The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“FEDERAL COURT ASSIGNMENT OF CRIMINAL CASES” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E142-E143 on Feb. 15, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
FEDERAL COURT ASSIGNMENT OF CRIMINAL CASES
______
HON. DOUG BEREUTER
of nebraska
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 15, 2000
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues and submits for the Record this February 12, 2000, editorial from the Omaha World Herald regarding Federal court assignment of criminal cases concerning President Clinton's friends. Our colleague, Representative Howard Coble (R-NC), recently discovered frequent use of a special rule allowing the chief judge to bypass the random assignment system for certain ``protracted'' cases; in this instance, fundraising cases involving friends of the President that have been assigned to judges appointed by the President. This situation certainly should be investigated. It's little wonder that increasingly Americans are wondering if one can get justice from the Justice Department.
Judging a Judge's Judgment
The Washington, D.C. panel of federal judges that oversees judicial conduct there has reopened what had looked like's closed controversy. The judges were right to do so. The situation involved the chief judge's prior practice--it might reasonably be characterized as a habit--of naming judges who were appointees of President Clinton to preside over criminal cases involving his friends.
That particular federal judicial district has a computer system to assign almost all criminal cases randomly. The idea of putting the system in place was to avoid both the appearance and the reality of favoritism. But there was a special rule, which was recently eliminated, allowing the chief judge to bypass the system for ``protracted'' cases.
Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson used the rule with what might politely be called enthusiasm. It was revealed in recent months that five Democratic campaign fund-raising prosecutions and a tax-evasion case against Clinton confidant Webster Hubbell went to Clinton appointees. Now, appeals court Judge Stephen Williams has been ordered to look into the circumstances of these and other case assignments.
The decision to revive the inquiry was made after the revelation by Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., of additional non-random assignments in fund-raising cases, including one involving a former fund-raiser for Vice President Al Gore.
Coble, one of the most conservative members of a mostly conservative congressional delegation from a conservative state, is no friend of Clinton or Gore. He probably has an agenda behind his quest. But that shouldn't matter. The facts are the facts: Judge Johnson by-passed the system and has never said why, although she denies that there were political considerations.
It may all be on the up-and-up, but it smells funny. If Johnson in fact did nothing wrong, she deserves to have that publicized. Conversely, if some level of cronyism is involved, some sort of disciplinary action might be appropriate. Getting to the bottom of this is, plain and simple, a good idea.
____________________
