Dean's Address

The rules of the House and the Ethics Committee lay out the procedural framework for its investigations. Although a preliminary inquiry is somewhat analogous to a grand jury procedure, it differs in many respects. For example, no subpoena could issue without the signatures of both Committee Chairman Dixon and the senior Republican member, John Myers of Indiana. All hearings were conducted as closed committee meetings and each required the presence of at least two Members. The Members present could and almost always did ask questions and review documents. The hearing Chairman generally performed the tasks of a trial judge, including ruling on objections to questions and subpoenas.

The rulings of the Chair were unappealable. Federal law permits enforcement of the committee's contempt findings through a laborous procedure requiring a vote by the full House and enforcement by the justice Department in United States District Court.

All witnesses were afforded the right to counsel, and all, save a few, had representation. Unlike courtroom testimony, or even deposition testimony, the witness was generally allowed to consult with his or her lawyer following the propounding of every question. All witnesses were afforded an opportunity to make statements at the conclusion of their, testimony. These hearings lasted as short as a few minutes and as long as five days.

Although as an arm of Congress, the Committee had national subpoena power, could enforce contempt orders, and could obtain "use immunity" for witnesses, the investigation, like any other, was a pursuit of the controlling facts. We all believed that if this investigation was not clearly fact‑driven, it would not survive congressional and public scrutiny, particularly in the politically explosive environment of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The actual investigation was the essence of a trial lawyer's job: collecting facts, analyzing documents, interviewing and examining witnesses, corroborating statements, drawing inferences, directing investigators and, finally, drafting a report.

Our own ethical dilemma was in constantly maintaining our neutrality, a thorough, non‑partisan investigation of the allegations. Specifically, we struggled with questions such as: How do we walk down the middle of the road? How do we stay within the parameters of the charged allegations? Should we open every door and investigate every lead? We decided we must not advocate a position; we must listen to all sides. In fact, we subpoenaed all of the witnesses suggested by the Speaker, including his staff and friends. We challenged all of our own factual findings and we accepted all of the Speaker's statements as true, unless we had clear and convincing evidence to the contrary In order to protect the Speaker during the investigation, I charged all of the staff to talk to no one about the investigation, and to never communicate with the news media.

When we completed our investigation, many questions remained unanswered; the Committee accepted our recommendation that they continue to be pursued. We also recommended dismissal of some of the original charges, a recommendation the Committee accepted.

After the investigation, we drafted and submitted our written report to the Committee, in which we concluded that the Speaker had broken the House rules of conduct on 116 occasions. The Committee members began a reading period in which they studied our report. To prevent pretrial publicity and prejudice to the Speaker, access to the report was permitted only in the Committee Room and only in the presence of a member of our investigation team. The Committee members were not allowed to remove either the report book or even their notes from the room.

Following the reading period, and before holding a vote on whether an indictment ‑ the Committee to issue a statement of alleged violation decided, at the behest of the Chairman, that the Speaker's lawyer would be given a full opportunity to rebut the charges. This step was extraordinary, unprecedented, and not provided for by the rules of the House.

In confidential hearings, the Speaker's lawyer and I argued to the committee for over 18 hours each over a two‑week period. Additionally, I was questioned by the Committee for over 8 hours. Every member was furnished with our report, the response of the Speaker's lawyer, the entire 7,200 pages of hearing transcripts, all of the exhibits, and a briefing on the House rules and the law.

Continue to Page 3