[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 209 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6043-S6046]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today for the 26th time to 
detail the special interest billionaire-funded scheme that has overrun 
the U.S. Supreme Court. This evening, I would like to discuss some 
things about Republican Judiciary Committee members' performance in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee recently as we voted on authorizing 
subpoenas for billionaire Harlan Crow, some of his holding companies, 
and the court-fixer, Leonard Leo.
  At the end of last month, we voted, through the authorization for 
Chairman Durbin, to issue subpoenas, and it was greeted with a barrage 
of talk about a whole variety of things. But one was how Democrats were 
destroying the Judiciary Committee. We were absolutely totally going to 
destroy the Judiciary Committee. It was on us that the Judiciary 
Committee was going to be destroyed.
  Well, all the talk about destroying the Senate Judiciary Committee 
came, rather, in the nature of a threat. It was actually more like, if 
we did something that we are perfectly entitled to do to pursue 
subpoenas after being persistently obstructed, then Republicans would 
destroy the committee, would undo any good will or any bipartisanship 
or any collegial effort.
  Somehow that Republican threat to destroy the committee morphed into 
Democrats destroying the committee. But that doesn't make any sense. If 
you think of a kidnapper shooting his hostage and then blaming the 
family for the murder of the hostage because the family hadn't yielded 
to the kidnapper's demands, that is kind of backward logic.
  Also backward logic is the argument that the subpoenas were an effort 
to destroy not the committee but the Supreme Court. The subpoenas would 
destroy or damage the Supreme Court.
  OK. Let's think about that for a minute.
  There is only one possible way that it could be true, logically, that 
these subpoenas could do damage to the Supreme Court--only one--and 
that is if the information the subpoenas would disclose is so damaging 
that it would damage or destroy the Court. Subpoenas that turned up 
nothing would be no harm, no foul. If there is nothing evil to see in 
the information the subpoenas are pursuing, there is no harm. The 
necessary logical predicate of the destroy-the-Court argument made by 
our colleagues is that subpoenas would reveal that something truly 
horrible happened at the Court that now needs to be covered up--covered 
up.
  But that is not how ``appearance of impropriety'' works. Justices of 
the Supreme Court are supposed to avoid doing things that might create 
even the appearance of impropriety. The appearance-of-impropriety issue 
is not that you do impropriety and then go out and cover up its 
appearance.
  We also heard a lot that day about the problem of subpoenaing 
``private citizens,'' as if that were something unusual. If that is a 
problem, it was a very new problem because just days before, the 
committee had subpoenaed private citizens in the tech sector on a 
bipartisan basis without anyone's objection.
  As always, our Republican friends persisted in the argument that this 
committee has no business looking at Supreme Court gift disclosures. 
That argument was, is, and will always be a phony. The Judiciary 
Committee has every right to oversee how an Agency that Congress 
created--the Judicial Conference--is implementing a law that Congress 
passed, the judicial disclosure law. It is within the jurisdiction of 
the committee; it is a congressionally established body; and it is a 
statute passed by Congress.
  If Congress can't oversee how Agencies it creates oversee laws it 
passes, there is no oversight left. Obviously, understanding what gifts 
went undisclosed is essential to that inquiry.
  We then heard that you can't have subpoenas because a related bill is 
out of the committee. But Congress has every right to oversight and 
subpoenas at any stage in legislation--and even at no stage in 
legislation. Because the bill in question has not passed here in the 
Senate--it has come to the Senate floor, but it has not passed in the 
Senate--and because the Republicans not only stonewalled our 
investigation but threatened very plainly a partisan blockade of the 
bill here on the floor--``not a single Republican vote'' was, I think, 
what they threatened--that makes it all the more obvious why continuing 
to build the factual case for reform is appropriate. There is precisely 
zero basis for the theory that a Senate committee can't look into a 
subject of legislation once some related legislation is out of 
committee. Preparing for a successful floor vote on that bill is only 
one obvious reason why that theory is painfully wrong.
  If you look at all of that noise and fuss that was put up, it is hard 
not to deduce that maybe something else is going on here. Here is my 
theory of the case, as I have said in previous speeches: Very powerful 
rightwing billionaires spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars 
on a scheme to influence--and even control--the Supreme Court. Those 
very powerful rightwing billionaires are also massive funders of 
Republican politics, including Republican Senate politics.
  The problem is that those very powerful rightwing billionaires got 
sloppy,

[[Page S6044]]

and their gift program to take care of certain Supreme Court Justices 
started breaking gift and disclosure rules--very likely tax rules, as 
well, with a few of the amenable Supreme Court Justices whom they were 
rewarding with lavish entertainments.
  What we already know about that gift program is bad enough. How far 
the billionaires' hands are in the cookie jar and how coordinated and 
orchestrated this secret gift program was is information that they 
desperately want to suppress. So they do what megadonors do and 
pressure Members of Congress to do what they want, and, in this case, 
it was help the billionaires suppress the truth of what went down here.
  I will close by observing that the argument that Democrats are 
behaving improperly in our work to clean up the mess at the Supreme 
Court is an argument that has some very powerful rebuttals.
  The first rebuttal comes from the billionaires who are actually 
cooperating with our investigation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks as exhibits several letters reflecting 
that cooperation: the first, dated July 25, 2023, to Chairman Durbin 
and Senator Whitehouse; the second, dated Octobers 18, 2023, to 
Chairman Durbin and Senator Whitehouse; the third, dated October 31, 
2023, to Senators Durbin and Whitehouse; the fourth, dated November 6, 
2023, to Senators Durbin and Whitehouse; and the fifth, dated November 
7, 2023, Dear Committee.
  I would also note that another--yet another wealthy donor, not one of 
these in the letters--yet another wealthy donor has cooperated with the 
Finance Committee's investigation into the tax ramifications of all 
these secret gifts and what was disclosed and what was not disclosed. 
And that donor revealed to the Finance Committee compelling evidence 
that he collected only interest--only interest--on a quarter-million-
dollar-plus loan to Justice Thomas; that the donor never collected 
any--any--principal payment; and that he ultimately stopped collecting 
either interest or principal on that quarter-million-dollar-plus loan.
  So the cooperation of people with our investigations rebut the 
argument that we have no business. The second rebuttal comes, actually, 
from within the Judiciary itself because this is not the only avenue we 
are pursuing to get to the bottom of the mess at the Supreme Court.
  When I got the Judicial Conference to review the Scalia trick, which 
was to have intermediaries solicit dozens of personal invitations from 
hunting resort owners, whom Scalia had often never even met, and then 
failed to disclose the free vacations because, in his view, the 
personal invitation made it personal hospitality, within the terms of 
the disclosure statute--well, the members of the Judicial Conference--
the chief judges of the circuits and of district courts who together 
comprised the Judicial Conference--those chief judges blew that trick 
to smithereens. They didn't criticize me for being a bad Senator asking 
bad questions and going places I shouldn't be going. They dropped the 
hammer on the Scalia trick. They put a dead finish end to it.

  And later, when I got the Judicial Conference to look at the 
billionaire-funded flotillas of amicus briefs that they send in through 
phony front groups to tell the Justices what it is that they want them 
to do in cases and the phony front groups were not disclosing their 
true funders or their true interconnections or their true 
commonalities, again, this array of very distinguished chief judges 
didn't look and say: Well, here is a Senator on an improper rampage. We 
can't have any of this. No. They announced that they were revisiting 
the amicus brief disclosure rule because it needed fixing, and they are 
in the process of finalizing that right now. So two for two. When 
questions related to this investigation have been taken up by the 
Judicial Conference, they have actually been handled perfectly 
consistent with the thrust and tenor of our investigation.
  The third rebuttal that you will have to trust me on, I am afraid, is 
that over and over, I have heard from Federal judges that this 
investigation is important; that we are doing good work; and that we 
should keep the pressure on and don't let up and get to the bottom of 
this mess. I don't mean my home State judges, either. From all around 
the country, I am getting messages of support from judges appointed by 
Democratic and Republican Presidents that what has happened at the 
Court is a disgrace and that I should keep at it; that the Judiciary 
Committee should keep at it for the good and the health of the 
judiciary itself.
  By comparison, when you look at the frantic complaining about our 
work, it mostly comes from a small handful of dark money mouthpieces 
actually linked to the Court-capture scheme. Obviously, Mr. Rivkin, who 
is Leonard Leo's lawyer, is out to blockade our investigation. So there 
is one. He represents Leonard Leo against our investigation, and he 
summoned Justice Alito to offer an opinion to his and Leonard Leo's 
benefit in the pages of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
  Another voice is Leonard Leo's painting pal--you may remember this 
painting that was done at Harlan Crowe's Adirondack estate with 
billionaire Crowe, Justice Thomas, and Leonard Leo, the Court fixer. 
Well, also there is painting pal Mark Paoletta. He is another 
persistent voice; and he couldn't be more in the scheme than that 
painting shows.
  Also, Carrie Severino turns up. She is Leonard Leo's dark money 
sidekick-successor at the dark money funded Federalist Society and the 
dark money funded fictitious name group, Judicial Crisis Network.
  And then, of course, there is the Wall Street Journal editorial page 
whose people have received a million dollars in personal cash from the 
dark money Bradley Foundation at the middle of that dark money amicus 
flotilla. At attorney Rivkin's request that I mentioned, Justice Alito 
even provided a cameo performance in the Wall Street Journal editorial 
page that defended the position of his friend Leonard Leo in plain 
violation of multiple judicial ethics guidelines.
  All that Rivkin-Leo-Alito stunt--Wall Street Journal editorial page 
stunt--needed was Paoletta and Severino to make it a clean sweep of all 
the major mouthpieces.
  Steering away from troublesome facts is a constant theme in the mess 
we are trying to dig into over at the Court. In the January 6 and 
Arizona cases, what Justice Thomas knew about his wife's insurrection 
activities and when he knew it is the salient question about recusal. 
He has never been asked. What made Justice Alito say that in that Wall 
Street Journal editorial, attorney Rivkin was acting just as an 
interviewer and not as Leonard Leo's lawyer, even though Rivkin was 
under contract to Leonard Leo as his lawyer at that time? That question 
has never been asked. What became of Thomas' quarter-million-dollar 
loan, and why was it not reported? That question has never been asked. 
What made Justice Alito think that he should suddenly start answering 
legal questions likely to come before the Court in the pages of the 
Wall Street Journal editorial page, despite every Justice in their 
confirmation hearing saying: That is inappropriate? That question has 
never been asked.
  What made Thomas think the Judicial Conference action that I 
described--blowing the Scalia trick to smithereens--was a change in the 
rules and not a clarification of the rules? That question has never 
been asked. But it is a question that matters because the Judicial 
Conference actually called it a clarification and Thomas' lawyers 
treated it as a change. And the difference is this: If it is a change 
in the law, you don't have to go back and clean up your prior 
incomplete and false filings. If it is a clarification, you have to go 
back and clean up your prior defective filings.
  So to say that this was a change despite the fact the Judicial 
Conference said it was a clarification is a very significant legal 
leap; and no justification for it was offered at the time or has been 
proposed since.
  In all of these matters, the common theme is that factfinding--the 
very basis of due process--factfinding is not performed around the 
Supreme Court Justices. Factfinding, despite being the essence of due 
process, this Court avoids like the plague.
  All of this--the behavior of our friends in the committee, the 
cooperation and support from billionaires and judges and others, the 
mischief of not

[[Page S6045]]

answering basic fact questions--all of it signals that there is a lot 
going on here; that there is a lot to investigate; and that our 
investigation must and will continue.
  To be continued.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Erickson | Sederstrom,


                                             Attorneys at Law,

                                                    July 25, 2023.
     Re Response to Letter Dated July 11, 2023, to Robin P. 
         Arkley, II, Our File No.: 00018.010802.

     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Courts Oversights, Agency 
         Action and Federal Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Durbin and Senator Whitehouse: We write this 
     letter on behalf of Robin P. Arkley, II in response to your 
     letter dated July 11, 2023, which requested information 
     concerning Mr. Arkley's interactions with Supreme Court 
     Justices. While we respect the Senate Committee's oversight 
     role, we believe that this inquiry exceeds the limits placed 
     on the legislature by the Constitution. For our stated 
     reasons, we refer you to the relevant portions of the letter 
     dated July 25, 2023, from Baker & Hostetler directed to you 
     on behalf of Mr. Leo.
       Thank you very much.
           Sincerely,
     Samuel E. Clark.
                                  ____

                                            Erickson | Sederstrom,


                                             Attorneys at Law,

                                                 October 18, 2023.
     Re Response to Letter Dated July 11, 2023, to Robin P. 
         Arkley, II, Our File No.: 00018.010802.

     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Courts Oversights, Agency 
         Action and Federal Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Durbin and Senator Whitehouse: This letter is 
     written in response to your letter dated October 5, 2023.
       Mr. Arkley reaffirms his position that, as a private 
     citizen whose hospitality was wholly unrelated to the 
     business of the Supreme Court, there is no legislative 
     purpose that requires him to report the same to your 
     Committee. If the law required or should require a government 
     official to report hospitality or travel, that certainly does 
     not apply to Mr. Arkley, and you should take the matter up 
     with that official.
       Your request that Mr. Arkley further provide the names of 
     friends to whom he might have provided hospitality is without 
     purpose and suggests that presence at a private social 
     occasion at which no official public business was discussed 
     or undertaken somehow subjects one to congressional scrutiny. 
     This is an unreasonable affront on a citizen's privacy.
       Mr. Arkley is not accused of violating any laws, has no 
     disclosure duties, and has nothing to add beyond what has 
     already been reported in the press. We must respectfully 
     decline to respond to your request for the names and 
     circumstances surrounding his personal hospitality.
           Sincerely,
     Samuel E. Clark.
                                  ____



                                             GreenbergTraurig,

                                                 October 31, 2023.
     Re Response to September 14, 2023 Letter to Paul Anthony 
         Novelly.

     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency 
         Action, and Federal Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Durbin and Whitehouse: We write on behalf of 
     our client Paul Anthony Novelly in response to your letters 
     dated September 14, 2023 requesting information regarding 
     ``gifts, payments or items of value exceeding $415'' provided 
     by Mr. Novelly or his affiliated Companies to ``any Justice 
     of the Supreme Court or member of the Justice's family.'' 
     Your letter sought a response no later than September 27, 
     2023. Your Committee staff members subsequentjy granted an 
     extension until October 31, 2023.
       To begin with, we are aware of no evidence that Mr. Novelly 
     or his affiliated Companies, gave anything to anyone as 
     specifically defined in your letter or engaged in any 
     transactions with those identified in your letter that were 
     unusual, inappropriate, improper or contrary to law. In 
     particular, any claims made by what your letter characterized 
     as ``investigative reporting'' sources regarding the presence 
     of Justice Clarence Thomas on a yacht owned by Mr. Novelly 
     travelling in the Bahamas are false. Mr. Novelly is not aware 
     of any basis whatsoever to support any suggestion or claim of 
     yacht trips or vacations provided by him to Justice Thomas.
       Furthermore, and with due respect, we do not concede that 
     the Committee has the authority, constitutional or otherwise, 
     to seek the information sought in its September 14th letters 
     or to compel production or compliance by Mr. Novelly. We 
     explicitly reserve any and all rights Mr. Novelly may have to 
     object to such requests.
       Nevertheless, in the interest of cooperation and to 
     minimize the further expenditure of time and money, below is 
     a description of the two instances where we are informed that 
     Mr. Novelly provided something of ``value'' to Justice Thomas 
     as defined by and requested in your letter that Mr. Novelly's 
     staff was able to locate.
       1. August 22, 2016--a one-way return flight from Jackson 
     Hole, Wyoming to Washington, D.C. by Justice Thomas, his wife 
     and Senator Joseph Manchin and his wife, who were dropped off 
     in Charleston, West Virginia after attending a social 
     function attended by a number of members of the Horatio Alger 
     Association among others, including Terrence Giroux, the 
     Executive Director of the Horatio Alger Association, who was 
     also a passenger on the flight from Jackson Hole, Wyoming to 
     Washington, D.C.;
       2. March 30, 2018--a one-way flight, by Justice Thomas and 
     his security detail from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida to 
     Washington D.C. The Justice and Mr. Novelly were attending 
     the funeral services for a mutual friend and Horatio Alger 
     Association member.
       These airplane trips are the sole instances of which Mr. 
     Novelly and his staff are aware that may be responsive to 
     your requests.
       We trust that Mr. Novelly's voluntary cooperation and 
     provision of this information will end any further inquiry of 
     Mr. Novelly.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                                  Dennis J. Block,
     On behalf of Paul Anthony Novelly.
                                  ____

                                            Erickson | Sederstrom,


                                             Attorneys at Law,

                                                 November 6, 2023.
     Re Response Robin P. Arkley, II.

     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Courts Oversights, Agency 
         Action and Federal Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Durbin and Whitehouse: Mr. Arkley has asked 
     that I provide you additional information in response to your 
     letter of July 11, 2023.
       In response to your request for a list of any gifts, 
     payments and items of value exceeding $415, and all 
     transportation or lodging given by Mr. Arkley, or by entities 
     owned or controlled by him, or for which he has served as a 
     partner, director, or officer, to any Justice of the Supreme 
     Court or a member of the Justice's family, he recalls only 
     two items, which have both already been reported on:
       In 2008, Justice Samuel Alito attended a fishing trip and 
     stayed at King Salmon Lodge (``Lodge'') in King Salmon, 
     Alaska. The Lodge was owned by Mr. Arkley's company, Security 
     National Master Holding Company (``Company''). For the period 
     of time that the Company owned the Lodge, Mr. Arkley hosted 
     dozens of employees and friends. He sold the Lodge more than 
     a decade ago.
       In addition to a number of friends he invited who were 
     personal friends from his hometown or from college, Mr. 
     Arkley also invited Mr. Leonard Leo, a friend through his 
     association with the Federalist Society. After one of his 
     conversations with Leonard, Mr. Arkley invited a number of 
     Mr. Leo's friends to join the trip, including Justice Samuel 
     Alito, Judge Ray Randolph, Mr. Paul Singer, and Mr. John 
     Fund. To the best of Mr. Arkley's recollection, the trip 
     lasted three or four nights. As he had done with other 
     friends and guests who stayed at the Lodge, Mr. Arkley 
     covered the expenses for the lodging, meals, and costs 
     associated with the fishing expeditions.
       Mr. Arkley did not provide Justice Alito transportation to 
     or from the Lodge.
       In 2005, Mr. Arkley invited Mr. Leo and Justice Antonin 
     Scalia on a fishing trip in Alaska, in addition to inviting a 
     number of friends from his hometown and college. His 
     recollection is that he provided air travel on his private 
     aircraft for Justice Scalia and Mr. Leo from the continental 
     United States to Alaska. To the best of Mr. Arkley's 
     recollection, they stayed at the Karluk Lodge and fished in 
     the Karluk River. As the fishing was poor, they travelled to 
     the Situk River to fish and stayed at another lodge. The trip 
     was four to five days, and Mr. Arkley paid all expenses for 
     those who were his guests on this trip.
       With respect to your requests for the itinerary or costs 
     associated with these trips, Mr. Arkley does not have that 
     information. The private aircraft owned by the Company during 
     the relevant period was sold ten years ago and records of its 
     use are unavailable. Further, in accordance with industry 
     standards, the Company has had a long-standing retention 
     policy, originally adopted in 2008, that requires all 
     records, not subject to litigation holds, be disposed of 
     after seven years. As these two trips occurred well after 
     that timeframe, no company records exist. Mr. Arkley also 
     does not have any personal records regarding these two trips.
       These are the only two items that are relevant to your 
     request for information.
       While we continue to believe the Committee's request for 
     this information exceeds its constitutional authority, as set 
     forth in letters of July 25, 2023, and October 18, 2023. Mr.

[[Page S6046]]

     Arkley has provided this information in an effort to be 
     cooperative and put this matter behind him. I trust that this 
     does so. Nevertheless, we reserve all rights to object to the 
     Committee's request for any additional information.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Samuel E. Clark.
                                  ____

                                                 November 7, 2023.
       Dear Committee: I have reviewed the letter dated November 
     6, 2023, prepared and signed by my counsel, Samuel Clark. The 
     letter reflects my recollection of the individuals and dates 
     of the fishing trips. Any other contact that I may have had 
     with the relevant individual referenced in your July 11, 2023 
     letter does not fall within the scope of your request, 
     including that I have not provided any gift over the $415 
     threshold to any relevant person.
       In order to refresh my recollection and to provide the 
     requested information, my staff searched for any responsive 
     records. As my counsel noted in his letter, my company has a 
     retention policy in place that requires the disposal of all 
     records, not subject to any litigation hold, after 7 years. 
     Thus, there are no responsive records. Additionally, I 
     searched my records and found no responsive records.
           Sincerely,
                                               Robin P. Arkley II.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________