Collins raises questions about Judiciary Committee consultants
February 13, 2019
"Your unilateral decision to hire two individuals with such obvious bias against the president will taint anything they touch moving forward. Unless Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen are recused from working on matters that directly implicate the president, there is no way the American people can have confidence the Committee is anything more than a large megaphone for partisan political charades."
WASHINGTON – Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, today sent a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) regarding the Democrats' newly hired consultants. The letter outlines concerns about the consultants' cost to taxpayers and the effect their overt bias would have on the Committee's credibility. The letter is available here and below. February 13, 2019 The Honorable Jerrold Nadler Chairman Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Nadler: Yesterday, you issued a press release announcing the Majority staff is hiring two individuals, Barry Berke and Norman Eisen, to assist on a consulting basis as special oversight counsels. According to your release, "Mr. Berke and Ambassador (ret.) Eisen will consult on oversight matters related to the Department of Justice, including the Department's review of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, and other oversight and policy issues within the Committee's jurisdiction." However, according to detailed media reporting — posted just minutes after your press release, indicating a coordinated rollout between your staff and national media outlets — Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen's roles will be much more significant. According to CBS News, a Committee aide “did not dispute that whatever their work uncovers could eventually be used as evidence against the president if Congress does move to impeach him.” The New York Times reports the retention of counsels such as Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen are “relatively unusual for a congressional committee,” and further reports the two attorneys are “prominent legal critics of President Trump [who will] help begin inquiries into some of the most sensitive allegations involving the president, including ethics violations, corruption and possible obstruction of justice.” The hiring of these two individuals, and the apparent wide breadth of subject matter they will be covering for the sole benefit of the Majority staff, raises significant concerns. The Writings of Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen As you are no doubt aware, over the past year Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen have teamed up to write a series of scathing editorials, as well as lengthier conclusory reports, about the president and his conduct. On June 4, 2018, in discussing a legal memorandum drafted by lawyers for President Trump, they wrote:The weakness of the president’s position is, finally, highlighted by his attorneys’ concluding attempt to discredit the investigation. That is done by making the extraordinary argument that his own Department of Justice and the FBI are corrupt. While many subjects of criminal investigations may harbor that view, the fact that the attorneys for our chief law enforcement officer — who oversees the executive branch, where the Justice Department and FBI reside — made that desperate claim in their letter is striking. The president is arguing that not only is he above the law but also above the facts. That audacious move is unbecoming for our nation’s chief law enforcement officer, and neither Mueller nor Congress should let him get away with it.On December 7, 2018, they wrote, “[O]n Friday, federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the special counsel, Robert Mueller, delivered a potentially devastating one-two punch against President Trump.” The editorial discusses alleged payments made by Michael Cohen, “new evidence of collusion with Russia,” and “potential exposure under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for activities relating to a potential Trump Tower Moscow.” These opinion pieces are troubling because they: a) lead the reader to believe President Trump has already been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; b) prejudge the outcome of Mr. Mueller’s investigation; and c) inflame emotions by jumping to conclusions. A recent report by the Brookings Institution, co-authored by Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen, lays out a case for obstruction of justice against the president. The report acknowledges “[t]here is no doubt a difference between what is in the public record and what Special Counsel Mueller and his colleagues have uncovered in their investigation, and there remain factual disputes among key participants.” Yet, Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen disregard these factual disputes and their limited knowledge of key facts, and further write, “[n]evertheless, analyzing the current allegations against the president under the legal framework laid out in our original report even more strongly supports that the president obstructed justice under ordinary application of the relevant criminal law.” In essence, Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen believe the president has obstructed justice, irrespective of the outcome of the Special Counsel’s investigation. The Impartiality and Recusal of Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen Given the recent writings by Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen, their hiring taints — and brings inherent bias to — any future work of the Committee in which these individuals are involved. Democrats were outraged by Acting Attorney General Whitaker’s prior media comments regarding the Special Counsel's investigation. You and your colleagues vehemently called for Acting Attorney General Whitaker’s recusal based on statements he made as an editorialist on CNN. In fact, you signed a letter stating:
Regrettably, Mr. Whitaker’s statements indicate a clear bias against the investigation that would cause a reasonable person to question his impartiality. Allowing a vocal opponent of the investigation to oversee it will severely undermine public confidence in the Justice Department’s work on this critically important matter.Yet, you seemingly have done the exact same thing by hiring Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen. You have allowed these two individuals to become the judge, jury, and executioner regarding impeachment proceedings. The hypocrisy in these hirings is evident, and their recent work product demonstrates an inability to be unbiased arbiters of facts presented to the Committee. Perhaps even more concerning is Mr. Berke’s history of political campaign contributions. According to Open Secrets, Mr. Berke has given at least 80 political contributions to federal campaigns or national parties over the past 15 years — all to Democrats. The biggest benefactor of Mr. Berke’s contributions is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, whose campaigns have received at least $12,000 from Mr. Berke. In addition, Mr. Berke has donated to the campaigns of Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. All three of those individuals have announced they are running for president. These contributions create an apparent conflict of interest and beg the question whether Mr. Berke is angling for a plum administration post should he play a key role in impeachment proceedings and any of those individuals become president — or whether other hidden motives exist as well. Your unilateral decision to hire two individuals with such obvious bias against the president will taint anything they touch moving forward. Unless Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen are recused from working on matters that directly implicate the president, there is no way the American people can have confidence the Committee is anything more than a large megaphone for partisan political charades. Cost to the American Taxpayer The cost of hiring these two individuals also raises significant concerns. The American people expect congressional leaders to be responsible stewards of their taxpayer dollars. To that end, I hope you will provide the American people with a full accounting of all funds paid to Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen. I understand the unique experience both individuals bring to the Majority staff — such experience is undoubtedly costly. Additionally, the Majority staff is allowing Mr. Berke to maintain his partnership at his New York City white-shoe law firm while being a consultant for the Majority staff. CBS News reports Mr. Berke “will commute to D.C. four days a week to work for the committee. Such an arrangement indicates a relationship with Mr. Berke far beyond one of a simple consultant. The Majority staff is also allowing Mr. Eisen to retain his position at the Brookings Institution, an elite, liberal think-tank. Such arrangements are fraught with ethical, legal, and financial conflicts of interest. The American people — who will be paying these consultants’ salaries through taxpayer funds — deserve transparency regarding this arrangement. To that end, please answer the following questions:
- Does the hiring of Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen indicate a lack of confidence in your current staff to handle important matters regarding the president?
- Will Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen be considered "Senior Staff" pursuant to the Speaker's Pay Order?
- Will Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen be required to file financial disclosure forms?
- Why did you hire these individuals now, instead of waiting for the Special Counsel's office to complete its investigation?
- Will the Committee be paying Mr. Berke's commuting costs from New York City, or his hotel rooms when he is in Washington, D.C.?
- Was this arrangement authorized by both the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Ethics?
- Did Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen complete the appropriate paperwork authorizing outside income as House employees? If not, is the “consultant” arrangement for Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen simply a veil to enable the Majority to circumvent normal reporting procedures?
- What is Mr. Berke’s current salary at his law firm in New York City? Will he be earning his full salary at the firm, or just a portion of it, while working four days a week at the Committee?
- Is the nature of the Majority staff’s arrangement to pay Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen by the hour? If so, what is the hourly rate?
- Did the Committee guarantee a minimum payment to either Mr. Berke or Mr. Eisen? If so, what is that amount?
- Is Mr. Berke assisting the Majority staff to drive more business to his law firm?
- Is the Committee counting Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen against the number of personnel slots designated to the Committee for staff? If not, why not?