Joint Hearing Of The House Committee On the Judiciary's Subcommittees- Federal Justice System's Selective Prosecution

Interview

Joint Hearing Of The House Committee On the Judiciary's Subcommittees- Federal Justice System's Selective Prosecution

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that you're holding this hearing today and I certainly appreciate the patient panel of witnesses for coming to speak with us today.

I had actually intended to ask my question of Mr. Jones, but I will offer these witnesses an opportunity to respond. But I want to use my time to address the case that has been very, very controversial in my home state of Wisconsin, the prosecution of a state employee by the name of Georgia Thompson.

Many, I think, are already familiar with the Georgia Thompson case. She was a procurement officer for the State of Wisconsin, a civil servant who was hired during the term of a Republican governor, and she was criminally prosecuted on charges that she awarded a contract to a firm owned by someone who had made campaign donations to our Democrat governor. The case raised a lot of question marks when the Seventh Circuit Appeal Court reversed her conviction last April, calling the government's evidence "beyond thin," and describing the government's legal theories as "essentially preposterous."

And in a very unusual move, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order the very day of oral arguments directing the government, the authorities, to release Ms. Thompson immediately, before close of business that day -- at oral arguments. When it became clear that Ms. Thompson had not even known about the donations and the winning bidder had submitted the lowest bid, the question became even more urgent: Why was this woman prosecuted and sent to prison? Well, one possible answer is suggested in a letter submitted to the committee by counsel for the state worker's union who represent Ms. Thompson.

And I'd like to ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to enter that letter into the record.

REP. SCOTT: Without objection, so ordered.

REP. BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I especially commend the letter to my colleagues because it really catalogs an awful -- the awful personal toll that this prosecution on Ms. Thompson produced. She, in the course of this prosecution to defend herself and her good name, spent approximately $360,000, exhausting her entire life-savings and, of course, the prosecution lost her job and her home -- facts I think that we should never lose sight of when we consider these cases and their consequences.

As to why the case might have been brought, the letter also describes the prosecution as "highly politicized." It further states, and I quote, "The context of the prosecution of Ms. Thompson was a dangerous mix of partisan electoral politics." Following Ms. Thompson's release after four months in federal prison, the New York Times editorialized that the U.S. attorney -- that "U.S. Attorney Biskupic had turned a flimsy case into a campaign issue that nearly helped Republicans win a pivotal governor's race."

The letter goes on to question why the case was brought in the Milwaukee federal courts instead of Madison -- where Ms. Thompson lived, the contract was executed, where she worked, and questions the timing of the indictment and the trial alongside the timing of a heated electoral campaign. Quoting again from the letter, "During that time, the Republican Party spent millions of dollars on advertising, specifically portraying Ms. Thompson as a symbol of corruption of the incumbent Democratic regime." It is clear that the prosecution was politically useful to Republicans, but at this point, of course, we do not know that -- if that was a side-effect or if the prosecution was, in fact, politically-motivated.

Now U.S. Attorney Biskupic who is respected in the State of Wisconsin, has strongly denied this. And I have not formed a judgment on that ultimate issue, and I have an open mind, but we do know a few things. First, we know that for a time Mr. Biskupic's name was on the U.S. attorneys firing list, and he appears to have been removed from that list after the Thompson indictment was brought.

Second, we know that Karl Rove was concerned about so-called vote fraud enforcement in Mr. Biskupic's district, and other U.S. attorneys who were not aggressive enough on those cases to satisfy Republican interests do appear to have actually been fired.

Finally, we know that the Seventh Circuit has told us that this was not just a weak case, it appears to have been simply an unreasonable one. It is one thing to have a conviction reversed, it is quite another thing altogether for an appeals court to reverse a conviction, to ridicule the prosecution and to order the government to release the defendant before the close of business that very day.

So on that note, I'll give you two the question I was going to give to Mr. Jones. Are you aware of the frequency of criminal convictions, especially those reversed in that fashion? And if not, what would your reaction have been to something like that?

MR. THORNBURGH: May I speak to that, Mr. Chairman?

REP. SCOTT: (Inaudible) -- Mr. Thornburgh?

MR. THORNBURGH: I asked to do so because the findings of the 7th Circuit Court in the Thompson (sp) case relate directly to the grievance that I've presented to this committee today. In the opinion rendered by the 7th Circuit, a distinguished federal Judge Frank Easterbrook -- I must make full disclosure, a former colleague of mine at the Department of Justice but a respected federal judge -- expressed the growing misgivings that federal courts have about overzealous applications of Sections 666 and 1346 of the federal code, the very sections that we have pointed out were abused in the Wecht prosecution.

And knowing that this committee is interested not only in hearing grievances but in taking constructive action to prevent this from recurring, I would refer you to Judge Easterbrook's suggestion that Congress take another look at the wisdom of enacting ambulatory criminal prohibitions, which is a fancy way of saying prohibitions that are adjustable to the moment and can be fashioned in the manner that's been discussed today.

I would ask, on behalf of all those defendants whose cases have been discussed here today involving these open-ended kind of opportunities, that the Congress might be well advised in its oversight hearings to look at these particular statutes and their -- the opportunity for abuse that lies within having such vague and open- ended admonitions in the federal criminal code.

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source