Senate ethics records

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, DELAWARE. CHAIRMAN
JAMES LAN~FORD. OKLAHOMA, VICE CHAIRMAN
BRIAN SCHATZ, HAWAII JAMES E. RISCH, IDAHO
JEANNE SHAHEEN. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEB FISCHER, NEBRASKA
SHANNON HAMILTON KOPPLIN, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
WILLIAM B. CABLE, CHIEF CLERK
The Honorable Lindsey Graham
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Graham:
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
March 23, 2023
Public Letter of Admonition
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-ll425
TELEPHONE, 1202) 224-2981
FACSIMILE, 1202) 224-7416
TOD, 12021 228-3752
Pursuant to its authority under Senate Resolution 338, the Select Committee on Ethics
(the Committee) reviewed an allegation that you violated Senate Rules and related standards of
conduct by soliciting campaign contributions in a federal building. The Committee finds that
your conduct was contrary to Senate standards of conduct and, accordingly, issues you this
Public Letter of Admonition.
The Committee initiated its inquiry after receiving a complaint alleging that you solicited
campaign contributions in support of Georgia senatorial candidate Herschel Walker during a
media interview conducted in the Russell Senate Office Building on November 30, 2022. The
complaint included a link to a video clip of the interview, which the Committee has reviewed as
well as the information you provided to the Committee regarding this matter.
Based upon all available information, the Committee concluded that on November 30,
2022, you conducted a media interview with Fox News in the rotunda of the Russell Senate
Office Building and that your interview was slightly over nine minutes, with over four minutes
devoted to a discussion of the 2022 senatorial run-off election in Georgia. The Committee
further concluded that during your discussion of the senatorial run-off election, you directly
solicited campaign contributions on behalf of Mr. Walker's campaign committee,
www.teamherschel.com, five separate times.
Your actions on November 30, 2022, represented a repeat violation of Senate standards
of conduct. On October 14, 2020, immediately following a Judiciary Committee hearing, you
engaged in an unplanned media interview in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. In response to
a reporter's question regarding your reelection campaign fundraising, you directly solicited
campaign contributions for your campaign committee. While the Committee concluded your
conduct violated Senate standards of conduct, it considered several mitigating factors, and in
accordance with the Committee's Rules of Procedure, determined your conduct was
" inadvertent, technical, or otherwise of a de minimis nature. " On March 8, 202 1, the Committee
dismissed the complaint and notified you of the Committee's findings and action by private
letter. The Committee is charged with upholding the ethical standards of the U.S. Senate, a
responsibility both broader than and distinct from criminal law. The specific prohibition on
campaign solicitation in federal buildings and the restrictions on the use of official resources for
campaign activity have been consistent and clear throughout your years of Senate service, and
the Committee is confident the Senate community understands this standard and its rationale.
Applying this standard to your conduct, the Committee finds that you did solicit federal
campaign contributions and otherwise impermissibly conducted campaign activity in a federal
building. Further, you made these campaign solicitations despite the Committee's specific
guidance following your violation in October 2020. The Committee does acknowledge that you
did self-report your conduct to the Chairman and Vice Chairman.
The public must feel confident that Members use public resources only for official
actions in the best interests of the United States, not for partisan political activity. Your actions
failed to uphold that standard, resulting in harm to the public trust and confidence in the United
States Senate. You are hereby admonished.
Christopher A. Coons
Chairman
Sincerely,
2
Vice Chaim1an

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 516e11ed99613077c02b54b9b6d8278a6aab65280b8566734873191a777c06cc

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

JOHNNY ISAKSON, !';EORGIA. CHAIRMAN
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, DELAWARE, VICE CHAIRMAN
PAT ROBERTS, KANSAS BRIAN SCHATZ, HAWAII
JAMES E. RISCH, IDAHO JEANNE SHAHEEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEBORAH SUE MAYEA, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
EMIL V GERSHON, CHIEF CLERK
Wniteb ~tate~ ~enate
The Honorable Robert Menendez
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Menendez:
SELECT COMMITIEE ON ETHICS
April 26, 2018
Public Letter of Admonition
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE. NE
WASHINGTON. DC 2051()..6425
TELEPHONE: (202) 224- 2981
FACSIMILE: (202)224--7416
TOO (202) 228-3752
Pursuant to its authority under Senate Resolution 338, the Select Committee on Ethics
(the Committee) has conducted an inquiry into allegations related to your interactions with
Dr. Salomon Melgen. The Committee has found that over a six-year period you knowingly and
repeatedly accepted gifts of significant value from Dr. Melgen without obtaining required
Committee approval, and that you failed to publicly disclose certain gifts as required by Senate
Rule and federal law. Additionally, while accepting these gifts, you used your position as a
Member of the Senate to advance Dr. Melgen's personal and business interests. The Committee
has determined that this conduct violated Senate Rules, federal law, and applicable standards of
conduct. Accordingly, the Committee issues you this Public Letter of Admonition, and also
directs you to repay the fair market value of all impermissible gifts not already repaid.
The Committee began its review of this matter in late 2012, and, consistent with its
precedent, deferred its inquiry while the U.S. Department of Justice pursued a criminal
investigation into your conduct. At the conclusion of your trial in November 2017, the
Committee resumed its process.
Over the comse of its review, the Committee developed a comprehensive factual record
to determine whether your conduct violated any rule, law, or standard of conduct within the
Committee's jurisdiction. The Committee reviewed your written submissions, your financial
disclosure filings, and other publicly available information. In addition, the Committee obtained
and reviewed information from the Department of Justice's criminal investigation and
prosecution, which spanned more than five years and culminated in an 11-week trial against you
and Dr. Melgen. Specifically, the Committee reviewed 257 exhibits and the trial testimony of 57
witnesses. The Committee notes that the trial record includes not only the evidence presented
against you, but also your robust defense. At trial, through your attorney, you questioned the
credibility of the evidence against you, raised mitigating facts and theories~ and introduced
evidence regarding the motivation for your actions. As in past matters, the Committee found that
the criminal proceeding provided a wealth of credible and reliable information, which the
Committee did not need to independently duplicate. Based upon the totality of the evidence, the Committee has concluded as follows:
I. From 2006 through 2013, you accepted numerous things of value from Dr. Melgen,
including, but not limited to, travel on private and commercial flights, a luxury hotel stay
in Paris, and lodging on 19 occasions at a Dominican Republic villa. You did not pay
fair market value for, or, where required, obtain necessary written approval from the
Committee to accept these gifts.
2. Over the course of several years, you failed to list gifts you had accepted from
Dr. Melgen on your public Financial Disclosure Reports, as you were legally required to
do.
3. During the same time period in which you accepted these gifts, you used your position as
a Member of the Senate to advance Dr. Melgen's personal and business interests. At
Dr. Melgen's request, you:
a. Intervened in a matter where the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS) found that Dr. Melgen had overbilled Medicare by more than $8.9 million.
This intervention included persistent advocacy before multiple senior CMS
officials over the course of three years, reaching, at its height, your meeting with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
b. Advocated before federal agencies on behalf of ICSSI, a port security services
company owned by Dr. Melgen. This advocacy included an in-person meeting
with a senior official in which you requested that the U.S. Department of State
intervene in a contract dispute between ICSSI and the Dominican Republic.
During this meeting, you threatened to hold a public hearing and to call the
official to testify if the State Department failed to resolve the matter. You also
acted to protect ICSSI's contract to provide scanning services in the Dominican
Republic by requesting that U.S. Customs and Border Protection delay its planned
donation of screening equipment.
c. Assisted foreign nationals obtain visas to visit Dr. Melgen in the United States,
including, in one case, appealing directly to a U.S. ambassador to seek
reconsideration of a visa denial.
Notably, you have not disputed the fact that you accepted numerous gifts from Dr.
Melgen and took official actions related to his interests. Standing alone, your acceptance of and
failure to disclose gifts violated Senate Rule 35 (Gifts), Senate Rule 34 (Public Financial
Disclosure), and the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended. Your repeated acceptance
of private plane flights from Dr. Melgen is particularly troubling given that it coincided with the
passage and implementation of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of2007, a law
passed in response to an ethics scandal and aimed, at least in part, at severely curtailing public
officials' acceptance of free travel on private planes. This law was passed shortly after you
joined the Senate, with your vote. Further, your decision to accept and your failure to disclose
2 numerous gifts while simultaneously using your Senate office in furtherance of Dr. Melgen's
interests created, at a minimum, the appearance of impropriety.
A Senator should be "ever conscious that public office is a public trust." Code of Ethics
for Government Service~ I 0. A Senator is expected to place "loyalty to the highest moral
principles and to country" above loyalty to others. !d.~ I. A Senator should "[n]ever
discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for
remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under
circumstances which might be constmed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance
of his governmental duties." !d. ~ 5. A Senator is also expected to exercise discretion in
accepting gifts, and be "particularly sensitive" not only to the frequency and value of gifts, but
also to the "possible motives of the donor." Senate Ethics Manual (2003 ed.) at 21-22.
You demonstrated disregard for these standards by placing your Senate office in
Dr. Melgen's service at the same time you repeatedly accepted gifts of significant value from
him. Your assistance to Dr. Melgen under these circumstances demonstrated poor judgment, and
it risked undermining the public's confidence in the Senate. As such, your actions reflected
discredit upon the Senate.
In determining the appropriate conclusion to this matter, the Committee considered
several factors. First, the Committee reviewed evidence that suggested your actions on behalf of
Dr. Melgen were consistent with your long-held policy beliefs related to effective Medicare
policies and post-9/11 port security. These are worthy causes. However, the fact that a cause is
worthy does not negate the duty to ensure compliance with ethical standards.
Second, the Committee understands that you are committed to assisting constituents.
Indeed, the Committee has long recognized that "[r]esponding to inquiries of petitioners and
assisting them before executive or independent government officials and agencies" is an
"appropriate exercise of the representational function of each Member of Congress, as well as an
important function of congressional oversight." Senate Ethics Manual at 177. Your assistance
to Dr. Melgen, however, went well beyond Senate norms. You took action, over the course of
several years, on behalf of one specific individual who repeatedly gave you many valuable gifts
and who was also among your closest friends, which included direct contact with officials at the
highest levels of government.
Third, the Committee is aware that you have described Dr. Melgen as your closest friend
and "brother," but this makes your assistance to him no less troubling. Your Senate office and
its attendant resources and power are not personal to you. Senators must closely guard against
even the appearance that their families or friends are entitled to use these resources and power
for their own personal gain.
Fourth, the Committee acknowledges that you have repaid some ofthe gifts Dr. Melgen
provided. The Committee, however, has determined that such repayment does not erase the
violation, given both the lapse of time between acceptance and repayment, and the circumstances
that prompted your repayment.
3 Finally, the Committee considered the fact that your criminal trial did not result in a
conviction. The criminal system, however, neither enforces nor supplants the Senate's rules or
standards of conduct, and the Committee's action stands independent from that result.
For the reasons set forth above, the Committee concludes that your actions violated
Senate Rules and related statutes, and reflected discredit upon the Senate. Accordingly, you
must repay the fair market value of all impermissible gifts not already repaid, and amend your
Financial Disclosure Repmts to include all reportable gifts. Finally, by this letter, you are hereby
severely admonished.
Sincerely,
4
Christopher A. Coons
Vice Chairman
~f.IC~ Brian Schatz, Member .
~ Jeanne Shaheen, Member

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): cd99d5770c44945e70c40fb1833ec51da85fcfa0fed9f86f43d8c951ae37f2a8

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

BARBARA BOXER, CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN
JOHNNY ISAKSON. GEORGIA, VICE CHAIRMAN
SHERROD BROWN, OHIO
BENJAMIN L CARDIN, MARYLAND
PAT ROBERTS, KANSAS
JAMES E. RISCH, IDAHO
JOHN C. SASSAMAN, CHIEF COUNSEL ANO STAFF DIRECTOR
ANNETIE GILLIS, DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
The Honorable Tom Coburn
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Wniteb ~tates ~enate
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVEN UE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510- 6425
May 25, 2012
Public Letter of Qualified Admonition
Dear Senator Coburn:
TELEPHONE: (202) 224-2981
FACSIMILE: (20 2) 224-741 6
TOO: (202) 228-3752
After an investigation, the Select Committee on Ethics found that your communications
with and actions on behalf of Doug Hampton were improper conduct which reflects on the
Senate, and it is therefore issuing you this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition. Further, in
order to assure that the Senate community fully understands the law and rules that prohibit such
conduct, the Committee is issuing guidance later today.
The Committee found that you had a personal friendship with Mr. Hampton, the former
Administrative Assistant to Senator John Ensign, that you were aware that Mr. Hampton had left
his Senate employment, and that when he later contacted you on official business less than one
year later you agreed to a meeting that involved a discussion of legislative matters, which is not
permitted by law. Your relationship with Mr. Hampton provided you with a basis to have known
that he was engaging in prohibited post-employment communications when he contacted you
and scheduled the March II, 2009 meeting on behalf of his employer, Allegiant Air
("Allegiant").
In reaching its determination to issue a qualified admonition, the Committee took into
consideration that your prohibited conduct was confined to oi1e meeting only, and that you
candidly acknowledged that you should have exercised a higher degree of care. While the
Committee did not find that your conduct constituted actionable violations of criminal law, the
Committee believes that Senators are obligated to meet a higher standard, and it has the authority
and responsibility to investigate Members who may engage in improper conduct which reflects
on the Senate.
Scope of the Committee's Inquiry
The Committee initiated its investigation following the conclusion of the Preliminary
Inquiry of Senator John Ensign ("Ensign Inquiry") to determine whether your conduct in
communicating with and meeting with Mr. Hampton violated any law, rule, or standard of
conduct within the Committee's jurisdiction. To reach its conclusions, the Committee conducted
interviews of Mr. Hampton, Allegiant representatives, and members of your staff who were involved in setting up or attending the meeting with Mr. Hampton. It also reviewed the
information and testimony developed during the Ensign Inquiry, including your testimony in that
matter, and your responses to the Committee's Request for Information.
Federal criminal law (18 U.S.C. § 207(e)) prohibits former "senior" staff, like Mr.
Hampton, for one year from knowingly communicating or appearing before their former Senate
colleagues if their intent is to influence official actions and they are acting on behalf of any other
person. The statutory ban, or "cooling off period," applies to any matter on which the former
employee seeks official action on behalf of someone else, regardless of whether the former
employee is a registered lobbyist or works for those who lobby. Senate rules prohibit lobbying
contacts by all former staff during the one year cooling off period. The Committee also
considered whether you knowingly associated with, participated in, and furthered Mr. Hampton's
impermissible contacts, in violation of the general aiding and abetting and conspiracy statutes
(18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 371).
Your Communications with Mr. Hampton During His Cooling Of:Jf Period
The Committee found that you met with Mr. Hampton on official business even though
you had reason to know that he was legally prohibited from requesting or participating in such a
meeting. You acknowledged that Mr. Hampton was a personal friend whom you counseled and
supported after learning of Senator Ensign's affair with his wife, Cindy Hampton. You were
made aware of plans to help the Hamptons transition into a new life, and you recommended that
Senator Ensign assist Mr. Hampton with recommendations to find another job, as you would
"normally give someone who had been your chief of staff." During his cooling off period, Mr.
Hampton thanked you for helping him after learning of the affair and informed you that he had
an "excellent job" with Allegiant. Prior to the March 11 , 2009 meeting, you knew that Mr.
Hampton represented the airline.
Mr. Hampton's email with your scheduler indicated the March 11 meeting would be
"both personal and business." You said you saw "no harm in meeting with him to discuss
personal matters and his efforts to re-establish himself in the business world." During the
meeting, you discussed substantive matters of legislative concern to Allegiant, including the
FAA reauthorization and the need for regulation regarding speculation in energy markets. You
also discussed Allegiant's reinstitution of air service to Oklahoma. Allegiant, however, did not
make any request for official action, nor did your office take any official action on Allegiant's
behalf.
Following the meeting, and after Mr. Hampton's cooling off period was over, you were
intimately involved in trying to help the Ensigns and Hamptons reach a financial settlement that
would stave off any public disclosure of, by then, the past affair. This lends further credence to
your awareness that Mr. Hampton was in his cooling off period in March 2009.
During this entire period, there is no dispute that Mr. Hampton was a former senior
employee subject to the statutory post-employment restrictions, for which he is now charged
with violating. Throughout Mr. Hampton's cooling off period, which ran from May 2, 2008 to
May 1, 2009, he successfully arranged a meeting with you on behalf of Allegiant in order to
2 further its business interests. Mr. Hampton is currently under indictment for improper contacts
that he had with Senator Ensign and his office during his cooling off period.
Your Actions Were Improper and Reflect Upon the Senate
Although the post-employment statute and cotTesponding Senate Rule (Rule 37.9) apply
to contacts by former Members and employees of the Senate, and do not address conduct by
current Members and employees who receive the contacts, current Members and employees have
an obligation to refrain from knowingly participating in conduct that is prohibited under either
the law or Senate rule. Consistent with Committee guidance that Senators must meet a higher
standard of conduct, ~ 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service admonishes government
employees to " [u]phold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of
all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion." Other provisions of the Code
state that government employees must " [p]ut loyalty to the highest moral principles and the
country" above loyalty to others, and to uphold all of these principles, "ever conscious that
public office is a public trust."
While the Committee did not find that your conduct constituted actionable violations of
criminal law, it determined that you did not meet the aforementioned higher standards expected
of a U.S Senator. However, in deciding to issue a qualified admonition, the Committee took note
that it was one meeting that you have since candidly acknowledged was wrong and taken full
responsibility for arranging. You said that you were "in a better position to evaluate the potential
risks ofthis meeting than [your] staff, so that [your] behavior demands that [you] apologize for
not supervising [your] staff more careful! y in vetting this meeting request. " The Committee
recognizes and appreciates your contrition.
The Committee issues this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition, and hereby considers
this matter closed.
Sincerely,
d!:!:-Bo s-- r ~liliio..o.
Gant sw~ Sherrod Brown, Member
Z=&f~ember
3

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 6517cb954c781ceaa3b821027a13c8f5156f2690525e5cdc16a9c30f1295d5b9

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:43 PM Pacific.

BARBARA DOXCR, CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN
JOHNNY ISAKSON, GEORGIA, VICE CHAIRMAN
MARK L PRYOR. ARKANSAS
SHERROD BROWN, OHIO
PAT ROBERTS, KANSAS
JAMES E. RISCH, IDAHO
JOHN C. SASSAMAN, CHIEf COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
ANNETIE GILLIS. DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
The Honorable David Yitter
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Yitter:
mtntteb ~tateg ~enate
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVEN UE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510- 6425
March 29, 201 2
TELEPHONE: (202) 224--2981
FACSIMILE: (202) 224--7416
TOO: (202) 228-3752
The Select Committee on Ethics is dismissing the complaint filed by Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") regarding your attempt to block Senate
legislation raising Secretary Salazar's salary $ 19,600 - thereby making it on par with other Cabinet
Secretaries- until he issued six new deepwater exploratory permits per month in the Gulf of Mexico.
While the Committee found that there was no substantial credible evidence that you violated the law
or Senate rules, it did conclude that it is inappropriate to condition support for a Secretary's personal
salary increase directly on his or her performance of a specific official act. The Committee
recognizes that currently there is no clear Senate guidance addressing such conduct, and therefore,
issues this letter and the accompanying guidance to the Senate community about how we will view
such behavior in the future.
Pursuant to Article I, section 6, clause 2 of the Constitution (the Ineligibility Clause), thenSenator Salazar was prohibited from becoming Secretary of the Interior until a law was passed that
" rolled back" any compensation increase enacted during his Senate term. Therefore, in 2008,
President George W. Bush signed legislation rolling back the Secretary of the Interior's salary so that
then-Senator Salazar could be appointed to that position. His salary was eligible to be increased by
$ 19,600 and thereby restored to the level of other Cabinet Secretaries on January 3, 20 I I, the date his
Senate term would have ended. This matter involves your hold on such " restoration" legislation.
On May 23, 20 II , you sent a letter to Secretary Salazar informing him that "when the rate of
permits issued for new deepwater exploratory wells reaches pre-moratorium levels (so 6 per month),
I will end my efforts to block your sa lary increase." In an accompanying press release, you
commented that this was your "way of keeping the ' boot on the neck' of Interior until they get the
job done." Your actions to block restoration legislation appear to be unprecedented. On May 24,
20 II , Secretary Salazar wrote to Senate Maj ority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch
McConnell requesting that the legislation be withdrawn, and the Senate has not taken any subsequent
action. Therefore, regardless of who the Secretary of the Interior is, that individual will be paid
$ 19,600 less than other Cabinet Secretaries unless legislation is passed that restores the salary.
While Senators have long used holds on nominations to help persuade administrations to
carry out or change policies, tying an incumbent Secretary's personal salary directly to his or her
perfo rmance of a specific offici al act is diffe rent, places a Secretary in a precarious and potentially
untenable position, and undermines a basic principle of government service. As stated in the Code of
Ethics for Government Service, "public offi ce is a public trust." A government employee must not be influenced by external factors when making decisions and "never accept for himself or his family,
favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as
influencing the performance of his governmental duties." Had Secretary Salazar complied with this
request, it would have appeared that his decision was made because of his personal interests, and not
the public interest.
This unprecedented circumstance raised a new issue about how the Committee should treat
actions that tie an existing Secretary's personal salary to his or her performance of a specific official
act. As a result, later today the Committee is issuing to the Senate community the enclosed new
guidance, which makes it clear that going forward such actions will be viewed by the Committee as
improper conduct reflecting discreditably on the Senate.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
2

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 434e171d95ce52507ff54afeafd67092a3db54166cf333c73875c7766ab18d71

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

BARBARA BOXER. CALIFORNIA. CHAIRMAN
JOHNNY ISAKSON, GEORGIA. VICE CHAIRMAN
MARK L. PRYOR. ARKANSAS
SHERROD BROWN OHIO
PAT ROBERTS. KANSAS
JAMES E RISCH. IDAHO
JOHN C. SASSAMAN, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
ANNETTE GILLIS, DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
The Honorable Roland W. Burris
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
itniteb ~tates ~enate
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6425
November 20, 2009
Public Letter of Qualified Admonition
Dear Senator Burris:
T ELEPHONE; (2021 224-2981
FACSIMILE: (2021224-7416
TOO: (202) 228-3752
After an extensive investigation, the Select Committee on Ethics is issuing you this
Public Letter of Qualified Admonition for actions and statements reflecting unfavorably upon the
Senate in connection with your appointment to and seating in the Senate.
The Committee found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect,
inconsistent, misleading, or incomplete information to the public, the Senate, and those
conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate. The Committee also found
that your November 13, 2008 phone call with Robert Blagojevich was inappropriate. Although
some of these events happened before you were sworn in as a U.S. Senator, they were
inextricably linked to your appointment and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of this
Committee.
While the Committee did not find that the evidence before it supported any actionable
violations oflaw, Senators must meet a much higher standard of conduct. Senate Resolution 338
gives this Committee the authority and responsibility to investigate Members who may engage in
·'improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate.,.
To make its determination, the Committee conducted interviews with multiple witnesses;
requested and reviewed a tape of the November 13, 2008 phone conversation between you and
Robert Blagojevich; and looked carefully at your numerous sworn and unsworn statements to the
Illinois House of Representatives Special Investigative Committee on Impeachment, to the press,
and to the Senate, including your responses to this Committee. Based on all the evidence before
it, the Committee reached the following conclusions:
Your sworn affidavit and sworn testimony before the Illinois House of Representatives
were inconsistent, incomplete and misleading.
In your January 5, 2009 affidavit. you state that you did not have any contact with
Governor Blagojevich or any of his representatives about your appointment to the Senate before December 26. 2008. In your January 8. 2009 testimony before the Impeachment Committee.
despite repeated and specific questioning. you did not disclose having any conversations about
your desire to seek the U.S. Senate appointment or about fundraising with anyone associated
-with the Governor. except Lon Monk. It was not until your second affidavit and subsequent
press statements that you disclosed additional contacts with associates of the Governor.
These omissions in your sv;orn statements are particularly noteworthy given their
context. The Governor had recently been arrested and charged ~ith corruptly using his authority
to make a Senate appointment in exchange for campaign contributions and other benefits. and
these charges were the subject of the impeachment hearings conducted by the Illinois House of
Representatives. as well as intense media scrutiny. Therefore. you should have knO\\TI that any
conversations you had about your desire to seek the Senate seat and about any possible
fundraising for the Governor were critical to these inquiries. In addition. your testimony on
January 8. 2009 was one of the factors the Senate leadership said they would consider in your
seating. and its truthfulness was important and relevant to your seating.
Your shifting explanations about \'Our sworn statements appear less than candid.
You gave multiple and at times contradictory explanations for failing to disclose all your
contacts with the Governor's associates. which individually and collectively gave the appearance
that you were being less than candid. For example, you said you believed the affidavit referred
only to your appointment after it was made and not to conversations about seeking it. You then
said that certain questioners during the hearing did not give you enough time to give full answers
about those contacts, despite the fact that you were asked the question multiple times and the
pauses before and after your answers gave ample time for elaboration. Later. you said that when
you answered that you had talked to friends it was your intention to include many of the people
specifically mentioned in the question. Most recently. however. you told this Committee that at
the time ofthe hearing, you did not recall speaking to anyone besides Lon Monk.
Your NoYember 13, 2008 phone call with Robert BlagojeYich, while not rising to the level of
an explicit quid pro quo, was inappropriate.
When Robert Blagojevich called you on 0\·ember 13. 2008, he was explicit about the
purpose ofhis call: to raise campaign funds for his brother. Yet. during this com·ersation in
which you appeared to agree to write a check and even potentially raise money for Governor
Blagojevich. you repeatedly brought up your desire to seek the Senate seat. You also implied
that the people you might raise mane) from would be unhappy if you did not receiw the
appointment. The Committee finds that this conversation v.·as inappropriate in its content and
implications.
***
In determining the proper conclusion to this matter. the Committee took into
consideration many factors, including the fact that the Sangamon County State's Attorney found
that your sworn statements and affidavits were not actionable violations of law. We were also
2 aware that these issues surrounding your appointment to and seating in the Senate ha\'e been
subject to intense public criticism.
Again. the Committee has found that your actions and statements reflected unfavorably
on the Senate and issues this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition.
Sincerely.
Chairman
f\J~L ~~ C91L
Mark Pryor. Member
Sherrod Brown, Member
3

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 195ec0ade1fbf87d5209f162b90c5fff6e0bec731bcfdffdcddd41135edbb7c4

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

3->A!J,>"-A BOXEll, C.AI IFORNIA, CH.AIRMA..,
IOh,NY ISA'<SO'I. GEORGIA V•CE CHAIRMAN
MAA~ L I'RVOI!, AAi<A"'SAS
SrlERROD l!'lO'N" OHIO
PAT ROOERTS. ><A'SAS
.i~MES E. RISCh IOA><C
.•Oil'< C SASSAMA'I Ct;IEF COUNSEL ANO STAFf 0 RECTOR
A'-"<fTTE GI~LIS DEPUTY STAFf DIRECTOII
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd
United States Senate
Washington. D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Dodd:
mntteb ~tatts ~enate
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6425
August 7. 2009
TELEPH<l"E: {2021 424-2981
FACSIMU.E: (202) 22'-7•16
TOO. (2021 22s-J7S2
The Select Committee on Ethics infonns you that after an extensive. year-long
investigation it is dismissing a June 13. 2008 complaint from Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington c ·CR.EW"), which requested that the Committee investigate whether
mortgages you obtained from Countrywide Financial ("Countrywide .. ) violated the Senate Gifts
Rule. ln its complaint, CREW cited a June 12, 2008 article published in Por((olio.com.
Wl1ile the Committee finds no SLtbstantial credible evidence as required by Committee
rules that your Cow1trywide mortgages violated Senate ethics rules, the Committee does believe
that you should have exercised more vigilance in your dealings with Coumryv.ide in order to
avoid the appearance that you were receiving preferential treatment based on your status as a
Senator.
To reach the conclusion that yo u did nm violale ethics rules. the Committee carefully
examined whether your conduct violated the Senate Gifts Rule, which states: ·'No Member.
officer. or employee of the Senate shall knowingly accept a gift except as provided in the rule.''
The rule provides an exception for opportunities and benefits " in the form of loans hom banks
and other financ ial institutions on tenns generally available to the public:· thereby allowing
Senators to accept oppmiuni6es offered only to a group that is not defined on the basis of one ·s
status as a Senate employee. The Committee also considered whether your conduct violated
Senate Rule 37, which prohibits Senators from using their offici al position for personal gain.
Scope of Committee Inguin' - 18,000 Pages of Documents
The Committee treated this matter very seriously and took every possible step during the
course of its year-long inquiry to obtain information from multiple sources. including issuing
subpoenas for detajled comemporaneous documents and testimony. while needing to be attentive
to the concerns raised by parallel investigations.
To that end. the Committee caJefully reviewed more than 18.000 pages of documents
from Countrywide and its former employees, which included information about its Y.l.P. loan
unit. the "F1iends of Angelo .. program. and the details of your mortgages and dealings with the
company from 1999 to the time of the complaint. The Committee also conducted length y depositions \\ith numerous former Count f)"\\ ide! emplo) ees. including the account executi' e "ho
originated your 2003 mortgages that are the subJect of CRE\V' s complaint and the undcrwri tcr
"ho re,ie\Yed vour loan tiles. Finallv. the Comminee sought. recei' ed. and examined loan tilec; . . ~
and detailed C:\planations from ~ou about) our dealings wilh Countr) ''ide.
Countrywide's V.J.P. Loan Cnit and the Friend of Angelo Program
While it \\as not the primar) focus ofthe Committee's imestigation to determine the
breadth and scope ofCountrywide·s V.l.P. program. the Committee newrtheless carefull~
undertook to ascertain ho" the V.I.P. program \\Orked in order to determine ''hether your
conduct violated 'enate rules. Through its inquiry. the Committee learned about the purpose and
policies of the V.l.P. and .. Friends of Angelo·· programs. It appears the \'.I.P. loan unit was
initiall y established for the purposes of ori ginating. processing, and funding home loans as a
courtesy to senior-level employees and V.I.P. customers. but it increasingly grew in scope and
size. A large subset of V. f.P. loans referred by Angdo Mozilo. former Countrywide C.E.O ..
''ere known as the ·"friends of Angelo" or F.O.A. During the mortgage boom that occurred
from late 2002 through ~004. the V .I.P. loan unit handled thousands ofloan~ worth billions of
dollars for a 'er) broad spectrum of indi' iduals. large numbers of'' hom hnd newr mel. Let alon~
befriended. :Mr. ~ lo:tilo
0\ erall, it appears that Y.l.P.s were often offered qu1cker. more efticaemloan processing
and some discounts. llo\\·e, er. it also appears that all \'J.P. loans. including F.O.A loans. \\ere
required to meet the same underwriting standards and conditions for re. ale on the secondarJ
mark.et as non-\' .l.P. loans. Furthermore. there ts C\ idence on the record that the discounts
offered to\' .J .P .s and 1- .O.A.s were not the best deals that were a' ai !able at Countr)'v>·idc or m
the marketplace at large. In sum, participation in the \'.l.P. or F.O .. \ . programs did not
necessarily mean that borrowers received the best 1inancial deal available either from
Countrywide or other lenders.
Senator Dodd's Response to the Committee
The Committee asked yo u for specific. detailed. and thorough responses. with
documentary suppon \\here available. to numerous questions regarding your mortgages anti
participation inn \'.J.P. program. You informed the Committee that you c\entually became
a" are that you had been placed in a V.I.P. program. You told the Comminee that you inquired
'' ith Countrywide as to ''hat the V .l.P program was and were told that it offered heightened
attention to sen ice qualit}. You also said that )OU did not become a\,are of the "Friends of
·\ngelo·· program until June 2008, have ne\ er met \ngelo Ylozilo. and ne'er communicated \\ ith
him abom an) of) our loans.
You pro' ided the Committee '"ith the loan tiles for lbe mortgage and a report. dated
Jul) 22. 2008. prepared b~ CrossCheck Compliance LLC. entitled .. Re\ tC\\ of the Terms and
Conditions of Certain Res1dential Mortgage Loans." The report conclude ~ that. .. based on the
market data we anal~ Led. \\C lind that the terms and conditions that the lDoddsj received for the
two loans were consistem with those that an~ borro\\cr. who possessed similar credit. income.
asset. and equity positions. would have recei,ed during the highly acti\ c relinance market that
2 existed during the first halfof2003." You told the Committee that you sought three competing
offers for your 2003 refinances and received simi Jar rates to the ones offered by Country'v'.'ide.
Fu1ihermore, you stated 1hat it was your practice to seek competing otTers for all the loans you
sought.
No Ct·ediblc Evidence of an Ethics Rul e Violation
After examining the extensive record before it, the Committee found no credible
evidence that you kno\vingly accepted a gift. including a loan not available to the public.
First, your mortgages were made in a commercially-reasonable manner based on terms
and conditions available to borrowers with similar loan profi les. While your Countrywide loans
were handled through the V.I.P. loan unit and designated as F.O.A. loans, the service you
received was available to thousands of other non-Senate customers at Countryvvide and the loans
you received appear to have been available industry-wide to bonowers v,·ith comparable Joan
profiles. It appears your loans met all applicable undervvriting standards and that you and your
wife were excellent loan candidates and established Countrywide customers in good standing.
You sought competing mortgage offers from other lenders that oiiered tenns substantially
similar to the ones Countrywide provided. There is no evidence that the interest rates for your
Countrywide mortgages were below prevailing market rates.
Second. there is no credible evidence that you sought or knowing!) received any financial
benefits not available to other borrowers with similar loan profiles. The Committee has found no
evidence that you or your wife ever asked for special treatment or that anyone ever
communicated to you or your family that you were receiving specific discounts or other special
treatment not available to other borrowers because of your status as a Senator.
Third, there is no credjble evidence that you used your official position for personal gain.
The Committee found no evidence that you fully understood the scope of the V .I.P. program.
knew that you were in the ·'Friends of Angelo·· program, or attempted to use your status as a
Senator to receive loan terms not available to the public.
Guidance for You and the Senate Community at Large
Although the Committee dismisses this maner after tinding no Yiolations of Senate rules.
it believes this case otTers important guidance for you. the Senate community, and the
Committee in order to avoid the appearance of preferential treatment in the future.
The Committee has found no evidence that you sought entrance into the V.I.P. loan unit.
However, once you became aware that your loans were in fact being handled through a program
with the name "V.I.P .... that should have raised red tlags for you and compelled you to find out
exactly how you became a member of the V .l.P. unit. whether you may ha\'e been offered
treatment based on your official position, and very specificall y if you v-.-ere receiving preferential
treatment not available to other bon·owers with similar loan profiles .
..,
.) The Comminee also recognizes thal it has nm preYiousl~ offered specitic guidance to
Senators, ofticers. and cmplo:ees on the matters [hey should consider \\hen negotiating
mortgages and other financial transactions. The Comminee should proacm·ely pro\ ide more
guidance to the Senate community about issues surrmmding mortgage negotiations and
encourages Senators. officers. and employees to seek prior guidance concerning participation in
any programs like the one addressed here.
r
~a-)~ Barbara Boxer
Chairman
Mark Pryor. Member
Sherrod Brov.,. \I ember
incercl~.

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 220100545f1db158e2dd9f9ab9f49111d3c6a88d61ca0a32a9b7c6e1563c6437

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

JII ~.!o-='4 SOX!If CAl ~:t·. ~Qol.,&!PY~~
JO-l"•'t¥ SAXSO.. G£0~G!A,. \o1CEQ-A."=<''..A"-
w=-.: ... ~~ ~=.t::.a.~
S><E ~ PO;\.._, 00'0
""'r 100 """~~ • •">-<J,AS J4M(S f IIISCM.ID'-"0
JO>f"< C $-<SS<l.\'AN .I;HI(f COUNS£L A•oD S IA.'< OIF. ~~
.t.'I'<ET'£ GILLIS, OEPUTV Sr<V'• D R<C7C'>
The Honorable Kent Conrad
l nitcd Stales Senate
Washington. D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Conrad:
~niteb ~tates ~enate
SELECT COM MITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING. ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONST'TUTlON AVENUE. NE
WASHINGTON DC 2051o-&!25
August 7. 2009
rhe Select Committee on I:thics informs ~ou that after an extcnsi,e. ~car-long
TE~E"'"'C'·E 202 '21.!-2931
F.r...-s=.E r-2 22~ - .:16
~:; m 228-3752
u1' cstigation it is dismissing a June 13. 2008 complaint from CitiLens for Responsibilit) and
Ethics in Washington ("CRE\\.'"). which requested that the Committee in,estigate whether
mortgages you obtained from Countrywide Financial ("Countrywide'') violated the Senate Gifts
Rule. In its complaint. CREW cited a June 12. 2008 artic le published in Porifolio.com.
\\'hile the Committee finds no substantial credible e,·idcnce as required b~ Committee
ruk~ that; our Countr) \\ide mortgages' iolatcd Senate ethics rules.lhe Commiuce does belie\'e
that you should ha\e e-.:ercised more vigilance in your dealings with Countryv.-ide in order to
a\ oid the appearancl! that yo u were receiving preferenti al treatment based on your Status as a
SenatOr.
fo reach Lhe conclusion that you did nOt "iolate ethics rules. Lhe Committee careful!~
examined v.·hcther ~our conduct ,·iolatcd the · enate Gifts Rule. which states: ·-~o Member.
otTtcer. or employee of the Senate shall kno'' ingl~ accept a gift except as provided in the rule ...
The rule provides an exception for opportunities and benefits " in the fom1 of loans from banks
and other £lnancial institutions on terms generall) aYailable to the public ... thercb) allo,., ing
Senators to accept opportunities ofTered onl) 10 a group 1hat is not defined on the basis of one· s
statu~ as a enate employee. rhc Committee also considered whether your conduct \iolated
Senate Rule 37. "'hich prohibits Senators from using their oi1icial posiuon fur personal gain
Scope of Committee Inquiry - 18,000 Pa ges of Documents
The Committee treated this matter \'er~ serious!~ and tool e\e~ possible step during the
course of its year-long inqui~ to obtain information from multiple sources. including issuing
subpoenas for detailed contemporaneous documents and testimon~. wh1le needing to be auentiYe
to the concerns raised b) parallel investigations.
To that end, the Committee carefully revic,,ed more than 18.000 pages of documents
from Countr)\\ide and its former emplo~ees. \\htch included information about its VJ.P. loan
uni1. the "Friends of. \ngelo" program. and the details of~ our mongagcs and dealings with the company from 2002 to the time of the complaint. The Committee also conducted lengthy
depositions with numerous former Country'v'ide employees. including both account executives
who originated your mongages that are the subject of CREw· s complaint and the undenHiter
who rc,·ie,,ed your loan tiles. hnall). the Comminee sought. rccci,ed. and examined loan files
and detailed explanations from ) ou about your dealings w·ith Countrywide.
Countrywide's V.l.P. L oan Unit and the Friends of Angelo Program
\\11ile it ''as not the primary focus of the Committee·s in,·estigation to detemline the
breadth and scope of Countryv. ide· s V J .P. program. the Comminee nevenheless carefull)
undenook to ascertain hmY the V.T.P. program \\Orked in order to determine \\hether ~our
conduct violated Senate rules. Through its inqui0. the Comminee learned about the purpose and
policies of the V.l.P. and "Friends of Angelo·· programs. It appears the V.I.P. loan unit was
initially established for the purposes of originating. processing, and funding home loans as a
courtesy to scnior-le,·el employees and \".J.P. customers. but it increasingly gre\\ in scope and
size. A large subset of\ .. l.P. loans referred b~ Angelo ~1ozilo . former Coun~\\ide C.E.O ..
were kno,\n as the ··Friends of Angelo .. or F.O.A During the mortgage boom that occurred
from late 2002 through 100-L the V.LP. loan unit handled thousands of loans worth billions of
dollars for a very broad spectrum of individuals. large numbers of whom had never met, let alone
befriended, Mr. Mozilo.
OveralL it appears that \'.I.P.s were often offered quicker. more enicient loan processing
and some discoums. Ho"e,·er. it also appears that all \".l.P. loans, including F.O.A. loans. \\ere
required to meet the same undenvriting standards and conditions for resale on the secondary
market as non-V.J.P. loans. Furthermore. there is evidence on the record that the discoun ts
offered to V.I.P.s and F.O.A.s were not the best deals that were a\ailable at Countryvvide or in
the marketplace at large In sum. participation in the \'.I P. or F.O A. programs did not
necessarily mean that borro\\ers rccei' ed the best tlnancial deal a\ ailable either from
Count0wide or other lenders.
Senator Conrad 's Response to the Committee
The Com mince asked~ ou for spccitlc. detailed. and thorough responses." ith
documentary suppon where a' ailable. to numerous questions regarding ~our mortgages and
participation in a \'.LP. program. You informed the Committee that )OU briefly spoke with
former Country·wide C.E.O. Angelo Mozilo about obtaining a mongage for~ our beach property
in 2002 duri ng a phone conversation you were having with your long-time, mutual frjend. James
.\.··Jim·· Johnson. the fom1er C.E.O. of Fannie ~lae. You also informed the Committee that vou
became aware sometime in ~00-+ that )OU bad been placed in a \'.l.P. program. You told the
Committee that you did not recall ever being informed about what the program \\as. and you
assumed it was mere!~ an employee and customer relations effort. Further. you told the
Committee that you remained a Countrywide customer because ofthe company·s
professionalism, their service and competitive rates. and the convenience of refinancing with
,·our current lender. You also said that vou did not become aware oflhe ··Friends of Aneelo'· . . ....
program unti I J w1e 2008. As a part of~ our response. you prm ided the C omminec \\ ilh a copy
of an estimate from a competing lender m connection\\ ith the 2002 purchase.
2 No Credible EYideoce of an Ethics Rule Violation
After examining the cxtensi\e record before it. the Comminee found no credible
e\·idence that )OU knowing]) accepted a gift. including a loan not a\·ailable ro the public.
First. your mortgages were made in a commercially-reasonable manner based on tcm1s
and conditions a\'ailable to borrowers"' ith similar loan profiles. While your Countr~"'' dc loans
were handled through the \'.T.P. loan unit and dc~ignated as F.O.,\. loans. the sef\ ice )OU
recei,·ed was a,·ailable to Lhousands of other non-Senate customers at CountrY'' ide and the loans
you received appear to haYe been available indu~t~ _,,ide to borrowers '' ith comparable loan
profiles. There is no C\'idence that the interest rates for any of your Countrywide mortgages
were below prevailing market rates.
It appears your loans met all applicable underwriting standards and that you and your
'' ife were excellent loan candidates and establi~hed C oumryv.ide customers in good standing.
You sought a competing mongage offer from anmher lender on the ~002 purchase that otlcred
tem1s substantially similar to the ones Count:r: ''ide pro,·ided. '\\'ith regard to the rciinancing of
your e ight-unit apartment building. the substantial credible evidence is that it would not be
unprecedented for Countrywide to approve mortgages on multi-unit properties if the loan could
be resold on the second~· market. You \\ere ad' ised that our loan met that standard before
you rccei\'ed the mortgage.
Second, there is no credible e' idence that you sought or knowing!) recei' ed any financial
benefits not available to other bonowers with similar loan profiles. The Committee has found no
e\ idence that ) ou e\ er asked for special treatment or that anyone e\ er communicated to ) ou. or
anyone acting on your behalf. that you were receiving specific discounts or other special
treatment not a\'ailable to other borro" crs because of' our status as a Senator.
Third. there is no credible evidence that you used your oflicial position for personal gain.
The Committee found no evidence that you fu ll) understood the scope of the Y.l.P. program.
knew that you were in the -- Friends of Angelo" program. or att~:mpted to use your status as a
Senator to receiYe loan terms not aYailable to the public.
Guidance for You and the cnate Commuoit\ At Large
Although the Commit1ce dismisses this matter after finding no ,·iolations or Senate rules.
it belie\'CS this case offers important guidance for) ou. the Senate community. and the
Committee in order to avoid the appearance of preferential treatment in the future.
The C ornmittee has found no e\ idence that you sought entrance into the \' .I.P. loan unit.
but believes you should ha"e exercised greater care in your dealings with Countrywide. Your
direct conversation" ith Countrywide C.E.O. Angelo Mozilo. a subsequent reported comment to
a loan employee that you were going to tell i\1r. \tlozilo what great sen·icc Countr) ""ide
pro' idecl and your e' entual a\\areness that your loans were in fact being handled through a
program \\ith the name --YJ P.:· should ha\·e all raised red flags for you. ln order to a\oid
3 the appearance Of impropriet). }OU should have inquired \·er) SpeciilcaiJ) abOUt how you
became a member ofthe V.J.P. unit, whether you may have been offered treatment based on your
official position, and if you were receiving preferential treatment not aYailable to other borrowers
with similar loan profiles.
The Committee also recognizes that it has nor pre\ iousl~ offered specific guidance to
enators. officers. and employees on the matters the) should consider ''hen negotiating
mortgages and other tinancial transactions. The Committee should proacti\el;. provide more
guidance to the Senate community about issues surrounding mortgage negotiations and
encourages Senators. officers. and employees to seck prior guidance concerning participation in
any programs like the one addressed here.
~1-~~ Barbara Boxer
Chairman
Mark Pryor. Member
Sherrod Brown. ~lembcr
Sincere tv.

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): db6f93d844a9d025fb62f74c623454c3b45f6565f76fbf4f19c2c7f892764a55

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

United States Senate
Select Committee on Ethics
Hart Senate Office Building, Room 220
Second and Constitution Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20510–6425

Barbara Boxer, California, Chairman
John Cornyn, Texas, Vice Chairman
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Ken Salazar, Colorado
Pat Roberts, Kansas
Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Robert L. Walker, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Annette Gillis, Deputy Staff Director

Telephone: (202) 224–2981
Facsimile: (202) 224–7416
TDD: (202) 228–3752

May 8, 2008
The Honorable David Vitter
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Vitter:

Through this letter the Select Committee on Ethics informs you that it is dismissing without prejudice a July 19, 2007, letter of complaint from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”), through which CREW requested that the Committee “begin an investigation to determine whether Senator David Vitter (R-LA) violated the Senate Rules of Conduct by soliciting for prostitution.”*
The Committee has determined that, under the totality of the specific circumstances present in this matter, it is appropriate for the Committee to dismiss this matter without prejudice. These circumstances are that: as alleged in the letter of complaint, the conduct at issue occurred before your Senate candidacy and service; as alleged, the conduct at issue did not result in your being charged criminally; as alleged, the conduct at issue did not involve use of public office or status for improper purposes.
Based upon these specific grounds, the Committee has determined that it should not further exercise its jurisdiction over this matter at this time.
In addition, while the Committee has made no factual findings regarding the conduct alleged in the complaint, we note for the record that Deborah Jeane Palfrey of Pamela Martin & Associates, whose services you have been publicly linked to, was found guilty of operating an interstate prostitution ring in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 15, 2008. Specifically, Ms.
Palfrey was found guilty on all counts in the indictment against her, including operating a racketeering influenced corrupt organization (RICO), money laundering conspiracy, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. The Committee makes note of these facts in light of your statement on July 9, 2007, in which you acknowledged, “This was a very serious
* On October 1, 2007, your counsel, on your behalf, submitted to the Committee a “Motion/Request for Recusal of Sen. Boxer”; your counsel resubmitted this motion to the Committee on November 27, 2007. You did not allege any facts requiring recusal under the Committee’s Rules. Therefore, your “Motion/Request for Recusal of Senator Boxer” has been denied.

sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible.”
The Committee also wishes to make clear that this decision to dismiss this matter without prejudice should not be taken as personal approbation or acceptance by any of the Members of the Committee of the kind of conduct alleged in this matter. In fact, if proven to be true, the Members of the Committee would find the alleged conduct of solicitation for prostitution to be reprehensible.
In dismissing this matter without prejudice, the Committee reserves the right to reopen an investigation should new allegations or evidence be brought to our attention.

The Committee has determined that this letter informing you of its decision will be released publicly.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
Chairman

John Cornyn
Vice Chairman

Mark Pryor, Member

Pat Roberts, Member

Ken Salazar, Member

Johnny Isakson, Member

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): b6b38014d8efb0ba5c1b65c63d96cea118b93496980bc912b1d1955021335779

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

BAR8AHA BOXER, CAUFOflNIA, CHAIRMAN
JOW COBHYN, T^?(AS,V)CE CHAmMAN
MASK FBYOR, ARKANSAS
KEN SAtAZAR, COLORADO
PAT ROBERTS, KAKSAS
JOHNNY 1SAKSON, GEORGIA
TELEPHONE: (202) 224-2981
FACSlMitE: (202> 224-7416
TDD: (202) 228-3752
ROBERT L WALKER, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
ANMETTE GILLIS, DEPUrC STAFF DIRECTOR ^nteti States; ^>snate
SELECT COMMiTTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6425
April 24, 2008
The Honorable Pete V. Dome.nici
.United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Public Letter of Qualified Admonition
Dear Senator Domemci:
la response to a complaint of improper conduct reflecting upon the United States Senate,
the Select Conunittee on Etihics of the United States Senate issues this Public Letter of Qualified
Admonition to you pursuant to Section 2(d)(3) of Senate Resolution 33 8, 88 Congress, 2Ild
Session (1964), as amended by Senate Resolution 222,106th Cong., 1st Session (1999) and its
Supplementary Procedural Rules, Rule 3(g)(2).
The Committee's action in this matter addresses your conduct ia calling David C.
Iglesias, then the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, in October 2006 to
inquire about the tuning ofmdictments in a pending NewMexico.federal grand jnry ;
investigation into allegations of public cormption relatmg to the construction of the Bemalillo
County courthouse.
The Committee finds no substantial evidence to determine that you attempted to
improperly influence an ongoing investigation. The Conmiittee does find that you should have
ktiown that a federal prosecutor receiving such a telephone call, coupled with an approachmg
election which may have turned on or been influenced by the prosecutors actions in the
comiption matter, created an appearance of impropriety that reflected unfavorably on the Senate.
In making this detennmation, the Committee relied on general guidance under Rule 43 to
avoid conununicatioris with a federal agency on a matter in which it is "engaged ia an on-going
enforcement, investigative or other quasi-judicial proceeding" (Senate Ethics Manual, 2003 ecL,
page 179). The Committee also considered the well-known duty of prosecutors to ensure the fair
and impartial administration of justice and fhe publicity at the time of your call about thehandling of public corruption matters as an issue m the close election contest in the First
Congressional District of New Mexico.
On March 7, 2007, the Committee began its review offhis matter. Jn the course of the
preliminary mquiry the Committee deposed, obtained sworn affidavits Scorn or interviewed
numerous witoesses, iacludmg you, Mr. Iglesias, members of your Senate staff, current and
former executive brancli officials and attorneys, and otiier private mdividuals. The Committee
reviewed extensive documents and records, obtained through subpoena, by voluntary production,
or available in the public record. The Comauttee also considered several submissions made by
you through, or made on your behalf by, your counsel.
In its inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding your October 2006 telephone call to
Mr. Iglesias, the Committee considered a number of questions, concerns and factual issues which
we do not discuss in fbis letter because, as previously stated, fhe evidentiary record did not
provide sufficient support for any detemiiaation by the Committee beyond that expressed above.
We do emphasize, however, that the Committee confined its inquiry to your October 2006 call to
Mr. Iglesias, its context and consequences and related actions by you or your office. It was never
a purpose of the Committee in this matter to inquire more broadly into actions that may have
been taken by others with regard to other United States Attorneys in the fall of 2006.
The Committee specifically notes and took into consideration your March 2007 public
statement wherein you stated that:
I called Mr. Iglesias late last year. My call had been preceded
by months of extensive media reports about acknowledged
investigations into courthouse construction, mcluding public
comments from the FBI that it had completed its work months earlier,
aad a growing number of mquiries from constituents. I asked Mr.
Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation
and give me an idea of what timeframe we were looking at. It was a
very brief conversation, which concluded when I was told that the
courthouse investigation would be contmuing for a lengthy period.
la retrospect, I regret making the call and I apologize.
However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation
with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought
he should take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor
threatened him in any way.The Committee appreciates your candor.
With this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition, this matter is closed.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
Chainuan
t\AA^2^-%-v/ ?^
Mark Pryor, Member
Sherrod Brown, Member
^
Pat Roberts, Member
akson. Member

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 231cab215605fcabb10f211bd33c41ed8d55122b3969095490a8283053ae22c1

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

BARBARA BOXER, CAliFORNIA. CHAIRMAN
JOHN COANYN, Tl:XAS. VICE CHAIRMAN
MARK PAYOR. ARKANSAS
KEN SAI.AZAA, COLORADO
PAT ROBERTS. KANSAS
JOHNNY ISAKSON. GEORGIA
ROBERT L. WALKER. CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
ANNETn: GILLIS. DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
The Honorable Larry E. Craig
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Craig:
'aelntteb ~tates ~en e
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510- 6425
February 13, 2008
Public Letter of Admonition
TE~EPHONE: (202) 224-2981
FACSIMILE: (202) 224-7416
TOO: (202) 228-3752
In response to improper conduct by you reflecting upon the United States Senate, the
Select Committee on Ethics of the United States Senate issues this public letter of admonition to
you pursuant to Section 2( d)(3) of Senate Resolution 338, 881
h Congress, 2nct Session (1964), as
amended by Senate Resolution 222, 106111 Cong., 1st Session ( 1999) and its Supplementary
Procedural Rules, Rule 3(g)(2).
The Committee's action in this matter addresses your conduct in connection with your
June 11,2007, arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and your August 2007
guilty plea in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, Fourth Judicial District, and your
conduct related and subsequent thereto, as discussed more fully below. The Committee bases its
action on the following determinations:
• Through your accurate, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, you were convicted in
August 2007 of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, occurring on June 11, 2007, in a
men's public restroom at the Northstar Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal of
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The Committee accepts as proven your guilty
plea and all matters set forth in your guilty plea, including your statements therein: that
you reviewed the arrest report and/or complaint relating to the charges against you; that
on June 11 , 2007, at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport restroom you engaged
in conduct which you "knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment
[in] others which conduct was physical (versus verbal) in nature"; that at the time of your
plea you made no claim that you were innocent of the charge to which you entered a
guilty plea; and that you entered your guilty plea freely and voluntarily.
• Following your arrest on June 11, 2007, you showed the arresting officer a business card
that identified you as a United States Senator and stated to the officer, in words or
substance, "What do you think about that?" Under the circumstances present at that time,
you knew or should have known that a reasonable person in the position of the arresting
officer could view your action and statement as an improper attempt by you to use your
position and status as a United States Senator to receive special and favorable treatment. Although, in our view, you committed the offense to which you pled guilty and you
entered your plea knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently, it appears you are attempting
to withdraw your plea in significant part because your initial calculation that you could
avoid public disclosure of, and adverse public reaction to, this matter by pleading guilty
proved wrong. Even if an attempt to withdraw a guilty plea under the circumstances
present in this case is a course that a defendant in the State of Minnesota may take, by the
standards within this Committee's jurisdiction it is a course that a United States Senator
should not take. Your claims to the court, through counsel, to the effect that your guilty
plea resulted from improper pressure or coercion, or that you did not, as a legal matter,
know what you were doing when you pled guilty, do not appear credible.
We consider your attempt to withdraw your guilty plea to be an attempt to evade the legal
consequences of an action freely undertaken by you - that is, pleading guilty- and, as
such, to be conduct contrary to the injunction of Paragraph 2 of the Code of Ethics for
Government Service, which provides that any person in Government service, in this case
a United States Senator, should "[u]phold the Constitution, Jaws, and legal regulations of
the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion."'
Construing Senate Rule 38.2, which prohibits the conversion of campaign funds to
personal use, the Senate Ethics Manual states that "Members, officers or employees may
pay legal expenses incurred in connection with their official duties with funds of a
Senator's principal campaign committee, but only if such payment is approved by the
Committee. " (Emphasis added.) It appears that you have used over $213,000 in
campaign funds to pay legal (and, apparently, "public relations") fees in connection with
your appeal of your criminal conviction and in connection with the preliminary inquiry
before the Committee in this matter. It appears that some portion of these expenses may
not be deemed to have been incurred in connection with your official duties, either by the
Committee or by the Federal Election Commission (which has concurrent jurisdiction
with the Committee on the issue of conversion of a Senator's campaign funds to personal
use). However, without here reaching the issue of what portion of your legal expenses in
this matter may be payable with funds of your principal campaign committee, it is clear
that you never sought the Committee's approval, as required, to use campaign funds for
these purposes. You should also take careful note that the Committee wi II consider any
further use of your campaign funds for legal expenses without the Committee's approval
to be conduct demonstrating your continuing disregard of ethics requirements.
The conduct to which you pled guilty, together with your related and subsequent conduct
as set forth above, constitutes improper conduct reflecting discreditably on the Senate and
through this letter the Select Committee on Ethics, on behalf of and pursuant to authority granted
by the United States Senate, publicly admonishes you for that conduct.
This public admonition ofyou, and the determinations on which it is based, concludes a
preliminary inquiry in which the Committee reviewed and considered allegations, information,
evidence and arguments present to it from a number of sources, including complaints. the public
record and your responses, albeit through your counsel. to the Committee·s specific written
2 inquiries.
As your counsel has previously questioned the Committee's jurisdiction in this matter we
note that the investigative authority of the Committee, and the disciplinary authority of the
Senate over its Members, is broad. Senate Resolution 338, as amended, makes it the duty of the
Select Committee on Ethics to "receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper
conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of
Official Conduct, and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate relating to the conduct of
individuals in the performance of their duties as Members of the Senate, or as officers or
employees of the Senate, and to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions with respect
thereto ... " S. Res. 338, 88th Cong., 2d. Sess. (1964), as amended by S. Res. 110, 95th Cong.,
I st Sess. (1977). "S. Res. 338 gives the Committee the authority to investigate Members who
engage in 'improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate,' regardless of whether such
conduct violates a specific statute, Senate Rule, or regulation." Senate Ethics Manual, 2003 ed.,
at page 432. The Committee has stated that the Senate "may discipline a Member for any
misconduct, including conduct or activity which does not directly relate to official duties, when
such conduct unfavorably reflects on the institution as a whole." Senate Ethics Manual, 2003
ed., at page 13. The Committee has jurisdiction over your conduct in this matter.
The Committee's determination to publicly admonish you in this matter is independent
of, and will be unaffected by, any subsequent decisions by the courts on your challenge of your
guilty plea. In addition, this letter of admonition addresses only your conduct in connection with
your arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and your August 2007 guilty plea,
and your conduct related and subsequent thereto as discussed above.
The Select Committee on Ethics resolves this matter through your public admonition so
that, on behalf of the United States Senate, it may make known clearly that the conduct to ·which
you pled guilty. together with the related and subsequent conduct discussed in this letter, is
improper conduct which has reflected discreditably on the Senate.
,<3~l3sf~ Barbara Boxer
Chairman
Mark Pryor, Member
Sincerely,
3

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): cb51dbd2becd40484bcbabf79dcc138964651c7f9a98f1262372b8a221f729ba

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

DANIEL K. INOUYE. HAWAII. CHAIRMAN
PAT ROBERTS. KANSAS. VICE CHAIRMAN
BLANCHE LINCOLN, ARKANSAS
JACK REED. RHODE ISLAND
GEORGE VOINOVICH, m110
CRAIG THO•.<AS. WYOMING
VICTOR BAIRD, STAFF DIRECTOR AND CHIEF COUNSEL
ANNETIE GILLIS, CHIEF CLERK
The Honorable Robert G. Torricelli
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator ToiTicelli:
mlniteb ~tate9' ~enate
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NE.
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6425
TELEPHONE (202) 224-2981
July 30, 2002
Letter of Admonition
TELEPHOf<E (202) 224-2981
FACSUu (202) 224-7416
The Committee takes this action pursuant to Section 2( d)(3) of Senate Resolution 338, 88'h
Congress, 2"ct Session (1964), as amended by Senate Resolution 222, 1 06'h Cong., F
Session(1 999) and its Supplemental Rules ofProcedure Rule 3(g)(2).
By letter dated January 3, 2002, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District ofNew York
advised the Committee that she was closing her investigation of you without filing criminal
charges and refen·ing the matter to the Committee. In her referral, the U.S. Attorney stated that
"after an extensive investigation, we have concluded that there is not a reasonable possibility that
the Government could prevail at a trial where the burden of proof would be beyond a reasonable
doubt." Nonetheless, under Senate Ethics Rules, this Justice Department referral initiated a
preliminary inquiry into your conduct.
After receiving this letter, the Committee took steps to determine whether any of the events
and transactions underlying the Department of Justice refen·al violated Senate Rules. Accordingly,
the Committee obtained and reviewed witness interviews memori alized in reports prepared by the
U. S. Attorney, the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation and the Internal Revenue Service. It also
obtained and reviewed documents and other tangible evidence seized pursuant to search wanants.
The Committee also obtained and reviewed materials kept by the U.S. Department of State.
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Committee obtained and reviewed
transcripts of grand jury testimony and third party business records. It also obtained and reviewed
records kept by your Senate office and had available to it an analysis of third party bank records
and yo ur personal financial records. The Committee also obtained and considered infom1ation and
explanations from you including your sworn testimony.
Moreover, the Committee obtained criminal pleadings relating to Mr. David Chang and
Ms. Audrey Yu, and plea and sentencing hearing transcripts and carefully weighed this and the
other extensive evidence outlined above in its evaluation of the credibility of the allegations and
Page I of 3 your response. In its evaluation of the credibility of various assertions, the Committee
considered, among other things, a witness's criminal record, his or her stake in the outcome of
this preliminary inquiry, any bias against or in favor of you, any other possible motivation to
shade the truth, prior inconsistent statements and whether an assertion or statement could be
corroborated or reconciled with other evidence, including evidence from disinterested parties. In
its evaluation of the credibility of the allegations and your response, the Committee considered
evidence from many sources, rather than simply relying on the allegations of one or more
principal witnesses.
The Committee notes that the record of the Department of Justice investigation made
available to the Committee, consisting of thousands of pages of information, disclosed an
investigation which was sweeping in scope, exceedingly detailed and thorough, and obviously
the product of substantial investment of government resources. The quality of this record renders
unnecessary any attempt by this Committee to duplicate the Department of Justice investigation.
Based upon and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances evident from the
extensive investigative record, as well as additional information provided in your sworn
deposition before Committee counsel and in your response to questions of Committee Members,
the Committee has concluded as follows:
1) Your acceptance of a television and stereo CD player upon payment to David Chang of an
amount you understood to be the cost to Mr. Chang, rather than fair market retail value evidenced
poor judgment, displayed a lack of due regard for Senate Rules and resulted in a violation of the
Senate Gifts Rule (35) and, consequently, a violation of your public disclosure obligations under
Senate Rule 34 (Title I of the Ethics in Government Act);
2) Your acceptance on loan from Mr. Chang of bronze statues (eagle and bronco buster) for
display in your Senate office under your office's policy of accepting the loan of home state
artwork was not consistent with Senate Rules governing such loans, evidenced poor judgment,
displayed a lack of due regard for Senate Rules and resulted in a violation of the Senate Gifts
Rule (35) and, consequently, a violation of your public disclosure obligations under Senate Rule
34 (Title I of the Ethics in Government Act);
3) Your failure to act to prevent the acceptance of or to pay for gifts of earrings from Mr. Chang
to individuals (your sister, an employee, and a friend) in your home at Christmas on the mistaken
belief that such items were of little value or were not gifts to you under the circumstances,
evidenced poor judgment, displayed a lack of due regard for Senate Rules and resulted in a
violation of the Senate Gifts Rule (35) and, consequently, a violation of your public disclosure
obligations under Senate Rule 34 (Title I of the Ethics in Government Act);
4) Continuation of a personal and official relationship with Mr. Chang under circumstances
where you knew that he was attempting to ingratiate himself, in part through a pattern of attempts
to provide you and those around you with gifts over a period of several years when you and your
Senate office were taking official actions of benefit to Mr. Chang (contacting United States
government officials, writing letters to foreign government officials, and involving Mr. Chang or
his representatives in situations where you were meeting with officials of foreign governments)
Page 2 of 3 evidenced poor judgment; and
5) The Committee has also considered that the principal source of the allegations against you is
David Chang, a witness whose credibility has been called into question by the Department of
Justice, aU. S. District Judge and his own conduct. In court documents, the Government noted
that Mr. Chang could not be trusted. On May 23, 2002, Mr. Chang was convicted of attempting
to corruptly persuade a witness to give false testimony, a conspiracy to violate the federal
election law and four separate violations of the federal election law. During his sentencing
hearing, the sentencing judge stated that Mr. Chang's "conduct, when placed in juxtaposition
with Chang's public statements to the press, reduces his usefulness, weakens his credibility and
eviscerates his viability for future use as a witness." United States v. Chang, Cr. No. 99-726-02
(D. N.J. May 23, 2002).
6) 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.
Therefore, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, on behalf of and pursuant to authority
granted by the United States Senate, expresses its determination that your actions and failure to
act led to violations of Senate Rules (and related statutes) and created at least the appearance of
impropriety, and you are hereby severely admonished.
Further, the Committee notes section l(c)(1) ofthe Senate Gifts Rule (35) concerning
anything which is paid for at market value or returned (see also p.27 of the Senate Ethics
Manual, Sept. 2000) as well as your commitment to pay for any items which the Committee
might conclude were in violation of the Rules, and has further concluded that you must pay Mr.
Chang an amount sufficient to bring the total to fa ir market retail value of the TV and CD player,
as well as the fair market retail value of the ean·ings given to the three individuals at your home,
with appropri ate interest. The Committee understands that you have previously delivered the
bronze statues to the Department of Justice, from whence they should be returned to Mr. Chang.
Sincerely,
r1 ~~--------~ Daniel
Vice Chairman
Blanche
Vr~~ Lincoln, Member ~t!:~~ r£2"--"/' ~?'~ Craig Tliomas, Member
Page 3 of 3

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): d73df1d1c37d6db9e008ed0764a41b7e5e93c1e9e0a22f3b7bcdeabd2a2e6834