[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 1273]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 1273]]

               FEDERAL COURT ASSIGNMENT OF CRIMINAL CASES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 15, 2000

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his 
colleagues and submits for the Record this February 12, 2000, editorial 
from the Omaha World Herald regarding Federal court assignment of 
criminal cases concerning President Clinton's friends. Our colleague, 
Representative Howard Coble (R-NC), recently discovered frequent use of 
a special rule allowing the chief judge to bypass the random assignment 
system for certain ``protracted'' cases; in this instance, fundraising 
cases involving friends of the President that have been assigned to 
judges appointed by the President. This situation certainly should be 
investigated. It's little wonder that increasingly Americans are 
wondering if one can get justice from the Justice Department.

                       Judging a Judge's Judgment

       The Washington, D.C. panel of federal judges that oversees 
     judicial conduct there has reopened what had looked like's 
     closed controversy. The judges were right to do so. The 
     situation involved the chief judge's prior practice--it might 
     reasonably be characterized as a habit--of naming judges who 
     were appointees of President Clinton to preside over criminal 
     cases involving his friends.
       That particular federal judicial district has a computer 
     system to assign almost all criminal cases randomly. The idea 
     of putting the system in place was to avoid both the 
     appearance and the reality of favoritism. But there was a 
     special rule, which was recently eliminated, allowing the 
     chief judge to bypass the system for ``protracted'' cases.
       Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson used the rule with what 
     might politely be called enthusiasm. It was revealed in 
     recent months that five Democratic campaign fund-raising 
     prosecutions and a tax-evasion case against Clinton confidant 
     Webster Hubbell went to Clinton appointees. Now, appeals 
     court Judge Stephen Williams has been ordered to look into 
     the circumstances of these and other case assignments.
       The decision to revive the inquiry was made after the 
     revelation by Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., of additional non-
     random assignments in fund-raising cases, including one 
     involving a former fund-raiser for Vice President Al Gore.
       Coble, one of the most conservative members of a mostly 
     conservative congressional delegation from a conservative 
     state, is no friend of Clinton or Gore. He probably has an 
     agenda behind his quest. But that shouldn't matter. The facts 
     are the facts: Judge Johnson by-passed the system and has 
     never said why, although she denies that there were political 
     considerations.
       It may all be on the up-and-up, but it smells funny. If 
     Johnson in fact did nothing wrong, she deserves to have that 
     publicized. Conversely, if some level of cronyism is 
     involved, some sort of disciplinary action might be 
     appropriate. Getting to the bottom of this is, plain and 
     simple, a good idea.

     

                          ____________________