[Senate Hearing 118-38]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







                                                         S. Hrg. 118-38

                   REVIEW OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL ETHICS
                  PROCESSES AT THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
                          OF THE UNITED STATES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL COURTS, OVERSIGHT,
                   AGENCY ACTION, AND FEDERAL RIGHTS

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                              MAY 17, 2023

                               ----------                              

                          Serial No. J-118-17

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary




[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

























                                                        S. Hrg. 118-038

                   REVIEW OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL ETHICS
                  PROCESSES AT THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
                          OF THE UNITED STATES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL COURTS, OVERSIGHT,
                   AGENCY ACTION, AND FEDERAL RIGHTS

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 17, 2023

                               __________

                          Serial No. J-118-17

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary




[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
52-707 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023 




















                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                   RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina, 
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island             Ranking Member
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       JOHN CORNYN, Texas
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              TED CRUZ, Texas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California             TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
             Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
      Katherine Nikas, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director

 Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal 
                                 Rights

                SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chair
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana, Ranking 
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut          Member
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
ALEX PADILLA, California             TED CRUZ, Texas
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                     JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
                 Annie Owens, Democratic Chief Counsel
               Nathan Williams, Republican Chief Counsel 
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                          MAY 17, 2023, 2 P.M.

                    STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                   Page

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode 
  Island                                                              1
Kennedy, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana...     2
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Illinois.......................................................     5

                               WITNESSES

Witness List.....................................................    19
Wolf, Hon. Mark L., Senior U.S. District Judge for the District 
  of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts........................     7
    prepared statement...........................................    20
      Attachment I...............................................   117
      Attachment II..............................................   119
      Attachment III.............................................   132
      Attachment IV..............................................   213
      Attachment V...............................................   251
      Attachment VI..............................................   512
      Attachment VII.............................................   532
      Attachment VIII............................................   600
      Attachment IX..............................................   607

                MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submitted by Senator Whitehouse:

    2023-04-21, letter to Judge Mauskopf as to Financial 
      Disclosure Committee.......................................   614
    2023-04-27, letter to Judge Mauskopf as to Justice Thomas' 
      2011 disclosure............................................   616
    2023-05-05, letter to Judge Mauskopf as to Financial 
      Disclosure Committee.......................................   621
    2023-05-15, letter from Judicial Conference of the United 
      States as to Justice Thomas' 2011 disclosure...............   631
    Alliance for Justice, statement, May 17, 2023................   662
    FFRF Action Fund, statement..................................   667
    Roth, Gabe, statement, May 17, 2023..........................   669

 
                   REVIEW OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL ETHICS 
                  PROCESSES AT THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 
                          OF THE UNITED STATES

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2023

                      United States Senate,
         Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight,
                 Agency Action, and Federal Rights,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in 
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sheldon 
Whitehouse, Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Whitehouse [presiding], Hirono, Kennedy, 
and Lee.
    Also present: Chair Durbin.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
         A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

    Chair Whitehouse. Let me call to order this hearing of the 
Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Courts, 
Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights. We'll proceed 
with opening remarks from myself, from Ranking Member Kennedy, 
and we have the good fortune that the Chairman of the full 
Committee, Senator Dick Durbin is with us, and he will offer 
opening remarks after Senator Kennedy. We'll then proceed to 
the comments that you have prepared, Judge Wolf, and your full 
statement and exhibits attached to it will be made a part of 
the record, so you don't need to concern yourself with that. 
And then we'll have question and answers with the Committee 
Members. So let me welcome you and get underway.
    One month ago, Congressman Hank Johnson and I wrote to the 
Judicial Conference of the United States asking it to look at 
recent reports that Justice Clarence Thomas violated the Ethics 
in Government Act by failing to disclose gifts of travel and 
luxury vacations provided by a right-wing billionaire. The 
Judicial Conference's responsibilities under that law are quite 
clear. If there is, and I quote, ``Reasonable cause to 
believe,'' close quote, that Justice Thomas willfully failed to 
file, then it must refer him to the Justice Department for 
further investigation.
    The Judicial Conference is a statutory body and the Ethics 
in Government Act is a Federal statute. So this is all very 
much Congress' business. The Judicial Conference has a 
Committee on Financial Disclosure. Our request about the recent 
Thomas allegations was sent there. I've urged that committee to 
act with dispatch and to provide us information to understand 
how the process is handled. This is not a first. Believe it or 
not, we've been in nearly this exact situation before.
    Back in 2011, the nonprofit group Common Cause uncovered 
that Justice Thomas hadn't reported years of his wife's income 
paid by a right-wing, dark-money group. The New York Times 
reported that Justice Thomas also had not disclosed gifts of 
free private jet and yacht travel from the same right-wing 
billionaire. The same kinds of undisclosed gifts from the same 
right-wing billionaire that were revealed last month.
    Then, as now, the Ethics in Government Act required Justice 
Thomas to report these things. And then, as now, the question 
was whether there was reasonable cause to believe that Justice 
Thomas' omissions were willful. In which case, then, as now, 
referral to the Attorney General is required by law.
    So the Judicial Conference actions then, are the prequel to 
what is in front of it now. More than a decade later, we're 
just now getting answers to important questions. Over the past 
few weeks, I've asked the Judicial Conference, ``Who was on 
that committee? What was its process and rationale? What kind 
of evidence did it consider? And what were the rules and 
procedures under which all of this took place?''
    The Judicial Conference's recent response, and I will enter 
the Judicial Conference's response and the three letters of 
mine to which it was responsive, into the record, is a helpful 
start.
    [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
    Chair Whitehouse. But there is more that we need to know 
about those events. We'll hear today from someone who can help 
us with pertinent insight into what the Judicial Conference and 
its Committee on Financial Disclosure did back in 2011. Judge 
Mark Wolf was a member of the Judicial Conference in 2011 and 
2012, and his experience on the Judicial Conference provides 
special insight into its normal operations and how the 
Conference handled the incidents involving Justice Thomas.
    Congress has a role in making sure that our courts are 
administering Federal ethics laws fairly and as intended. If 
they aren't, we need a robust record of what has gone wrong and 
what new laws might be needed to fix it. Judge Wolf's testimony 
will help us build that thoughtful record, and we are grateful 
to him for appearing today. Senator Kennedy, then Senator 
Durbin.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KENNEDY,
           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The assault comes 
in waves. The current assault on the United States Supreme 
Court as an institution started on May 4th, 2020. I remember it 
like it was yesterday. It started on the steps of the United 
States Supreme Court. The Democratic Leader of the United 
States Senate said, and I quote, ``I want to tell you Gorsuch, 
I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the 
whirlwind,'' the Democratic Leader of the United States Senate 
said, ``And you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you 
if you go forward with these awful decisions.''
    Now, we're supposedly here today to hear the latest chapter 
in the fairy tale of Supreme Court corruption. As I implied, 
this is a continued effort to undermine a United States Supreme 
Court that isn't ruling the way that some of my Democratic 
colleagues want. How do we know today's outrage is unjustified? 
Well, at least four of my Democratic colleagues, and I suspect 
many Republicans on this Committee, have done exactly what 
Justice Thomas did: amend their financial disclosures.
    I'm willing to stipulate that, like Justice Thomas, my 
colleagues have done nothing wrong intentionally. Amendments 
are pretty commonplace. According to the Judicial Conference, 
about which you will probably hear a lot today from this 
witness, Justice Thomas in 2011, immediately amended his 
financial disclosures to include his wife's employers for a 
number of years. That's it. That's all, folks. That's what this 
is all about. Of course, everybody knew at the time that Mrs. 
Thomas worked in politics, and everybody knew at the time that 
Mrs. Thomas works in policy.
    So it's pretty unclear what the bombshell is here. Maybe 
because there isn't one. Justice Thomas either misunderstood or 
misinterpreted, I don't know, the disclosure obligations.
    [Poster is displayed.]
    Senator Kennedy. And so in 2011, he filed an amendment, 
which the law calls for, to tell us what we already knew. The 
Judicial Conference has a Committee on Financial Disclosure. 
The Judicial Conference's Committee on Financial Disclosure 
cleared Justice Thomas. Did I mention they cleared him?
    [Poster is displayed.]
    Senator Kennedy. They found no evidence. None. Zero. Nada. 
Zilch. They found no evidence that he acted willfully or 
improperly.
    [Posters are displayed.]
    Senator Kennedy. And as the Judicial Conference told our 
Chairman just two days ago, the Conference's Committee on 
Financial Disclosure cleared Justice Thomas not once, not 
twice, not three times, but four times at four separate points 
under the leadership of two different judges who served as 
chairman of that committee. Now, that ought to be the end of 
the story. But it turns out that for the last dozen years, a 
lone Federal judge who is with us today has been obsessed with 
complaining that the Judicial Conference got it wrong. 
Obsessed. Perhaps he thinks they are crooks, too.
    A few data points on our witness today, Judge Wolf.
    [Poster is displayed.]
    Senator Kennedy. Number one, as a sitting Federal judge, he 
wrote in 2021 for NBC News in support of H.R. 1. This was the 
partisan Democratic bill to Federalize elections, to remove 
them from State and local government. Are Federal judges 
supposed to advocate for policy changes to current law? No. But 
Judge Wolf did.
    Number two, the Associated Press has reported that, quote--
I'm going to quote now, these are AP's words, not mine, ``A 
longtime FBI informant believed that Wolf had leaked 
information to the mob when he worked for the U.S. Attorney's 
Office,'' end quote. Then, as a judge, he refused to recuse 
himself in a case involving the mob.
    Number three, a few years later, Federal prosecutors 
accused Judge Wolf of entertaining a defense witness in a 
murder trial--are you kidding me? A highly unethical move, 
that's an understatement--at Martha's Vineyard, which led to 
his recusal to avoid the potential for appearing biased after 
he'd been 15 years into the case. Talk about an inefficient use 
of scarce judicial resources. Now, this is the Judge Wolf whom 
we're going to hear from today. A self-described nonpartisan 
interested in fair judicial administration.
    The proceedings of the Judicial Conference are highly 
confidential. The proceedings of its Financial Disclosure 
Committee are confidential, too. Multiple advisory opinions and 
even the Judicial Code of Conduct say that a sitting judge 
should only testify before a partisan body if they are an 
expert. And yet Judge Wolf is going to tell us all about them, 
even though he didn't even sit on the committee that 
investigated Justice Thomas.
    As the Judicial Conference emphasized, professional, 
nonpolitical career staff of the Judicial Conference's 
Financial Disclosure Committee viewed Justice Thomas' amended 
disclosure and called it what it was, routine. But the judgment 
from nonpartisan staff and from the committee's Democrat, not 
Republican, but Democrat-appointed head didn't satisfy Judge 
Wolf. He continued on, and he eventually tried to force a vote 
at the Judiciary Conference.
    Obsessed. Why? For the same reason that some Democrats keep 
holding public smear campaigns like this one. Judge Wolf wasn't 
getting his way from the head of the Judicial Conference or 
from Chief Justice Roberts himself. Ethics experts and fellow 
judges agreed that there was no there, there. But maybe the 
press, maybe the press could be convinced that even when 
there's no smoke, there's fire. We've never seen that happen in 
Washington. Apparently, someone, someone convinced the press to 
swallow Judge Wolf's line.
    As of 2 weeks ago, you can read the play-by-play of how 
Judge Wolf repeatedly and unsuccessfully pressed the Judicial 
Conference to bend to his will in a Bloomberg article written 
more than a decade after the fact. By the way, the Judicial 
Conference says that, quote, ``Judges should not discuss 
pending or impending cases, confidential information, or 
controversial matters with the media.''
    The media revelation is interesting, not because it 
demonstrates any wrongdoing on the part of either Justice 
Thomas or Chief Justice Roberts, none. But because it implies 
wrongdoing on the part of its possible source--possible source. 
The information leaked to this reporter is highly confidential, 
and if, if it was leaked by a sitting judge, it was unethical. 
In other words, this hearing--we're here to focus on potential 
ethical lapse. Could it be that this hearing is only possible 
because of a clear ethical lapse?
    I wish some of my Democratic friends, and they are my 
friends, and Judge Wolf were as concerned about this leak as 
they are about routine and proper disclosure amendments. And, 
by the way, anyone who wonders why appropriate confidentiality 
can be so crucial to our legal system and to the safety of the 
men and women on the bench, can give Justice Kavanaugh a call. 
Just ring him up. Leaking confidential information to affect an 
outcome or get your way is always wrong, and sometimes it's 
dangerous.
    So why does the nauseously woke left continue to employ 
these tactics? That's a fair question. We got the answer in New 
York Magazine. New York Magazine told us 2 days after the 
Bloomberg piece on Judge Wolf's advocacy was published. I want 
to read to you the magazine's advice, quote, ``It is therefore 
in the interest of the progressive movement to undermine the 
Court's legitimacy. It makes sense for progressives to 
publicize Thomas' obscene indulgences. But I think it's true 
that the end goal of doing so isn't to secure ethics reforms 
that will render the Supreme Court less vulnerable to 
perceptions of corruption. The point is, or at least it should 
be, to promote the perception of judicial corruption,'' end 
quote.
    If you can't control it, you burn it down. Like others, 
Judge Wolf's goal seems to me to be political. This hearing has 
been entirely structured around him--entirely--who has, as a 
supposedly nonpartisan Federal judge, endorsed partisan 
legislation, and has been the catalyst and the only witness for 
a partisan hearing. Is this witness, is Judge Wolf planning on 
launching a Super PAC next?
    So let me sum it up. More than 10 years ago, Justice Thomas 
amended his financial disclosures to include facts that 
everyone already knew, which he had inadvertently, I shouldn't 
say inadvertently, I don't know, omitted. People file 
amendments all the time. Both Democrats and Republicans on this 
Committee have repeatedly done the same thing. I don't hold 
that against them. I don't hold that against them, and neither 
should anyone here.
    This routine amendment resulted in a bureaucratic knife 
fight that Judge Wolf instigated against a Supreme Court 
Justice and the Judicial Conference. He lost resoundingly four 
times. Did I mention that? He lost four times. And here he is, 
a dozen years later to tell us all about it. Even when the 
facts vindicate the accused, the nauseously woke left can't 
help but sling mud, especially when it comes to the Supreme 
Court. If we can't control it, let's burn it down. Forget 
innocent until proven guilty. The loon wing of the left insists 
that good Justices are guilty even after they've been found 
innocent, four times. And that's the perpetual political 
carousel that brings us here today. It makes me want to gag.
    Chair Whitehouse. I thank the Ranking Member for his 
colorful remarks and turn to Chairman Durbin.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
Senator Kennedy for holding this important hearing today. I 
want to thank Judge Wolf for his willingness to testify about 
the role the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial 
Disclosure plays, or fails to play, when it comes to overseeing 
Supreme Court Justices' compliance with the Ethics in 
Government Act.
    I'd like to start by saying that Senator Kennedy, my 
friend, has identified May 4th, 2020, as the kickoff date for 
this so-called political exercise. I would like to show to my 
colleague and put in the record a copy of the letter which I 
sent, signed by Senator Leahy, Senator Whitehouse, and others, 
to Chief Justice John Roberts, dated February 13th, 2012--
February 13th, 2012--8 years before this date in 2020.
    And what were we asking or making inquiry on? We were 
asking about information on the Code of Ethics and the Code of 
Conduct and the ethical behavior of the Supreme Court Justices, 
in particular, one whose situation had come to light, who had 
been receiving some gifts of some sort, and his wife had been 
receiving some income, which was not properly reported. So to 
say this all started on May 4th, 2020, is just plain wrong. 
I've got the letter here to prove it, and I ask consent to 
enter it into the record.
    Chair Whitehouse. Without objection.
    [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. Let me go further and say that for more than 
a decade since sending this letter and before, I've been 
calling on Supreme Court Justices to be held, at a minimum, at 
a minimum, to the same ethical standards as every other Federal 
judge. That's the outrage that precipitated the comments by the 
Ranking Member, the notion that the Supreme Court Justices, all 
nine of them, would be held to the same ethical standards. As I 
mentioned, I started that in February 2012.
    I want to commend the Chairman, Senator Whitehouse, who has 
really done yeoman's duty in pursuing this issue long before 
the current publication by ProPublica of information that 
brings us here today. I thank him for his leadership in that, 
and I think he is appropriately chairing this Subcommittee on 
the Courts at a moment in history when he's needed now more 
than ever.
    I again urged Chief Justice Roberts, after the recent 
ProPublica revelations about luxury vacations and travel given 
to the Supreme Court Justice by billionaire Harlan Crow. I 
invited the Chief Justice on behalf of the Committee, Democrats 
in the Committee, to testify on this issue. He declined. I'm 
sorry that he did. I then called on him to rescue the 
reputation of the Court by simply taking action to respond to 
this well-documented outrage.
    For anyone, including my colleagues in the Senate, on both 
sides of the aisle, to believe that this is normal, acceptable 
conduct for an elected official, Supreme Court Justice, Senator 
to be receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of 
gifts and vacations, to have your mother's home purchased by an 
individual so she doesn't have to pay a mortgage any longer. 
The list just goes on and keeps moving on. And the American 
people don't understand this.
    Judge Wolf, I read your statement this morning, and I'm not 
going to quote it because maybe some elements that you want to 
quote yourself in your opening statement. But what this Court 
has to rely on is the confidence of the American people in the 
integrity of Justices when they hand down decisions. If they 
hand down controversial decisions and the American people don't 
like them, they can at least say, ``Well, that's the Court. 
They go their own way.'' But if there is any question about the 
integrity and character of these Justices, it really undermines 
the institution of the Court.
    That's why I appealed directly to Chief Justice Roberts. 
This is the Roberts' Court. This is his Court in history. And 
what he chooses to do by way of ethics is going to be 
remembered for generations. I believe he can, and I hope he 
will, step up, raise his hand, and say, ``That's the end of the 
special treatment for Supreme Court Justices. They will be held 
to the same ethical standards as every other Federal judge.'' 
That's not too much to ask. It's the very least we should ask.
    I thank you, Judge Wolf, for being here today. I read your 
testimony in its entirety this morning. I'm looking forward to 
asking you a few questions after you've had an opening 
statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Whitehouse. Thank you. I will now introduce our 
witness. But before I do, let me say that Judge Wolf, the 
personal character of the various assertions and insinuations 
that the Ranking Member has made, I think, entitles you to an 
opportunity to respond. The proper way to do that, I think, 
rather than deflect the course of this hearing, is to allow you 
to respond as if those were questions for the record, so that 
after the hearing is concluded, you will have a week to offer 
such responses you feel is appropriate, or none, if you feel 
that is appropriate.
    But I would prefer not to have the course of the hearing, 
which is an inquiry into the procedures and processes of the 
Judicial Conference, deflected by those assertions and 
insinuations.
    Judge Wolf is a Senior United States District Court Judge 
for the District of Massachusetts. Judge Wolf was appointed to 
the Federal bench in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan, and from 
2006 to 2012, Judge Wolf served as the Chief Judge for the 
District of Massachusetts. From 2010 to 2012, Judge Wolf was a 
member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, where 
he chaired the Committee on District Judges and was a member of 
the Judicial Conference's Committees on Codes of Conduct, 
Criminal Law, and Rules of Criminal Procedure.
    Before his appointment, Judge Wolf was a Deputy U.S. 
Attorney and chief of the Public Corruption Unit in the 
District of Massachusetts. He also served as special assistant 
to Deputy Attorney General Laurence Silberman and as a special 
assistant to Attorney General Edward Levi. Judge Wolf, you're 
recognized for your opening statement. As I said before, your 
complete testimony and exhibits will be made a matter of 
record.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK L. WOLF, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
      THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

    Judge Wolf. Senator, thank you. I have, as requested, 
prepared a little less than 10 minutes of remarks, and I know 
I'm not in my courtroom, so I don't set the procedures. I'm 
very sorry that Senator Kennedy has left, but I hope that I can 
today, in whatever time might have been ceded to him if he 
remained, address some of the inaccurate statements he made, 
rather than doing that exclusively in writing, if time permits.
    But I do thank you for requesting my testimony about how 
the Judicial Conference of the United States in the past 
discharged its responsibility. Under the 1978 Ethics in 
Government Act that applies to all Federal judges, including 
Supreme Court Justices, I am testifying as an individual, not 
as a representative of the Judicial Conference or the Federal 
Judiciary. I would like to highlight some of my lengthy written 
testimony in a further effort to be helpful to you and to the 
Judicial Conference.
    The Act codifies the belief that sunlight is the best of 
disinfectants. Transparency of financial information of a 
Justice or a judge and his immediate family encourages Justices 
and judges to decide cases impartially, as we are sworn to do, 
and encourages reasonable people to believe that we are doing 
so. The Act creates criminal and civil penalties for willfully 
falsifying information, or willfully failing to file required 
information.
    In addition, 18 United States Code Section 1001 makes it a 
crime punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment to willfully 
falsify or conceal information. The Act defines a specific and 
limited role for the Conference. It provides that the Judicial 
Conference shall refer to the Attorney General, the name of any 
individual it has reasonable cause to believe has willfully 
failed to file a report, or has willfully falsified, or 
willfully failed to file required information.
    Reasonable cause is analogous to probable cause. It's more 
than bare suspicion, but less than by a preponderance of the 
evidence. It is not the Conference's duty under the Act, to 
determine whether a Justice or judge has violated the statute. 
The Conference is to decide whether there is reasonable cause 
to believe a willful violation occurred. If reasonable cause 
exists, the Conference must refer the Justice or judge involved 
to the Attorney General. This division of responsibilities is 
wise and important.
    I was a Conference member in 2011 and 2012. Thus I shared 
responsibility for assuring the Act was properly implemented 
and enforced. In 2011, the Conference received five letters, 
and the Supreme Court received one, in part alleging that from 
2003 to 2009, Justice Clarence Thomas did not make the required 
disclosure that the Heritage Foundation employed his wife. I 
believe, for many years, he checked that her employment was 
none.
    The Justice evidently knew of the requirement because he 
had previously disclosed his wife's employment, including in 
his early years as a Justice. Although the Act does not require 
disclosure of the amount of compensation, the letters stated 
her compensation was substantial. The first letter was sent in 
January 2011 and was referred to the Conference's Committee on 
Financial Disclosure.
    Justice Thomas promptly amended his reports stating that he 
misunderstood the Act's requirements and that the errors were 
inadvertent. Nevertheless, the Conference still had a duty to 
decide if there was reasonable cause to believe his omissions 
were willful, and if so, refer him to the Attorney General. 
Policy of the Conference required that committees' reports to 
the Conference include all their activities since the last 
biannual Conference meeting.
    This information ensured that each Conference member had 
the knowledge and ability to require discussion and possible 
decision by the full Conference. However, the Financial 
Disclosure Committee's reports for the March and September 2011 
Conference meetings did not reference the issues concerning 
Justice Thomas or any related committee activity. The rest of 
the letters to the Conference amplified earlier allegations, 
questioned whether Justice Thomas' omissions actually were 
inadvertent, and raised other concerns, including allegations 
that Justice Thomas had failed to report travel on Harlan 
Crow's jet and yacht.
    Those letters were sent on or after the date of the 
September 13, 2011, Conference meeting. In early 2012, I found 
some of the 2011 letters on the internet. I told Judge Thomas 
Hogan, Secretary of the Conference, that I was concerned that 
other Conference members and I had not been informed of the 
letters in their request to refer Justice Thomas to the 
Attorney General. I suggested that the matter be discussed at 
the March 2012 meeting. He told me that he had referred the 
letters to the Financial Disclosure Committee and asked me to 
wait until the committee chair, Judge Joseph McKinley, 
responded to him.
    Judge Hogan subsequently gave me Judge McKinley's February 
23, 2012, response. I spoke with Judge McKinley and became 
concerned that in 2011, the committee may have done nothing 
after Justice Thomas amended his reports and had not addressed 
the question of whether reasonable cause existed. Judge 
McKinley told me that the staff had not referenced the letters 
in the last three reports to the committee because they 
regarded them as routine. He also said, however, that this was 
the only time Members of Congress or the public had ever 
requested a referral to the Attorney General.
    There was also no reference to the letters in the 
committee's report for the September 2012 Conference meeting. 
Judge Hogan told me he had received on April 17, 2012, revised 
version of Judge McKinley's February response, and he wrote to 
the letters' authors on April 30th to inform them that the 
committee had decided against referral. I asked Judge David 
Sentelle, chair of the Conference Executive Committee, to put 
the matters concerning Justice Thomas on the September 12 
Conference agenda. The Executive Committee denied my request.
    I then exercised my right to move the committee report to 
the discussion calendar. I told Judge Hogan that I would send a 
memorandum to Conference members before the meeting explaining 
my concerns. He urged me not to include the two letters from 
Judge McKinley describing the committee's actions. I acquiesced 
and did not attach them to my memorandum. At the September 11, 
2012, meeting, I moved to disapprove the committee's report and 
require revision of the prior three reports.
    Chief Justice Roberts allowed me to speak briefly about the 
deficient process and whether the Conference was properly 
performing its important but limited role of determining 
whether reasonable cause to refer to the Attorney General 
existed. I hoped to generate discussion. When I concluded, the 
Chief Justice immediately recognized Judge Sentelle. Judge 
Sentelle successfully moved that the issues be returned to the 
committee for a report at a future meeting in which he knew I 
would not be present because my term as a Conference member was 
ended.
    It is unfortunately relevant to consider these events now. 
The Act only serves its vital purpose if the Conference 
understands and properly performs its role. I believe that in 
2011 and 2012, it did not.
    First, despite Congress and the public raising serious 
allegations, and the Conference referring them to the 
committee, it appears that the committee did little to nothing 
for at least a year. The committee should have, at the very 
least, addressed the allegations at the March 2012 committee 
meeting.
    Second, the committee's process was opaque. In 2011, likely 
through inaction, then in 2012 by insistence, the committee did 
not disclose to members of the Conference the allegations, the 
actions, if any, it took, and the reasons for any decisions.
    Third, the statutory mandate for the Conference, and by 
delegation to the committee, was to determine whether there was 
reasonable cause to refer, not the ultimate merits of whether 
the Justice's violations were willful.
    However, in conversations, letters and reports, the 
committee repeatedly framed its inquiry using the wrong 
standard. As I frequently tell my law clerks, if you address 
the wrong question, you are likely to get the wrong answer. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Judge Wolf appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Your Honor. It 
sounds to me like the nutshell version of your testimony is 
that the wrong question was answered, i.e. willfulness rather 
than reasonable cause. It was answered in the wrong venue, to 
wit, a committee or subcommittee, or perhaps individual 
determination, instead of Judicial Conference, as the statute 
suggests, with the result that the deliberations were, to use 
your word, ``opaque,'' they took place out of public view. Is 
that a fairly accurate summary?
    Judge Wolf. Yes, with the caveat that, it appears to me, 
having revisited this and having more information, in some 
respects than I had in 2012, it appears to me that no decisions 
and possibly no action was taken in 2011. And that's another 
concerning matter.
    Chair Whitehouse. The one place where there is an 
opportunity for public awareness of what is happening in this 
process is at the Judicial Conference. Correct?
    Judge Wolf. Well, that's not completely correct either, 
because I have scoured the Guide to Judicial Policy, which is 
not a public document, and the judiciary's description of the 
Judicial Conference and its committees. There is nothing in 
there that says that a judge or Justice can't talk about what 
transpired. However----
    Chair Whitehouse. I'm asking a bit of a different----
    Judge Wolf. Well, I know, but no--but however, I expect 
that some of you at least have attended those meetings. The 
public is not allowed to observe, to see the proceedings. 
They're allowed to see this hearing. They can judge my 
credibility if they're interested in my motives. But that kind 
of transparency doesn't exist in the Judicial Conference.
    And there are certainly things that should properly be 
discussed confidentially and maintained as confidential, 
particularly before decisions are made, the essence of the 
deliberative process privilege, predecisional. But striking the 
right balance between transparency and accountability is, I 
think, for the Judicial Conference, like every branch of 
government, important.
    Chair Whitehouse. The one thing that is made public is the 
report of each Judicial Conference after the meeting. Correct?
    Judge Wolf. A report of the proceedings.
    Chair Whitehouse. Yes.
    Judge Wolf. Which is a summary.
    Chair Whitehouse. And the report of the proceedings would 
tend to include reports to the Conference from its committees. 
So the one way that any of this would become public is only if 
the determination that was made here was actually referred by 
the Financial Disclosure Committee to the Judicial Conference, 
and then that would be reported in the summary of the Judicial 
Conference's activity. Correct?
    Judge Wolf. Yes.
    Chair Whitehouse. And that did not happen in this case?
    Judge Wolf. The reports of the Judicial Conference--I'm 
sorry, the reports of the Financial Disclosure Committee were, 
under Judicial Conference policy, required to include 
everything that the committee had discussed and decided since 
the last Conference meeting, even if no recommendation for 
Conference action was being made. The four reports, starting in 
March 2011, of the Financial Disclosure Committee to the 
Conference contained no reference, no hint, that any letters 
had been sent or any issues had been raised concerning Justice 
Thomas.
    Chair Whitehouse. The only disclosure that the Judicial 
Conference provides any record of in these matters is the April 
30 letters from the Judicial Conference that summarily say, 
``Nothing has been presented to support a determination that 
Justice Thomas' failure to report the source of his spouse's 
income was willful, or that Justice Thomas willfully or 
improperly failed to disclose information concerning travel 
reimbursements.'' That is it that has been public. Correct?
    Judge Wolf. As far as I know, yes.
    Chair Whitehouse. As far as I know, too. I think as the--
the convention is to go to the leading Republican. That, 
Senator Lee, is you right now, and then Chairman Durbin.
    Senator Lee. Mr. Chairman, I'd note at the outset, I'm 
concerned by the tone and tenor of this hearing. It feels an 
awful lot like a political witch hunt. Political witch hunt 
which may be in the process of being aided and abetted by a 
member of the judiciary. After reading the letters from Senator 
Whitehouse, the responses from the Administrative Office of the 
Courts, and news articles, this appears certainly like sour 
grapes, or perhaps some combination of sour grapes and a 
political witch hunt.
    We've got people who are trying desperately to make a lot 
out of something that isn't there. And I'd like to offer into 
the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the Secretary of the 
Financial Disclosure Committee indicating that two iterations 
of the committee and two subcommittees found that there was no 
willful violation by Justice Thomas.
    Chair Whitehouse. Is this the May 15th letter?
    Senator Lee. Yes. It's the May 15th letter.
    Chair Whitehouse. It's already on the record.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    Judge Wolf. I'm sorry, what letter is that, please?
    Chair Whitehouse. A letter dated May 15th to me from the 
Honorable Roslynn R. Mauskopf answering letters that I had sent 
April 21st, 27th, and May 5th.
    Senator Lee. Judge Wolf, how was the press, and 
specifically Bloomberg News reporter Zoe Tillman able to review 
your August 2012 letter to a group of Judicial Conference 
colleagues. How did that happen?
    Judge Wolf. I do not know. She sent me an email asking if I 
would speak to her, and I communicated that I decline.
    Senator Lee. Doesn't the timing of this seem a little odd? 
I mean, this is something that occurred 11 years ago, and days 
before this hearing, it magically appears. Did you leak a copy 
of the letter----
    Judge Wolf. No.
    Senator Lee [continuing]. To Ms. Tillman? Did you leak it 
to anyone else who may have given it to Ms. Tillman?
    Judge Wolf. No. And actually, of course, I've thought about 
that question, too, and you'll excuse me if I say something 
that may be supportive of all of you. I had not given those 
letters to any Senator, any member of his or her staff. The 
Administrative Office would have these records.
    Senator Lee. Who did you give them to?
    Judge Wolf. Nobody.
    Senator Lee. No one?
    Judge Wolf. Correct. And Mr. Lee, I worked closely with 
your father when he was the Assistant Attorney General, Civil 
Division, and I was Attorney General Levi's liaison to him. I 
think your father would have been very disturbed by the matters 
that I've addressed, A, and B, and I would have thought that 
Members of the Senate from both parties would be concerned 
about whether the judiciary and anybody else was properly 
interpreting----
    Senator Lee. Seriously? Seriously? You're going to bring up 
my dad? You're here--you're here attacking a member of the 
United States Supreme Court on grounds that are frivolous, on 
grounds that have been rejected by two different iterations of 
the Judicial Committee that you're talking about, twice 
rejected. And you have the audacity to come in here and invoke 
the memory of my late father? Shame on you, sir.
    Okay, look, you submit a statement to this Committee. It's 
a lengthy statement, contains 122 footnotes. On page 2, you 
state that you're testifying, quote, ``as an individual and not 
as a representative of the Judicial Conference of the United 
States or the Federal Judiciary,'' close quote. Did your law 
clerks help you draft this?
    Judge Wolf. Yes.
    Senator Lee. Who else helped you draft it? Who else was 
involved in the drafting of it?
    Judge Wolf. Just my law clerks. Although I did consult one 
of my colleagues about it.
    Senator Lee. Okay. So you're not here on behalf of the 
Conference, and yet you use judicial resources to do it, and 
you consulted one of your colleagues to do it, and you're 
speaking solely in your capacity as someone who served on the 
committee, and so you're purporting to speak for the 
committee----
    Judge Wolf. No, I'm not. I said I'm speaking--when I was 
invited first to be interviewed, I thought by Senator Kennedy, 
who declined to meet with me, but I did meet with his staff. 
And then when I was invited to testify, I immediately informed 
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. I was 
familiar with the guidance, again, not public, that judges are 
free to speak. The Canon 4, as you saw when you read my piece, 
encourages judges to speak on matters relating to the 
administration of justice when they have experience or 
expertise.
    And the only thing that the Administrative Office said to 
me was be sure to point out that you're testifying as an 
individual, which I had already done, and what I was drafting, 
and if I wanted any ethical guidance, it mentioned who to call. 
But Canons----
    Chair Whitehouse. Senator Durbin.
    Judge Wolf [continuing]. I'm sorry--are vividly clear, and 
there wasn't any open issue on which to consult.
    Senator Lee. Yes. And yet----
    Chair Whitehouse. Senator Durbin.
    Senator Lee [continuing]. Yet you're here speaking in that 
capacity, based on your service on that committee, 
notwithstanding the fact that your motion to have it considered 
by the full Conference as to your suggestion that Justice 
Thomas' disclosures were willfully wrong was rejected.
    Chair Whitehouse. Senator Durbin.
    Chair Durbin. Judge Wolf, I've been surprised, in a way, at 
the reaction of my Republican counterparts to this issue. Just 
last year, there was a bipartisan effort by two Members of this 
Committee, one Democrat, one Republican, to establish the 
standard of disclosure when it came to stock ownership by 
Federal judges, when they had before them a case that might 
involve that same stock or company. And it struck me that there 
was a true bipartisan spirit that this was a reasonable ethical 
standard and should be submitted for the judiciary to live by 
that standard.
    Yet when we had a hearing about 3 weeks ago on issues 
related to Justice Clarence Thomas and his disclosure 
standards, it really broke on party lines. And the same thing 
has happened today, which comes as a disappointment to me as 
much as a surprise. This notion that anyone in public office at 
a level of Senator or Supreme Court Justice can receive 
hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of gifts in travel and 
hospitality and not disclose it and argue that, ``Well, that 
was inadvertent,'' is to ignore the obvious.
    The American public takes a look at that and said, ``What 
is this judge doing? How can we trust his judgment if one Texas 
billionaire has such a large part of his life in terms of his 
attention?'' What's your response to that?
    Judge Wolf. Essentially, I think you've characterized 
accurately, based on what I hear, just being a citizen, may be 
the reaction of the man in the street. However, as I wrote in 
my testimony, I think--the Ethics in Government Act emerged 
after the Watergate scandal for good reasons. Greater 
transparency of financial activities of public officials, not 
just judges, was understood to be very important to assuring, 
among other things, the impartiality of judges.
    And I think that Act struck, as it's written, a very 
appropriate balance. It gives the Judicial Conference the 
opportunity and the obligation to determine whether there's 
reasonable cause to believe there's been a willful violation. 
It doesn't permit them, the Judicial Conference, to make the 
ultimate determination of whether there was.
    If the Judicial Conference makes a referral to the Justice 
Department, it should diminish the potential and the perception 
that the Justice Department has launched a witch hunt against 
judge or Justice. But members of the Judicial Conference 
don't--are not all impartial. There are friendships, there are 
professional relationships, there are interests that----
    Chair Durbin. That goes to the heart of the issue before 
us, and that is, the fact that the Supreme Court of the United 
States of America has not established code of conduct and 
ethical standards that in and of themselves are trustworthy. 
And when this matter came before this Committee several weeks 
ago, there were dissenters on the other side, on the Republican 
side, as to whether or not this was even worthy of talking of. 
They accused us of smear and harassment to even raise the facts 
brought up by ProPublica.
    And I also want to say, their second argument we've just 
addressed here and that's separation of powers. Do we have any 
business, as Congress, when it comes to the ethics of the 
Court? Well, I thought that we did until we received a response 
from Chief Justice Roberts. And let me read it to you. This 
response was from the 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal 
Judiciary.
    Chief Justice Roberts wrote, ``In addition to establishing 
Judicial Conference, Congress has enacted legislation 
addressing a number of specific ethical matters. In particular, 
Congress has directed Justices and judges to comply with both 
financial reporting requirements and limitations on the receipt 
of gifts and outside earned income.'' Then, he says, ``The 
Court has never addressed whether Congress may impose these 
requirements on the Supreme Court. The Justices nevertheless 
comply with these provisions.''
    In other words, I think he's going to the heart of the 
question as to whether anyone can raise a question about the 
ethical standards or establish ethical standards, even those 
embraced by the rest of the Federal Government. That, to me, 
gets to the heart of why we need to enact legislation. Senator 
Whitehouse has a bill on the subject. Others do. And I'm sure 
this Committee is going to address it. This is not a witch 
hunt. This is not a smear. This is not a harassment. This is to 
try to rescue the reputation of the Court from some very sordid 
facts that have been disclosed and proven.
    Judge Wolf. And, as you know, because you read it beginning 
on page 4 of my testimony, written testimony, I considered not 
just whether it was encouraged that I come, but whether I come 
and testify today would be inconsistent with the independence 
of the judiciary or separation of powers. Again, emerging from 
President Nixon's administration, is Supreme Court 
jurisprudence that says, sensibly, that the three branches are 
not each in a silo. We've divided power so there'll be checks 
and balances.
    And if Congress is taking action that doesn't unduly--well, 
it doesn't impact the performance of the Court's core function, 
that's not a separation of powers violation. In fact, the D.C. 
Circuit case decided that in a case in 1994 concerning 
Congressman Rose, no separation of powers problem. And the core 
function of the courts is to decide cases impartially. 
Independence can be helpful to that. But independence is not an 
end in itself. An independent judge or an independent judiciary 
could be a dishonest judge or a dishonest judiciary.
    And therefore, a delicate balance has to be struck between 
the interests of independence in assuring that judges, like 
every public official and every citizen in the country, is 
somehow accountable. And the financial disclosure statute that 
you enacted and the Judicial Conference has a responsibility to 
properly implement is an important and appropriate element of 
that accountability.
    Chair Whitehouse. Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Wolf, does 
the Supreme Court have a code of ethics that applies to it?
    Judge Wolf. No.
    Senator Hirono. Is there a code of ethics that applies to 
the Federal district and circuit courts?
    Judge Wolf. Yes.
    Senator Hirono. Is there any reason that the Supreme Court 
should not have a code of ethics that applies to them as it 
applies to every other Federal judge?
    Judge Wolf. As I wrote in the article that was consistent 
with the Code of Conduct in 2021, I think it would be 
beneficial if the Supreme Court had a code of conduct. But, if 
I could say, as I wrote in my testimony, because I continue to 
think about these things, I think that the discussion of 
enacting a statute that would require the Supreme Court to 
adopt a code of conduct is distracting from the more important 
issue about the enforceability--well, the way existing statutes 
are being enforced or implemented.
    Because if there was a code of conduct for the Court and it 
was the ultimate arbiter of whether a Justice was complying 
with the code of conduct, you'd have, I predict, enforcement 
problems that are similar to the problems that I've 
identified----
    Senator Hirono. Well, excuse me, Judge Wolf----
    Judge Wolf [continuing]. With regard to the Ethics Act.
    Senator Hirono [continuing]. The enforcement of a code of 
conduct is, I think, a separate issue that we would need to 
address. But really, the bottom-line question is should they 
have a code of conduct as applicable to them as to every other 
Federal judge? And your answer is, yes, we can figure out how 
to do it.
    For example, in Hawaii, our constitution requires the 
Supreme Court to establish a process where it will abide by a 
code of conduct. And we established--there is established a 
commission that does not have any judges, and if that 
commission determines that there needs to be a further 
referral, then it does go to the Supreme Court. But the judge--
Justice who is involved would have to recuse himself. So there 
are ways that we can do the enforcement part.
    Judge Wolf. I'm sorry to interrupt you, Senator, but I'd 
actually like to say something to support you. We have the same 
thing in Massachusetts. After I worked for Attorney General 
Levi, I was the young junior co-counsel to the former president 
of the American Bar Association. In the Massachusetts Supreme 
Judicial Court, we prosecuted the chief judge of the State 
trial court for ethical violations, including alleged perjury.
    Senator Hirono. So there are ways that we can determine how 
the enforcement will occur, so that doesn't get away from the 
really bottom-line question. And to the public, when they see 
articles that say that we have a Supreme Court Justice who 
received over half a million dollars' worth of airfare or 
whatever it is, I think common sense says that something is 
wrong here, that this was not disclosed, and there's some kind 
of a loophole that enabled this Justice to think that he did 
not have to disclose this.
    And now we have a Supreme Court telling us that they do 
have practices and principles that applies to them. And I'm 
just wondering, why is it that they are so reluctant to impose 
a high ethical standard to itself? They are the highest court 
of the land. And when I listen to my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, it really seems like, to me, when they attack 
you, they are attacking the messenger. And really the message 
is, Should they not have a code of ethics? I think that's such 
a simple thing. You know, my gosh. They doth protest too much. 
Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Whitehouse. Before we wrap up, you asked for 5 
minutes to respond to the various accusations and insinuations 
of the Ranking Member. And I think, based on what I saw here, 
that is appropriate. So I will yield you 5 minutes.
    Senator Lee. Do we have time?
    Chair Whitehouse. Probably not. We have a vote we need to 
get to. Proceed.
    Judge Wolf. Well, I guess I would say two things, and I'd 
have to look more closely at my notes----
    Chair Whitehouse. This does not hold back your opportunity 
to write a response as a QFR in the week that follows the 
hearing.
    Judge Wolf. I'm not here as part of a witch hunt. I'm here 
because I hope to contribute to reframing some of the important 
issues and prompting, maybe naively, a more civil, sensible 
discussion of them. I do think, as I said earlier, that all of 
you in the Senate should and do have an interest in whether 
legislation your predecessors enacted after Watergate is being 
properly implemented.
    When Senator Kennedy says the committee found four times 
that there was no violation, no willful violation. First, 
although I have read Judge Mauskopf's letter, which I got 
yesterday, based on that and other information available to me, 
I don't believe that that is correct. And again, I mean this 
respectfully, Senator Lee. I don't mean to be provocative, and 
I'd be happy to talk to you about this afterwards if you don't 
get more time. It's not up to the Judicial Conference to 
determine whether a violation occurred.
    If it's to determine whether there's a reasonable cause to 
believe that one may have occurred, and then to refer it, it's 
comparable to the grand jury process and the trial process. And 
as I said, if the Judicial Conference has arrogated it to 
itself authority that you didn't give it, that's not proper, 
and I thought would be a matter of concern to all of you. There 
are a number of things that Senator Kennedy pulled out of the 
media that are not true.
    But, for example, he was talking about a death penalty case 
where there was a motion to recuse me because at a time--it's 
called United States v. Sampson, I looked at it this morning. 
At a time when a professor was not on the witness list as an 
expert, although he had, for an earlier case, been on the 
witness--an earlier iteration of this case been on the witness 
list, I moderated a program about a film where he was one of 
the speakers. I had never met him before. As soon as I learned 
that he was going to be a witness at the retrial, I told the 
parties, and I told them they could ask me any questions.
    I told them what occurred, and they sent out the FBI, the 
Massachusetts State Police, the Internal Revenue Service to 
investigate the veracity of what I told them. And I gave them 
the film, the video of the event, and they all said--the 
Government said I wasn't prejudiced, but a reasonable person 
could question my impartiality, the standard under 18 United 
States Code 455(a) that applies to judges and Justices. I 
considered that seriously. I wrote a 53-page decision, and I 
found that a reasonable person could not question my 
impartiality, and therefore, I had a duty to continue to sit, 
which is what the jurisprudence is.
    Evidently, the Solicitor General didn't authorize an 
appeal. That wasn't appealed. I didn't recuse myself. I did 
transfer the case long after to one of my colleagues because of 
other responsibilities that I had. But I didn't recuse myself, 
and I didn't leak any information to the FBI. You can read a 
661-page decision that I wrote, Senator Kennedy, that starts by 
saying, ``Everything secret degenerates, even the 
administration of justice.'' That's a decision I wrote after 9 
months of hearings that exposed massive corruption in the FBI 
in connection with Whitey Bulger.
    It's organized--it's top echelon organized crime informant 
and his sidekick, Stevie ``The Rifleman'' Flemmi. In that 
decision, I describe in detail the pattern of the FBI putting 
false--or a particular FBI agent--putting false information in 
informant files to direct attention from real culprits. That 
was put in there at a time when I was a prosecutor 
investigating a leak in a case against--that compromised a case 
against a State representative. That's only one of the many 
statements.
    Chair Whitehouse. Well, I'll leave you to continue to 
respond as you see fit to the allegations.
    Judge Wolf. I'm going to stop there. But could I say one 
more thing, please? I see that I've got 1 minute, 3 seconds and 
I think this is important, and it relates to some things that 
come up. I've explained why I'm here today. Some people I 
respect advised me not to do this, even though it was 
permissible, appropriate that I would be subject to various 
unfair attacks. It's just the toxic political environment. And 
I thought about that, and I'd like to tell you why I did it.
    I did it because so many of my colleagues on the bench are 
deeply disturbed themselves. We work--I'm a senior judge, I 
don't get paid. I would get my salary for life if I were fully 
retired. But so many of us work so hard to give integrity to 
the ideal of impartial equal justice under law, and now that 
ideal is beleaguered. I do it because my friend, Dr. Jim 
O'Connell, the head of--founder of Boston Health Care for the 
Homeless, who's with me today, and others, you know, tell me, 
``What are we going to tell our children about their ability to 
respect the courts?''
    I do it for my law clerks. My law clerks are here. The Code 
of Conduct and the ethical opinion says that I can't use them 
for anything that's substantial. I told them they didn't need 
to work on this. They asked to. This is their vacation. I paid 
to bring them here. They wanted to do it, and they've thanked 
me for doing it, because they come into the profession the way 
you and I did, with ideals. And all this controversy is 
generating skepticism and hopefully not cynicism, because our 
profession needs ideals. And I'm----
    Chair Whitehouse. That's a good tone to end on. So let me 
leave it there. Let me just remind everybody that the hearing 
is titled, ``Review of Federal Judicial Ethics Processes at the 
Judicial Conference of the United States.'' As a result of this 
effort, we have received a very significant document, perhaps 
the most complete response from the Judicial Conference ever 
about its processes. We have a fact witness who was present to 
see these processes in action, who has testified about what he 
saw in that time.
    And I believe my opening statement and my questioning have 
all been very factual and calm, as I think is appropriate in 
these circumstances. And what we've heard is that this hearing 
has the tone of a witch hunt, that we're attacking a member of 
the Supreme Court. There has been both interrupting and 
shouting taking place. There has been mocking and insinuating 
taking place. And it just seems to me that I'd like to get this 
work done without all that drama. I think there are real 
questions that need to be answered, and I intend to continue to 
pursue them. And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]