Senate Shields Torricelli With Double Standard

In a Senate that has been hauling up corporate executives and forcing them to testify publicly or take the 5th Amendment, the Ethics Committee last week concluded an investigation of Sen. Robert Torricelli (D.-N.J.) that was conducted entirely in secret.

The committee ended its probe by sending Torricelli a letter that "admonishes" him but does not require a vote by the whole Senate.

So far, only the six members of the Ethics Committee—three Democrats and three Republicans—committee staffers and Torricelli himself have seen the evidence and heard the testimony in the case. The other 93 senators and the American public have been left in the dark.

Responses given to Human Events last week indicate many senators would just as soon stay in the dark—and keep the public in the dark as well.

The committee, amazingly, refused to take testimony from Torricelli’s main accuser, his former political donor and friend David Chang.

All six committee members, including its three Republicans, signed off on the official "letter of admonition." The day after it was released, Vice Chairman Pat Roberts (R.-Kan.) refused to comment on his committee’s secrecy when questioned by Human Events (see below). Other members of the Senate also evaded questions.

Only the ordinarily non-confrontational Sen. Gordon Smith (R.-Ore.) would go so far as to say that "the American people—but more particularly the people of New Jersey—are owed the whole story."

Some Republicans, however, including Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, reversed course the next day, calling on both Torricelli and the committee to release the senator’s testimony and all documents related to the probe.

Human Events requested a transcript of Torricelli’s testimony from each of the committee’s six members, but none would provide it.

Chang claims Torricelli took thousands of dollars from him in cash payments, and also accepted gifts of antiques, clothing, jewelry and electronic equipment between 1996 and 1997. The senator brought Chang into meetings with foreign nationals and offered to help settle a $71-million contract dispute between Chang and the government of North Korea.

Torricelli denied taking cash payments and said he had reimbursed Chang for some gifts he admitted receiving. The committee admonished him for making the reimbursements at less than the fair market value.

According to a July 31 story in the New York Times, an analysis by federal investigators showed Torricelli had spent $22,000 in cash that could not be accounted for from his sources of cash— bank checks, ATM machines or credit cards—just around the time Chang claims he had given Torricelli over $20,000 in cash. The Ethics Committee, the Times reported, was given this analysis.

In January of this year, Clinton-appointed U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White decided not to prosecute the senator. One reason for the decision was the unreliability of the main witness, Chang, who was convicted in May of persuading a witness to testify falsely. Chang had landed in court originally for making $53,700 in illegal contributions to Torricelli’s 1996 Senate campaign, for which he was also convicted.

The committee’s "letter of admonition" specifically addressed only a few of the allegations against Torricelli. Yet it suggested that Torricelli was not forthright in his testimony. "After evaluating the extensive body of evidence before it and your testimony, the committee is troubled by incongruities, inconsistencies, and conflicts, particularly concerning actions taken by you which were or could have been of potential benefit to Mr. Chang," said the letter. Torricelli’s office did not return calls from Human Events.

The letter did not address Chang’s allegation that he gave Torricelli cash.

Ethics Committee rules say a majority can vote to conduct hearings in public. In the 1991 Keating Five investigation, an outgrowth of the 1980s savings-and-loans crisis, all five senators probed by the committee, including John McCain, were required to testify in highly publicized hearings.

Despite the committee’s secrecy in this case, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.) pounced on the committee’s terse letter as an unambiguous vindication of Torricelli—who is in a tough election fight and whose defeat in November could cost Daschle his majority. "It is now clear from the committee’s extensive review and findings that the sensational allegations made against Sen. Torricelli by Mr. Chang have been proven false and without foundation," said Daschle in a written statement.

It is impossible to determine how Daschle could have arrived at this conclusion—which is actually at odds with the committee’s letter—considering he has not seen the evidence or the testimony in the case.

Torricelli, for his part, offered an apologetic statement from the Senate floor. "During recent weeks, I have spent long nights tormented by the question of how I could have allowed such lapses of judgment to compromise all that I have fought to build," he said. "It might take a lifetime to answer that question to my own satisfaction."

His statement contrasted sharply with the repeated, angry denials of wrongdoing he had earlier offered. On April 18, 2001, during the Justice Department investigation, the senator spoke emphatically in Newark, banging on the podium as he did so. "I have never, ever done anything at any time to betray the trust of the people of the state of New Jersey," he shouted. "Never!"

Torricelli is running even with his Republican opponent, moderate businessman Doug Forrester, in two recent polls. His hometown newspaper, the Bergen Record, has called on the senator to resign.

Capitol Q&A: Shouldn’t the public, if not the Senate, see the evidence and testimony in the Torricelli affair? And isn’t the Senate applying a double standard here? Human Events put these questions to members of the Senate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it right for the Ethics Committee to have Sen. Torricelli testify in secret rather than in public?

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D.-N.D.): I have not followed what the Ethics Committee is doing. You should ask members of the Ethics Committee.

Recently, corporate executives have been made to testify publicly when they were accused of wrongdoing. Should senators accused of wrongdoing also be made to testify in public so the public can determine their credibility?

Dorgan: Like I said, you should talk to members of the Ethics Committee. I have not followed it, have no inclination about what they’re doing in the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator, in your opinion, is it right for the Ethics Committee to allow Senator Torricelli to testify behind closed doors instead of in the public view? Sen. John Ensign (R.-Nev.): I haven't even thought about that, to be honest with you. I didn't know that that was how they were doing it, because I'm not on the Ethics Committee, so it doesn't do me any good talking, because I haven't followed it, I'm not on that committee. In principle, would you agree that when a Senator is accused of wrongdoing, it's in the interest of the American people to hear what he has to say to determine his credibility? Ensign: I'm not trying to evade your question. I just haven't looked at the issue. I think that when you respond to something, especially when you're in the press, you ought to think about it. I just haven't thought about this enough.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator John McCain and four others had to testify publicly in 1991 in the Keating Five investigation, and more recently, corporate executives accused of wrongdoing were made to testify publicly before Senate committees. Is there a double standard here?

Sen. Dick Lugar (R.-Ind.): No, I don't think so. In each case, the committees determine whether their hearings will be in private or in public. It's ideal to have them public, but there are considerations. And I respect the bipartisan leadership of the Ethics Committee. They have to make their own determination.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eleven years ago you were made to appear publicly and testify several times in relation to the Keating Five scandal. Now the Ethics Committee has Sen. Torricelli testify behind closed doors. Is there a double standard here?

Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.): I don’t know enough of the details of the case. But I do believe that Mr. Chang should have been allowed to testify, as he requested. If someone wants to testify before the committee, I think he should be allowed to. In principle, do you think it’s in the interest of the public to hear a senator’s testimony when he’s accused of wrongdoing?

McCain: I think it’s in the senator’s interest to make all information available.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eleven years ago Sen. McCain was made to testify several times in public hearings on the Keating Five scandal. More recently, corporate executives accused of wrongdoing have had to appear and testify publicly. Is it right for the Senate Ethics Committee to allow Sen. Torricelli to testify behind closed doors when he’s accused of wrongdoing? Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.): This is not a matter that I’ve spent any time on, quite frankly. The Ethics Committee is set up to hold hearings and do certain things. They also have the authority, as I understand it, to do things in executive session. And that’s their choice. I’ve not heard a lot of rumblings among my colleagues, and I think probably the Senate Ethics Committee is doing its job the way it feels it needs to right now, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s appropriate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1991, Senator McCain and four others had to testify publicly several times regarding the Keating Five scandal. More recently, corporate executives accused of wrongdoing had to testify publicly before Senate committees. Why has your committee allowed Senator Torricelli to testify behind closed doors? Sen. Pat Roberts (R.-Kan.): I have no comment on that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator, in your opinion, is it right for the Ethics Committee to allow Sen. Torricelli to testify behind closed doors, out of the public view?

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.): I would have to think about that. I served on [the Ethics Committee] for two years, and I don’t know exactly—I just don’t know.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator, in your opinion, is it right for the Ethics Committee to allow Sen. Torricelli to testify behind closed doors, in secret session, rather than in public hearings?

Sen. Bob Smith (R.-N.H.): I don’t really have any comment on Ethics Committee matters. I’m not a member, and I really don’t want to comment on it, because I don’t have any of the details.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it right for the Senate Ethics Committee to allow Senator Torricelli to testify behind closed doors when many others, such as corporate executives—and long ago, Senator McCain in the Keating Five scandal—were made to testify publicly? Sen. Gordon Smith (R.-Ore.): That’s a very good question. I’m not on the Ethics Committee. The Senate has its own rules for judging its members. But clearly, a lot is being said behind closed doors that ultimately the Senate as a whole ought to at least hear before this is finally disposed of.

In principle, should the American people be able to hear Senators’ testimony when they are accused of wrongdoing, so as to be able to judge their credibility?

Smith (Ore.): Yes. I don’t quarrel with that. There’s just so much of this. Behind all the smoke and the mirrors, I think the American people—but more particularly the people of New Jersey—are owed the whole story.

Every voter in a "contested" state should require of the incombent his/her public demand for full release of the documents relating to the esteemed crook from New Jersey. Any incumbent not so requesting should not receive a vote from any voter who believes in accountability and honesty in government. I am from Louisiana and have written Ms. Landrieu and shall surely receive some pablum, if I receive anything at all. This should become a mantra for all those who seek votes in contested states, whether they are Dem. or Rep. I imagine that virtually all of the Dems and, sadly, too many Republican will take a pass. The Dems especially have already displayed their colors too man times; witness their "search for the truth" in the impeachment trial of Clinton. Notwithstanding that sordid history, all of us should contiuously pepper the incumbents with our demand for full disclosure and not let any of the incbumbents have a day of rest on this issue.

Fascinating. So many senators who dodge and weave when confronted with blatant hypocracy. As members of a very select group (100 members only), all of whom are public officials and all of whom hold the longest term available to an elected official in the Federal government, the upper body of the congress should, if anything, demand a higher standard. Instead ethics appear to be a nast inconvenience to these posturing jerks. Clinton gets a pass, Toricelli gets a pass, every politician gets a pass when the Senate is the judge and jury. We ought to dump them all. Note, by the way, that the republican senators are all on board with this too. Every one of them is a bum.

Term limits are easily enforced - just vote for whoever is running against the incumbent. If term limits were a popular thing, this very situation would have prevailed long ago. But alas, the craft of being a curmudgeon seems to be an art too little practiced, and even less appreciated. Get all the fools on your side, and you got the majority in any town.

Clinton gets a pass, Toricelli gets a pass, every politician gets a pass when the Senate is the judge and jury.

Not completely true- Bob PackWood certainly was drummed out of the Senate, and I believe it was while the Repubs had the Senate majority. Nevertheless, I agree that it is time to clean house in the Senate, and to tear up their stupid book of arcane rules and regulations. These people take themselves waaaayyy too seriously, and have absolutely nothing in common with the great men that founded this country.

YES! YES! YES! WE NEED TERM LIMITS. There are those who say we can use our power to vote to get rid of these self-appointed princes, but we know that is impossible. Once in, they are usually there for life. Most people in Massachusetts cannot understand why they keep sending an oversexed drunk back every eight years. And the rest of us can do nothing about it. Term limits is necessary on federal and state positions. It is not necessary on local ones where there is often trouble getting people to run.

I'm not trying to evade your question. I just haven't looked at the issue. I think that when you respond to something, especially when you're in the press, you ought to think about it. I just haven't thought about this enough.

Well then let me ask you just what the hell have you been thinking about over the past six months or so? One of your own has been under investigation and the it's been all over the news and you haven't thought about it? What planet are you from, you slimey little weasel?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.