Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Dorothy Brown to join long line of candidates running for mayor
Next Post: Biss appears to backtrack on his pledge to “elect the Democratic nominee for governor whoever that person is”
Posted in:
* AP…
A lawyer for former U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock says prosecutors are aiming to be the first to imprison a former member of Congress over ambiguous rules the U.S. House set for itself.
* Politco…
“The government spent two years and two different grand juries investigating every aspect of my 14-year public service career. They investigated my business endeavors, from the age of 18 years old to the three years since leaving office, and they even investigated my personal life,” Schock said. “It’s a sad day in America when our U.S. Justice Department will stop at nothing, not even trampling the Constitution in its zeal to prosecute. Thankfully we have the courts, and I am confident they will provide the necessary check on this out-of-control prosecution.”
In oral arguments, Schock’s defense team claimed House rules for car mileage reimbursements are too vague to base criminal charges upon. Schock has been accused of pocketing tens of thousands of dollars in reimbursements after submitting false mileage reports following a POLITICO report.
Benjamin Hatch, Schock’s lawyer, also asserted in a highly technical argument that it would be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, as well as the Speech or Debate Clause, to prosecute Schock. According to Hatch, the executive branch shouldn’t be involved in interpreting internal congressional rules, stating it would be a constitutional violation to do so.
“Our position is an ambiguous House rule can’t be used as evidence to prosecute a member of Congress,” Hatch told the three-judge panel. “The House rules do not determine whether anyone, including Mr. Schock, violated” federal law.
* Back to the AP…
Prosecutors said half of the charges Schock faces have nothing to do with House rules, including ones alleging he falsified tax returns.
A Department of Justice lawyer, William Glaser, said at Wednesday’s hearing that the defense was mischaracterizing the government’s approach — as if “we want to go around prosecuting people based on ambiguous rules.”
Glaser said prosecutors won’t rely heavily on House rules in trying to prove their case at a trial for Schock. In some instances, he said, showing Schock violated rules would simply be a way to try and show criminal intent.
* Sun-Times…
Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Diane Wood and Judge Frank Easterbrook tested Hatch’s argument, pushing him to say whether members of Congress could write their own rules about paying taxes — and bypass the law itself.
Hatch said clear violations of federal law are a different matter. Rather, he argued it would be an overreach for the courts to delve into the gray areas. He based much of his argument on a precedent set during the prosecution of former Illinois Congressman Dan Rostenkowski.
“It would be the court fashioning a rule of Congress,” Hatch said.
Wood seemed to dwell on the more glaring examples of Schock’s alleged malfeasance, like seeking mileage reimbursements for more miles than his vehicle was actually driven.
* Jim Dey…
Hatch was interrupted by Wood just 40 seconds into his argument. She wondered why her panel should entertain Schock’s appeal now rather than post-trial. Wood said she was “having a really hard time” understanding why the court should accept Schock’s rule-making argument for dismissal, characterizing his position as asserting a “right not to be tried.” […]
But Wood wondered whether the rules would be used by prosecutors as a “piece of evidence” or “as a basis of liability,” a statement supporting the prosecution.
In the next breath, she threw a potential lifeline to the defense.
“There are regulations, and there are regulations. … Some of them have struck me as pretty vague,” she said, specifically citing House rules on office furnishings. […]
The confusing Q&A raised more questions than it answered. But it seems clear that the appeals court is seriously wrestling with the question of whether it has jurisdiction to issue a ruling on the merits or send the case back to Bruce for trial followed by a possible appeal.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 19, 18 @ 1:16 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Dorothy Brown to join long line of candidates running for mayor
Next Post: Biss appears to backtrack on his pledge to “elect the Democratic nominee for governor whoever that person is”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The mileage reimbursment falsification seems to be more than just violating Congressional rules. That’s defrauding the federal government. I’m betting federal law says something about that.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 19, 18 @ 1:25 pm
Test. My comments all seem to be held for some reason.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 19, 18 @ 1:28 pm
House rules (made by the House) are ambiguous, therefore members of Congress cannot be prosecuted.
Laws for the rest of us are specific, therefore common citizens can be prosecuted.
Hmmmmmm…
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Thursday, Apr 19, 18 @ 2:22 pm
–Schock Appeal–
I think that was the header on his “Mens Health” cover.
When’s the John Shimkus cover coming out?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 19, 18 @ 2:36 pm
To paraphrase Shock, “It’s a sad day in America when a public figure could misuse funds, lie (in the face of contradictory evidence), and falsify records and NOT expect prosecution.”
Comment by Jocko Thursday, Apr 19, 18 @ 2:46 pm
Schock lied and cheated, and he thought he was a big time mover and shaker. Hubris.
I am tired of high priced lawyers parsing words, the ethical and moral issues are obvious and so are the legal issues.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Apr 19, 18 @ 3:01 pm
Honestly I just want to see how this plays out.
And wordslinger…if Rep. Shimkus had a cover like Schock’s….To quote Rich’s post from earlier “My eyes! It burns!”
Comment by South of I-80 Thursday, Apr 19, 18 @ 4:01 pm
Trump’s lawyers are taking notes.
Comment by a drop in Thursday, Apr 19, 18 @ 5:29 pm
So I guess we have to wait for a conviction before he apologizes for reporting false mileage on top of his six figure salary?
Comment by Anon Friday, Apr 20, 18 @ 10:31 am