The Congressional Ethics process 

a case study on its ineffectiveness

The rulesArticle 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.

The rulesThere 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.

The procedureThe consequence of a successful

ethics investigation and prosecution can be any ofDismissal of the chargesFormal reprimand by the HouseFormal censure by the HouseExpulsion from the House

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

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

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

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.’s agents 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.

Ethics Committee action is slow and ineffectiveLatest 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.

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

The recordAs 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.

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

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”

The case of Jean SchmidtAcceptance 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

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

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 Fethullah Gulen’s Rumi Forum (one of World’s most important Muslim figures) with close ties to Turkish Islamic government

What happenedSchmidt v. KrikorianThe 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:

Schmidt knew who was paying her legal feesIn 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:

Schmidt knew who was paying her legal feesOhio 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

Schmidt knew who was paying her legal feesHer 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.

Krikorian counsel

Krikorian was represented by Chris Finney and celebrity attorney Mark Geragos

Schmidt counselSchmidt

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

What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics caseThrough 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

What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics caseIn 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

What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics caseOn 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

Schmidt admitted she knew who was paying her lawyersExcepts from Schmidt letter to the House Ethics Committee dated May 27, 2011 referencing Complaint and media reports from July of 2010

“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

What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics caseOn 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

She lied about “loan” she claimed two weeks earlier

What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics caseThe 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

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

House Ethics Committee’s August 2011 orderAmend 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”

What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics caseAs 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

Schmidt joins rogue’s galleryOnly 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?])

The Rogue’s gallery(Former members legal expense funds)

Some former members with legal expense funds (all crooks)William J. JeffersonTom DelayRandy (Duke) CunninghamRobert W. Ney

What happened further inJean Schmidt Ethics caseCREW has named Jean Schmidt one of the 14

most corrupt members of Congress

What happened further inJean Schmidt Ethics caseCREW 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.

What happened further inJean Schmidt Ethics caseTo 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

What happened further inJean Schmidt Ethics caseHearing 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.

Congressional Ethics What you can doDemand 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

What happenedJean Schmidt Ethics caseOnce 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