[House Report 111-538]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 111-538
======================================================================
DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COPIES OF CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ADMINISTRATION APPOINTMENTS
_______
July 15, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
ADVERSE REPORT
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 1455]
[Including Committee Cost Estimate]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
resolution (H. Res. 1455) directing the Attorney General to
transmit to the House of Representatives copies of certain
communications relating to certain recommendations regarding
administration appointments, having considered the same,
reports unfavorably thereon without amendment and recommends
that the resolution not be agreed to.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background....................................................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 5
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 5
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 5
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 5
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 5
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 5
Dissenting Views................................................. 6
Purpose and Summary
On June 17, 2010, Ranking Member Lamar Smith, along with
Representative James Sensenbrenner, introduced H. Res. 1455.
The resolution directs the Attorney General to transmit to the
House of Representatives copies of any document, record, memo,
correspondence, or other communication of the Department of
Justice, including the Office of the Solicitor General, or any
portion of any such communication, that refers or relates to:
(1) Lany guidance or recommendations made by the
Department since January 20, 2009, regarding
discussions of administration appointments by White
House staff, or persons acting on behalf of White House
staff, with any candidate for public office in exchange
for such candidate's withdrawal from any election; or
(2) Lany inquiry, investigation or review by the
Department, including appointment of a Special Counsel,
regarding such discussions.
Background
Under the rules and precedents of the House of
Representatives, a resolution of inquiry is one of the methods
that the House can use to obtain information from the Executive
Branch.\1\ It ``is a simple resolution making a direct request
or demand of the President or the head of an executive
department to furnish the House of Representatives with
specific factual information in the possession of the executive
branch.''\2\ The typical practice has been to use the verb
``request'' when asking for information from the President, and
``direct'' when addressing Executive department heads.\3\
Clause 7 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives provides that if the committee to which the
resolution is referred does not act on it within 14 legislative
days, a privileged motion to discharge the resolution from the
committee is in order on the House floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Christopher Davis, House Resolutions of Inquiry, CRS Report,
November 25, 2008, at 1 (quoting U.S. Congress, House, Deschler's
Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, H. Doc. 94-
661, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 7, ch. 24, Sec. 8.
\2\Id.
\3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons summarized below, the Committee believes
that the resolution is unwarranted.
First, although there is no credible evidence that the
Justice Department had any involvement in or knowledge of any
alleged offers to Representative Sestak or Mr. Romanoff, the
Department has already responded to multiple inquiries from
Republican Members on this issue, in letters of May 21, June
14, and June 15, 2010. Attorney General Holder responded to
questions on this subject before this Committee on May 13,
2010. The Department has made clear that any allegations of
criminal conduct by public officials will be ``reviewed
carefully by career prosecutors and law enforcement agents,''
who will take any ``appropriate action.'' In addition, the
White House Counsel released a memo on May 28,2010, describing
what happened concerning Representative Sestak, and White House
e-mail to Mr. Romanoff has also been publicly released.
Second, as former high-ranking Bush Administration lawyers
and career prosecutors agree, there is nothing illegal about
offering a potential candidate for office an administration-
appointed political position, even if partially motivated by a
desire to avoid a divisive primary.
For example:
LSteven Bradbury, former Bush Assistant
Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal
Counsel, acknowledged that there could be no proper
criminal prosecution based on the conduct at issue
here.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See Is the Obama Brand ``Irrevocably Shattered,'' Politico (blog
post), June 3, 2010
LFormer Bush White House ethics adviser
Richard Painter said on May 28, 2010 that, in light of
the information released by the White House, it is
``even more apparent that this is a non-issue. No
scandal. Time to move on.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See Sargent, The Plum Line, Washintonpost.com, May 28, 2010
LFormer DOJ Public Integrity prosecutor Peter
Zeidenberg, who once pursued charges against a top
Hilary Clinton fundraiser, commented that ``you'd be
laughed out of the courtroom'' for trying to prosecute
for the alleged conduct concerning Rep. Sestak.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See Gerstein & Lee, WH: Clinton Spoke to Sestak on Post,
Politico, May 28, 2010
Third, and particularly in light of the above, there is no
proper basis for the Resolution's specific document requests.
There has been no indication that there was any ``guidance or
recommendation'' from the Department to the White House on this
matter. And the FBI has explained that, if there were any newly
opened investigation by DOJ or the FBI as to any alleged
improper conduct, it would contravene longstanding Department
policy and jeopardize an investigation to either confirm or
deny its existence.\7\ Providing all documents relating to any
newly opened inquiry, as demanded in the second request, would
be even more inappropriate and harmful to law enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Letter from Stephen Kelly, Assistant Director, Office of
Congressional Affairs, FBI, to Rep. Lamar Smith, June 15, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has also explained the long history of
career officials handling such matters ``professionally and
independently, without the need to appoint a special
counsel.''\8\ Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who
did appoint a special prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney matter,
has agreed that there is no basis for one here.\9\ As the DOJ
Inspector General found, the U.S. Attorney matter involved
improper conduct concerning and by the Department of Justice,
and improper political pressure on Federal prosecutors.\10\ At
its core, that investigation was about ensuring the proper
functioning of the criminal justice system. None of that is
involved here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Letter from Assistant Attorney General Ron Weich to Rep. Darrell
Issa, May 21, 2010.
\9\See Reilly, ``Mukasey: `Really a Stretch' to Say Sestak Offer
Was a Crime,'' Main Justice, May 28, 2010.
\10\See Department of Justice Office of Inspector General and
Office of Professional Responsibility, An Investigation into the
Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006, September, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
No hearings were held in the Committee on H. Res.1455.
Committee Consideration
On June 23, 2010, the Committee met in open session and
ordered H. Res. 1455 adversely reported, without amendment, by
a rollcall vote of 15 yeas to 12 nays, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following rollcall vote occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H. Res. 1455:
H. Res. 1455 was ordered reported unfavorably by a vote of
15 to 12.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman...................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch...................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez.................................................... X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Maffei......................................................
Mr. Polis.......................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member....................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper...................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 15 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this resolution does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Committee Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that
implementing the resolution would not result in any significant
costs. The Congressional Budget Office did not provide a cost
estimate for the resolution.
Performance Goals and Objectives
Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 1455 does not
authorize funding.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 1455 is not a
bill or a joint resolution that may be enacted into law.
Advisory on Earmarks
Clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 1455 is not a
bill or a joint resolution.
Section-by-Section Analysis
H. Res. 1455 directs the Attorney General to transmit to
the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the
date of adoption, copies of any document, record, memo,
correspondence, or other communication of the Department of
Justice, including the Office of the Solicitor General, or any
portion of any such communication, that refers or relates to:
(1) Lany guidance or recommendations made by the
Department since January 20, 2009, regarding
discussions of administration appointments by White
House staff, or persons acting on behalf of White House
staff, with any candidate for public office in exchange
for such candidate's withdrawal from any election; or
(2) Lany inquiry, investigation or review by the
Department, including appointment of a Special Counsel.
Dissenting Views
I. INTRODUCTION
H. Res. 1455 was introduced on June 17, 2010, by the
Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary Lamar
Smith and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties F. James
Sensenbrenner in response to confirmed reports that the White
House made unethical and potentially illegal quid pro quo
offers to Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Colorado's former
Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff (D). This Resolution of
Inquiry directs the Department of Justice to transmit to the
House of Representatives all documents and communications
relating to any guidance the Department may have given the
White House about these discussions.
In May and June 2010, the Obama Administration confirmed
that it discussed with Rep. Sestak and Speaker Romanoff,
separately, their possible appointment to high-ranking Federal
positions if they would agree not to run in their respective
States' Democratic primaries for Senate. These admissions raise
the question of whether these discussions violated Federal
criminal statutes that generally prohibit quid pro quo offers,
and, if so, whether White House officials sought to determine
the legality of their actions prior to their contact with Rep.
Sestak and Mr. Romanoff. In addition, the passage of three
months time between Rep. Sestak's first comments about his
conversation with the White House and the White House's
admission that it did indeed have a conversation with Rep.
Sestak--and the behavior of key White House officials just
before this official acknowledgment--have raised questions
about the credibility of White House Counsel Robert Bauer's
eventual conclusion that no wrongdoing has occurred. We
strongly support H. Res. 1455 and, accordingly, oppose its
being reported adversely to the House of Representatives.
II. BACKGROUND
A. White House's Discussions with Rep. Joe Sestak
The Obama Administration's offer of a Federal appointment
to Rep. Sestak likely had its genesis months before Rep. Sestak
was even a candidate in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate
primary when incumbent Senator Arlen Specter had left the
Republican Party in April 2009 and joined the Democratic Party,
in large part to avoid an anticipated Republican primary
challenger in the 2010 election cycle.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Rep. Sestak's campaign ad ``The Switch,'' in which Sen.
Specter says, ``My change in party will enable me to be re-elected.''
Available at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x97DdZho11k (last visited June 28,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As soon as Sen. Specter switched his party affiliation,
President Obama and White House officials committed to
investing their resources to ensuring Sen. Specter's successful
candidacy for reelection in the Democratic primary and the
November 2010 general election. According to an April 28, 2009,
New York Times article, ``White House officials said there was
no realistic way to flat out promise Mr. Specter that he would
not face a primary in the Democratic Party for the nomination,
but noted that there is no Democrat out there in a position to
resist the State's political machine and make a realistic
challenge. More than that, White House officials said that they
had assured Mr. Specter that he would have the full backing of
Mr. Obama should he change parties. They also said that the
president would happily campaign for Mr. Specter and raise
money for him if that was necessary.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Hulse, C. ``Specter Switches Parties.'' The Caucus Blog (New
York Times Online) (internet), Apr. 28, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
White House attempts to make good on its assurances to Sen.
Specter became apparent when, on February 18, 2010, Rep. Sestak
admitted to a Philadelphia talk show host that, during the
summer of 2009, the Obama Administration had approached him to
determine whether he was interested in accepting a Federal
appointment in exchange for his agreement not to run against
Sen. Specter in Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary.\3\
Rep. Sestak added that the position he was offered was ``high-
ranking,'' but declined to state what the position was.\4\
Commentators believed that the position was Secretary of the
Navy, a hypothesis later denied by the White House. The bargain
was obviously not accepted, as Rep. Sestak announced his
candidacy for Senate on August 4, 2009, and ultimately won the
Democratic primary on May 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See Fitzgerald, T. ``Sestak Holds to Story of Job Offer.''
Philadelphia Inquirer (internet), Feb. 20, 2010.
\4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. LThe Administration's Refusal to Provide Information Necessary to
Address Concerns of Impropriety Surrounding These Incidents
In light of Rep. Sestak's revelation, several lawmakers and
legal scholars questioned whether the Administration's
discussions with Rep. Sestak may have constituted an illegal
quid pro quo offer. At least three provisions of Federal
criminal law--18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 211, 595, and 600--and the
Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7324, generally prohibit the offering
or acceptance of anything of value in exchange for any
political activity. These laws are designed to decrease
corruption in the administration of government and protect the
integrity of fair democratic elections. It is difficult,
however, to form an opinion about whether a crime was committed
because neither the Obama Administration nor Rep. Sestak has
provided sufficient additional facts to form a coherent,
credible understanding about their secret summer 2009
discussions.
Despite a number of inquiries, the Administration has
rejected requests to provide additional details about these
matters. Following Rep. Sestak's February announcement,
congressional Republicans asked numerous times for more
information from the Obama Administration about the Sestak
offer. On March 10, 2010, House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Ranking Member Darrell Issa wrote Counsel to the
President (the ``White House Counsel'') Robert Bauer seeking
details about the Sestak offer and outlining the Federal
criminal statutes that the White House may have violated.\5\
Ranking Member Issa received no written reply, but on March 16,
in response to a reporter's question, White House Press
Secretary Robert Gibbs stated: ``I've talked with several
people in the White House. I've talked to people who have
talked to others in the White House . . . I'm told that
whatever conversations have been had are not problematic. I
think Congressman Sestak has discussed that this is--whatever
happened is in the past and he is focused on the primary.''\6\
In other words, the White House said, ``We have investigated
ourselves and we don't think we've done anything wrong.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Letter from Rep. D. Issa to White House Counsel Robert Bauer
dated Mar. 10, 2010. Letters referred to in these Dissenting Views are
available at the websites of either the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee Republicans (http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/)
or the House Judiciary Committee Republicans (http://
republicans.judiciary.house.gov/), or both.
\6\See Lucas, F. ``Democratic Senate Nominee Sestak Repeats Claim:
White House Offered Him Job to Drop Out of Race Against Specter.'' CNS
News (internet), May 21, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having received no response to his March 10 letter, Ranking
Member Issa sent a letter on March 22 to Mr. Bauer requesting a
response to his prior inquiry and posing additional questions
to the White House in light of Secretary Gibbs's statement.\7\
When the time for responding to the March 22 letter passed with
no response from Mr. Bauer, Ranking Member Issa sent a letter
to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that he ``name a
special prosecutor to conduct a formal investigation into
whether a crime was committed when White house officials
attempted to secure Rep. Joe Sestak's withdrawal from
Pennsylvania's Democratic Primary for the United States
Senate.''\8\ Ranking Member Issa suggested that an independent
special prosecutor was necessary because the White House's
evaluation of its behavior would almost certainly be biased in
favor of finding no wrongdoing. The Department of Justice
responded on May 21 with a letter denying Ranking Member Issa's
special prosecutor request.\9\ On May 26, Senate Republicans
also wrote Attorney General Holder to request the appointment
of a special counsel to investigate the matter.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Letter from Rep. D. Issa to White House Counsel Robert Bauer
dated Mar. 22, 2010.
\8\Letter from Rep. D. Issa to Attorney General Eric Holder dated
Apr. 21, 2010.
\9\See Bresnahan, J. & Jake Sherman. ``DoJ Nixes Special Counsel
Request.'' Politico (internet), May 24, 2010.
\10\Letter from Sen. C. Grassley et al to Attorney General Eric
Holder dated May 26, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 27, President Obama stated in response to a
reporter's question about the Sestak offer at a press
conference that ``[t]here will be an official response shortly
on the Sestak matter. . . . I mean shortly--I don't mean weeks
or months. . . . I can assure the public that nothing improper
took place.''\11\ A reasonable interpretation of this statement
is that the President knew additional facts about the Sestak
offer at that time and easily could have answered the
reporter's questions but chose not to. The very next day--after
over three months of silence from the White House on the Sestak
matter--White House Counsel Bauer published a one-and-one-
quarter page memorandum setting forth its version of the facts
about the offer to Sestak.\12\ Citing a ``legitimate interest
in avoiding a divisive primary fight,'' the memorandum revealed
that former President Bill Clinton, at the request of White
House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, discussed with Rep. Sestak
his interest in service with the Administration in exchange for
his withdrawal from the Pennsylvania Senate primary race. Not
surprisingly, the White House memorandum concluded that any
offers made by the White House were ``fully consistent with the
relevant law and ethical requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\See Itkowitz, C. ``Obama Insists No Impropriety in Sestak
Controversy.'' L.A. Times (internet), May 27, 2010.
\12\Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
memorandum-white-house-counsel-regarding-review-discussions-relating-
congressman-se.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only was the White House's exoneration of its own
conduct neither surprising nor satisfactory, but the White
House Counsel's memo actually raised more questions about the
Administration's interference in the Pennsylvania primary than
it answered. For example, it stated that ``efforts''--plural--
were made in June and July 2009 to determine whether Rep.
Sestak would be interested in a Federal appointment if he were
to drop out of the Senate primary race. Yet the memo details
only one conversation between Rep. Sestak and former President
Bill Clinton, whom the Administration asked to make the offer.
What other efforts were made in the summer of 2009?
Additionally, President Clinton's involvement in the offer is
quite strange and raises the obvious question of why a private
individual who is not part of the Administration would be
engaged in discussions about a potential Presidential
appointment. Why wouldn't Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel or
President Obama himself discuss the offer with Rep. Sestak? One
possible answer may be that Administration officials tried to
insulate themselves from potential criminal liability by using
a remote conduit for the offer. The memo also stated that the
Administration's offer was to appoint Rep. Sestak to a position
on a Presidential Advisory Board so that he could ``retain his
seat in the House.'' Rep. Sestak has stated he believe the
position was on the Presidential Intelligence Advisory
Board.\13\ This story is simply not credible since according to
the White House's own rules for service the Board (as published
on the White House website), Rep. Sestak is ineligible to serve
on such a Board because as a member of the House he is a
``Federal employee.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\See Silverlieb, A. ``White House Admits Effort to Keep Sestak
Out of Senate Race.'' CNN (internet), May 28, 2010 (``One of the unpaid
positions that the White House suggested offering Sestak was an
appointment to the president's Intelligence Advisory Board, which gives
the president independent oversight and advice.'')
\14\See Board's eligibility rules, available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/piab/about (``The Board consists
of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among
individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The implausibility of the White House Counsel's
memorandum's version of the facts casts doubts on the
conclusions of Mr. Bauer, who reports to the same officials he
purported to investigate, and raises concerns that they were
tainted by politics. At a minimum it puts the credibility of
the memorandum's conclusions in serious doubt. These
inconsistencies, deficiencies, and self-contradictions in the
White House's explanations and the memorandum led Ranking
Members Smith and Issa to write the FBI and request that it
open an investigation into the Sestak matter.\15\ This request,
however, met the same fate as Ranking Member Issa's request for
a special counsel. On June 15, the FBI responded with a letter
that essentially dismissed the congressmen's concerns but
assured them that the FBI takes political corruption
seriously.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Letter from Ranking Member L. Smith and Rep. D. Issa to FBI
Director Robert Mueller dated May 28, 2010.
\16\Letter from Steven D. Kelly, Assistant Director of FBI's Office
of Congressional Affairs, to Ranking Member L. Smith dated June 15,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then on June 2, 2010, Colorado's former House Speaker
Andrew Romanoff disclosed that he, too, discussed with the
White House the possibility of accepting a Federal appointment
in exchange for dropping out of the Democratic primary.\17\
Specifically, Mr. Romanoff explained that White House Deputy
Chief of Staff Jim Messina raised at least three Federal
positions for which Romanoff might be considered if he were to
withdraw from the Democratic primary in which incumbent Senator
Michael Bennet was also a candidate. The next day, the White
House confirmed this discussion took place.\18\ The Sestak
matter was obviously not an isolated incident: the Romanoff
revelation revealed that the Obama Administration engaged in a
pattern of behavior to influence and interfere in State primary
elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\``Romanoff Admits White House Job Discussions.'' CBS 4 Denver
(internet), June 2, 2010.
\18\Burns, A. ``W.H. Admits Effort to Avoid Primary.'' Politico 44
(internet), June 3, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The White House now having two backroom deals to explain,
Ranking Members Smith and Issa and Mr. Sensenbrenner sent a
letter on June 2, 2010, to White House Counsel Bauer asking for
production of all documents relating to the Sestak and Romanoff
matters.\19\ Additionally, on June 4, 2010, Ranking Member
Smith sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John
Conyers requesting that the full Judiciary Committee hold a
hearing to investigate the Sestak and Romanoff matters.\20\ And
on June 8, 2010, Ranking Member Smith and Mr. Sensenbrenner
sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking what role it
may have played in advising the White House regarding the
Sestak and Romanoff episodes and asking for documents relating
to the same.\21\ When all of these requests were rejected,
Ranking Member Smith and Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced the
instant Resolution of Inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Letter from Ranking Member L. Smith et al to White House
Counsel Robert Bauer dated June 2, 2010.
\20\Letter from Ranking Member L. Smith to Chairman J. Conyers
dated June 4, 2010.
\21\Letter from Ranking Member L. Smith and Mr. Sensenbrenner to
Attorney General Eric Holder dated June 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. WHY THE RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY IS NECESSARY
The Administration's failure to provide the details
sufficient to address concerns raised about these conversations
has only fed lawmakers' and the public's concerns that some
impropriety has occurred in this matter. The Administration's
handling of the Sestak and Romanoff matters is ironic in light
of President Obama's 2008 presidential campaign promise to
administer the most open government in American history. In
fact, the day after he was inaugurated, he issued a memorandum
to the heads of executive agencies ordering them to implement
policies to make government more transparent and user-friendly.
However, in the four months since the Sestak matter became
public, the White House has issued only its one-and-one-quarter
page memorandum on the subject, which actually raises more
questions than it answers.
The ROI will help Congress fulfill its constitutional
responsibility to conduct oversight. This Committee has
considered several resolutions of inquiry directed at DOJ this
Congress, including resolutions seeking information about DOJ's
sudden decision to halt a voter intimidation case against the
New Black Panther Party, DOJ's treatment of terrorists held at
Guant namo Bay, and DOJ's policy on giving Miranda warnings to
enemies captured on the battlefield. Such resolutions were
necessary because the Administration refuses to provide any
documents voluntarily. Similarly, this ROI is an essential tool
for Congress to have the power to perform its constitutional
duty to check and balance the power of the Executive. As the
Ranking Member stated in his June 4, 2010, letter to Chairman
Conyers, ``Admissions that the White House intentionally sought
to manipulate the outcome of Democratic Senate primaries strike
at the heart of our democracy. The Committee has a duty to the
American people to investigation allegations of criminal
conduct at the White House.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\See note 20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if the Administration's conduct regarding the Sestak
and Romanoff offers was not criminal or unethical, Americans
demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials. A
June 11 Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll shows that a majority of
Americans think the Administration engaged in criminal or
unethical conduct. Americans are entitled to believe their
elected officials will hold themselves to a higher standard of
conduct. H. Res. 1455 is necessary to uncover what conduct
actually occurred so that Americans can form their own
judgments about their elected leaders.
Americans also want to know why the White House held secret
talks with former President Clinton and Rep. Sestak's brother
in the days before it released the May 28 memorandum. Days
before the White House Counsel's memorandum was released,
President Obama met with former President Clinton (whom the
Administration asked to make the offer to Rep. Sestak) and Rep.
Sestak's brother (who is also his campaign lawyer). The
Administration has not explained why, and many Americans wonder
whether the Administration tried to ensure all parties with
knowledge of the offer would tell the same story that the White
House was about to release in its memorandum. Americans are
also curious whether the Department of Justice advised the
White House with respect to these conversations, and, if so,
what that advice was.
IV. CONCLUSION
We strongly support adoption of H. Res. 1455 for a variety
of reasons that fall broadly into two main categories. First,
because all meaningful attempts to conduct oversight heretofore
have been unsuccessful, the documents that the Department of
Justice would produce pursuant to H. Res. 1455, if they exist,
are critical to determine the facts surrounding the job offers
to Rep. Sestak and Colorado House Speaker Romanoff and whether
Administration officials violated Federal criminal law or
ethical standards. If the DOJ was not consulted regarding the
legality of these offers, Americans are left to conclude that
Administration officials had a callous disregard of the
possible legal and ethical consequences of their pursuit of
political gain. Second, the disclosure required by H. Res. 1455
is entirely consistent with President Obama's campaign pledge
of making government more transparent. Transparency is
particularly necessary when individuals in positions of power
attempt to interfere in or influence the very basis of our
democratic system--Federal elections. H. Res. 1455 reaffirms
Congress's unique role in conducting oversight of the Executive
Branch and preserving Americans' ability to hold the President
accountable for his decisions.
Lamar Smith.
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Howard Coble.
Elton Gallegly.
Bob Goodlatte.
Daniel E. Lungren.
Darrell E. Issa.
J. Randy Forbes.
Steve King.
Trent Franks.
Louie Gohmert.
Jim Jordan.
Ted Poe.
Jason Chaffetz.
Tom Rooney.
Gregg Harper.