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.

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 7:42 PM Pacific.

United States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510

For Immediate Release
July 29, 2008

Contact: Natalie Ravitz (Chairman Boxer) 202-224-8120
Brian Walsh (Vice Chairman Cornyn) 202-224-0704

STATEMENT OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

Washington, DC— U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Vice Chairman John Cornyn (R-TX) today issued the following statement:
“The Senate Ethics Committee does not comment on pending matters or matters that may come before the Committee. Absent special circumstances, it has been the long-standing policy of the Committee to defer investigation into matters where there is an active and ongoing criminal investigation and proceeding so as not to interfere in that process.”
###

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 903800895a330f4eb8a892ab067d16c0d979a96652a8c3a45aae8cd71de99e27

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.

March 5, 2007

STATEMENT BY SENATORS BOXER AND CORNYN, THE CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR OF THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE
Washington, DC— U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Cornyn (R-TX), the
Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, today issued the following
statement:
“The Ethics Committee never comments on whether or not it has received a complaint
against a member of the Senate. When the Committee receives a complaint, it follows its
rules of procedure as detailed in the Senate Ethics Manual.
“The Rules require that: “The Committee shall promptly commence a preliminary
inquiry whenever it has received a sworn complaint, or other allegation of, or information
about, alleged misconduct or violations…
“The preliminary inquiry shall be of such duration and scope as is necessary to determine
whether there is substantial credible evidence which provides substantial cause for the
Committee to conclude that a violation within the jurisdiction of the Committee has
occurred.”

###

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): b07a05d886e58798bc730f422e47d600397fc62463e1a24adc4376a12a12fe5e

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