal fees. CREW also asked that the FBI investigate her for lying to the House Ethics Committee and filing false Financial Disclosure Forms, felonies This is irrefutable as to her 2010 Financial Disclosure Form filed in June of 2011.

  37. What happened further inJean Schmidt Ethics case • To date, three full years after the illegal conduct commenced: • No one will take any enforcement action against her • She still has not complied with orders of the House Ethics Committee • She still is pursuing her $6.8 million defamation claim against Krikorian • She still has the same attorneys • She has not paid a nickel back of the $500,000 illegal “loan” or gift

  38. What happened further inJean Schmidt Ethics case • Hearing last week on “intelocutory” appeal. • “However, the Committee has found that Representative Schmidt’s lawyers failed to inform her of their payment arrangement with TCA, and made false and misleading statements to her about their relationship with TCA and TALDF.” • Schmidt’s kept these two lawyers for her appeal.

  39. Congressional Ethics What you can do Demand local newspapers cover misdeeds of your member of Congress Write letters to the editor and blog entries on the topic Write to your Congressman demanding integrity in the Congressional ethics process Ask Jean Schmidt questions about this in public debates Write to members of the House Ethics Committee to show you know of their toothless enforcement and demand more integrity in the process

  40. What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics case Once can conclude that Congressional ethics process is entirely toothless, and in facts exists to exonerate and whitewash the bad acts of members of Congress. The other agencies that would lock any of us up for similar behaviors, the U.S. Attorney, FBI, IRS, FEC, have a “hands off” attitude towards members of Congress Thus, they may undertake the most outrageous acts with impunity And they may relentless harass and pursue their political enemies using special interest money

More Related