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.

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