Adjudicatory Subcommittee Hearing

I'd like to recognize the ranking member on the Committee of Ethics, uh, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um, as the Chairman, uh, noted, we are here to consider allegations concerning Representative Scherfelis-McCormick. The Ethics Committee has a solemn duty under our constitutional authority to enforce standards of conduct in the house of representatives, to investigate claims of member misconduct, and deliver accountability where appropriate. It is a responsibility we all take extremely seriously without regard to partisanship or bias of any sort, and without the presumption of guilt before innocence. As we begin today, I want to reiterate that the process is not adversarial in the traditional sense. It is not a criminal trial, it is an inquiry to determine whether Representative Scherfelis-McCormick, uh, conduct violated House rules and ethical standards. Let me underscore that the subcommittee's role is to ensure that the factual record is carefully examined, the process remains fair, and the conclusions reached are grounded in evidence and consistent with the House rules and committee precedents. We as judges during this phase of the proceedings must determine whether committee counsel has proven the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. The ethics committee operates within a framework of precedent rules and long-standing institutional norms. These guideposts exist to ensure consistency and fairness across investigatore- investigative matters, regardless of the individuals involved or the surrounding circumstances. We will adhere to those same principles today as the committee does in all of its investigations and just as the committee has done since it began reviewing these allegations in two thousand and twenty-three. Today's hearing follows a twenty-four month long bipartisan investigation by an investigative subcommittee or ISC comprised of an equal number of members from the majority and minority parties. the ISC received testimony from twenty-eight witnesses and reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of materials. Based on that record, the ISC produced a twenty-seven-count statement of alleged violations, and unanimously found substantial reason to believe that each of those counts were supported by the available evidence. All along the way, Representative Sch- Scherfelis-McCormick has been afforded the to share evidence with the ISC and directly address the allegations against her. Hearings like today's are very rare, as the committee often i- loses jurisdiction over respondents before this phase of the committee process. And the allegations before us are extremely serious. They are not on- they not only concern an individual member's conduct, they also implicate the public's confidence in the house's integrity as an institution, and if proven, they would demonstrate that the representative violated, if proven, multiple house rules and federal statutes. The adjudicatory subcommittee is of course aware that the representat- sh- Representative Sheriff Phyllis McCormick has been indicted on federal charges and a criminal trial is pending. We carefully considered her request to stay these proceedings pending the outcome of that criminal case. Yet we u- we unanimously declined to do so, given our committee's independent mandate to self-regulate member conduct and the constitutional limitations the executive branch faces in investigating members of Congress. The opportunities provided, Representative McCormick declined sh- declined to engage with the committee's process over the last several years and the need for public trans- transparency around these allegations. Public office by its definition derives from the will of the people, and transparency is essential, obviously, to maintaining the public's trust. The American people deserve for their institutions to uphold ethical standards and the American people are entitled to demand accountability of all of us when their, if their elected representatives are without integrity if they their preference prefer personal gain over public service, and if they set act in a manner that reflects discredit on the house. It is in this service of these foundational principles that we convene today. At a time when public confidence in our institution is so low, this committee's role in enforcing congressional ethics process and defending the integrity of the house could not be more important. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." With today's public hearing, we have the opportunity to shine that light and that spirit on this committee, this matter, and the House. And to bring about the transparency that I believe the public expects and demands from this institution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now you're back.

Uh, thank you, Mark. Uh, the first order of business uh is for the adjudatory subcommittee to consider a motion to reconsider. That motion to reconsider uh involves previous rulings the adjudatory subcommittee made last week. Uh the first was a motion to stay this proceeding past the criminal proceedings, and the second was a motion to hold any adjudatory subcommittee hearing in executive session. Uh after rulings by this body uh there has been a motion to reconsider that has been filed uh by the respondent. Uh that w- was filed by the respondent uh by her counsel, Mister William Barzee. Uh Mister Barzee, this is your motion uh and so at this time uh we will turn it over to you to make argument on your motion to reconsider.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mister Chairman, as the ranking member pointed out, Congresswoman Shafalis McCormick was charged in federal court, and has a pending federal criminal indictment. A very serious affair, which she takes very, very seriously. Just as she takes this committee's action, and self-regulating the members of the house to be a very serious affair. Inherently, however, there is a conflict between participating in both of those arenas at the same time. And I wanna just take a couple of moments to try to explain to this committee why going forward with an adjudicatory hearing when a member has a pending criminal case is a very risky endeavor. And when I say risky, the risk is to a violation of her constitutional rights to a fair trial. And I want to explain how those rights are implicated by this committee moving forward at this time. The first and most serious issue fact that as the ranking member pointed out this is not a criminal trial and as such it's going to have different standards of proof are gonna be involved different rules of evidence are going to be involved and a different uh decision making apparatus is going to be involved. It's not going to be decided by a jury of her peers it'll be decided by the members of the committee and the full house. That being said, the public down in the Southern District of Florida, the pool of potential jurors who are going to be hearing this criminal case are going to be inundated with information about what takes place in this committee. They will learn about evidence related to the allegations in the criminal case, from what takes place in this committee. Now not all of that evidence may be admissible in a criminal case in federal court. It may be admissible here. You may want to call forth different witnesses to get testimony when those witnesses may not necessarily be on the stand and testifying in front of a jury. So the potential here, the difficulty here, is that you are going to have members of the public who are also potential jurors in the criminal criminal matter hearing about facts that they otherwise would never be exposed to. And those potential jurors can end up on her jury and can include those facts in their decision-making in an inappropriate way. That's a major, major risk. The other cons cons the the other risk that the committee should consider is the fact that whatever this committee decides, if you decide that that there was a violation of one of the rules, for example, no one on this committee has any control over how the press reports that. And the danger here is In t- in today's society, without pointing fingers or blaming one side or the other, e- everything has become weaponized, including the press, and you are going to see press reports indicating that the Congresswoman has been found guilty of these various allegations that were made against her. Now how can she possibly go into court and have a fair trial if her jurors have already heard that she was found guilty by the House of Representatives. It's an impossibility. I mean, jurors are human beings. A a federal judge can say to a juror, now listen, that was in the House of Representatives and that has nothing to do with this case, and you have to promise me that you'll put that out of your mind. And of course, every juror would immediately say, yes, your honor, we promise we won't consider that, but they're human beings, just like all of us. And and if someone covers this, or they read a press report, and they and they get an impression because of the way the story is told that the congresswoman has already been convicted by the house how can she have a fair trial? Any action by the committee is going to violate those rights. And I would suggest to you those rights are fundamental. They're what makes this country great, the right the right to a fair trial. And if this committee takes action that violates that rights, then what is the purpose? We don't wanna be doing that. We don't wanna be doing it to this congresswoman. We don't wanna be doing it to the member next year, or two years from now, or ten years from now. Which is why it makes sense, there is a pending criminal case that this committee should just simply pause. Allow the criminal case to work itself out so that there is no risk of tainting a jury. Now understand, it's not just a situation where potential jurors may read about this in the press. Everything is weaponized today. So they're going to be seeing it on their Facebook uh reels, they're gonna be seeing it on TikTok, on Instagram, it's going to be nonstop. And and assuming that it is nonstop, assuming that her political opponents use whatever happens is in this committee against her in the campaign, which is fair enough, but imagine the impact it is going to have on potential jurors. You know, trial attorneys have a saying about and and and I and I know that that more than one member here has experience in courts, they have a saying about how you can't unring the bell. Once you hit the bell, it's gonna reverberate. People are going to continue hearing it. It's going to have an effect. And it doesn't matter that I can ask a federal judge to instruct a jury to disregard everything that they've seen in the past six months. on Facebook and Instagram and TikTok, it's not going to happen because potential jurors are real humans. And humans really don't have that capacity to simply put something completely out of their mind. It's always going to be there. And if it's always going to be there, then there's always going to be a risk that the Congresswoman is not going to be able to get a fair trial. And that's not a mistake that this committee has to make. This committee can simply allow this to remain in a pending schedule until the criminal case is resolved. The second biggest issue that that I see with her rights being violated is her fifth amendment right to remain silent. And to and to and to say to the government, if you're going to accuse me of a crime, And by the way, that's exactly what the Congresswoman has done. She is not guilty of these allegations. She's absolutely innocent. She's looking forward to being in criminal court in order to prove her innocence, which I'm confident she's going to be able to do. But she's in between a rock and a hard place right now when the committee says, well give us all of your files, and allow us to cross-examine you about everything that happened. Well, if she complies with that, if she engages in that process of turning everything over and speaking to the committee, everything she turns over, everything she says to the committee could potentially be used against her in a subsequent trial. I'm not saying it absolutely will be, but I'm saying that that potential is there. And if there is a significant potential that the actions of this committee are gonna deny a member a right to a fair trial or deny a member's constitutional right to remain silent I would suggest that the committee could take a pause. Mister Chairman, I understand that that this committee and staff have been working on this matter for for over two years, maybe maybe up to three years. I understand the impatience to get things resolved and get things accounted for. And a and those are noble goals. And expediency is a noble goal. But it's not more noble than her right to have a fair trial. And it's not more noble than her fifth amendment right. against self-incrimination. You know, staff counsel has has mentioned a few times that the only time that this committee has has stayed cases was at the direction at not direction pardon me at the request, maybe I meant direction, but I'm gonna say request, at the request of the Department of Justice. Now, why does the Department of Justice come before this committee and ask for matters to be stayed? Well, the Department of Justice does that on a routine basis because they don't want their cases harmed. They don't want to run into problems with their cases, with their witnesses. And so the Department of Justice comes to the committee and says, " We're asking you to defer." And this committee regularly defers when asked to by the Department of Justice. Because you want things to be fair for the Department of Justice. Because you don't want to interfere with the important work that the Department of Justice is doing. And those are noble and appropriate reasons to defer. Well, anyone watching this on TV sitting on their couch is going to ask the same question that I'm gonna ask the committee. And that is, if it's good enough for the Department of Justice to be able to protect their case, why isn't it good enough for the member to be able to protect her constitutional rights before a a criminal trial in federal court? If you routinely defer to the Department of Justice, why not defer to one of your own members who has a pending criminal indictment hanging over their head? One of the things that I've seen is is is the issue of of not wanting to interfere with the Department of Justice's strategic approach to their case.

Meaning,

Department of Justice's plan on how they're going to present evidence and which witnesses they're going to call and which witnesses they're not going to speak to. And the Department of Justice doesn't want this committee getting things confused. They wanna have full and complete control over everything from beginning to end. And I respect that. I mean, uh, all lawyers are in some way control freaks, right? And so I get it. I get why the Department of Justice wants to shut the committee out so that they can do their job. And there's no problem with that. That's probably an appropriate thing for the Department of Justice to do, and it's an appropriate thing for this committee to accept those requests by the Department of Justice, and to pen this. The Department of Justice has never come in front of this committee and asked you to throw a case out because it might interfere with their work. What they do is they say to you, please, please, house, take a pause. Let us finish our investigation, let us finish our case, and then you can pick up where you left off. That's all we're asking. We I I'm not asking you to dismiss this because there's a pending criminal case. I'm not coming in here banging on the table and arguing about things like double jeopardy and she should only have to answer to to to one to to one authority. No, not at all. In fact, the Congresswoman takes the work of this committee very, very seriously, which is why, when her former attorneys withdrew from the case, she scrambled to get somebody on board to represent her before this committee as quickly as she possibly could. Uh, staff has been working on this case, as you know, for two and a half, three years, I think. I've had the case for what, two and a half, three weeks? And I'm at a position now where I'm supposed to stand up and represent a duly elected member of Congress before this body without really knowing what's in the file. Because two and a half three weeks is simply not enough time in order to review all of the work that's been done on this case. Hundreds of thousands of documents, lots of different witnesses. This committee knows that there was a day a while ago for us to respond to the motion for summary judgment, and we were not able to file a response. That wasn't because the Congresswoman is somehow disrespecting this committee, it's because she didn't have counsel until two and a half, three weeks ago. We want to respond. I want to respond more fully than we have in in the most recent filing that we sent to the committee uh this afternoon. We've already submitted one affidavit from a witness. it's clear that there are factual disputes here on both sides. I'm not gonna get into an argument on the summary judgment motion, I'll I'll I'll keep it to just the issue of requesting a stay. But all along the Congresswoman has wanted to show full respect to this committee and has wanted to cooperate fully with this committee and on the advice of counsel, because of the pending criminal investigation, she has not been as forthcoming with materials and testimony as the committee would appreciate and we understand that and I understand that completely. And those concerns will no longer be at at risk once the criminal matter is resolved. You know, this idea of of of postponing a hearing on summary judgment, for example, because of a pending criminal case is not my idea. I I didn't think of that argument. That's a long-standing process, even in federal courts, in civil in civil cases. I have a case here from from one of the greatest federal judges in the United States, Judge Hale in Kentucky, and uh uh the name of the case is norman quartermaus versus bullitt county fiscal court and it was the same sort of situation where there's a pending criminal case and i know a few of you probably know the judge from kentucky eh eh there's a pending criminal case and and the plaintiff is moving for summary judgment and i just wanna quote what the judge said because the criminal case prevented the I'll say respondent from having an opportunity to develop and discover the evidence, he or she would need to support his claims. Common sense, common sense dictates that the court should defer consideration of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, in light of the criminal action. So this isn't something that, you know, some criminal defense attorney is coming in trying to convince you to to hold off on going forward. I mean, this is a fundamental idea here, that you don't interfere with someone's constitutional rights if you don't have to. And you don't have to. Granting a request to stay these proceedings until the criminal case resolved, in no way diminishes the importance of what this committee is doing, in no way does it take away this committee's uh uh ability to self-regulate or the house's ability to regulate the members, all of those things are still going to be here as soon as the criminal case is resolved. And if the and if this committee were to defer and were to stay the hearing, until after the criminal case was resolved, it would be doing so in support of the United States Constitution. It would not be doing so because it's trying to protect a member or not fulfilling their obligation and their duty of self uh patrolling their members. You would be doing it for the right reason. And ultimately uh committee, that's that's why we're asking you to to stay this uh hearing at this time, for those constitutional reasons as well as for allowing me to have some opportunity to prepare a response for the summary judgment uh motion, to call witnesses on her behalf, to develop these facts that are absolutely one hundred percent in dispute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Barzee, I would now recognize Committee Counsel Ray Radican to respond to the motion to reconsider.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking member, and members of the adjudicatory subcommittee. Committee staff asks that the adjudicatory subcommittee stand by its ruling, denying respondents' requests for a stay of these proceedings and alternatively to proceed in executive session. The arguments raised in respondents' motion to reconsider are the same points that were already briefed and argued to this subcommittee prior to today's hearing, and the latest motion raises no basis for the subcommittee to reverse its decision. Respondent's request to stay this matter or to proceed in executive session should remain denied. With respect to respondent's request to stay these proceedings, committee staff acknowledge respondent's pending criminal prosecution. However, under Article one and House rules, the House and the Committee on Ethics have their own unique authority and obligation with respect to alleged misconduct by members of the House. Respondent has not been and will not be compelled to testify in this matter, or to otherwise forfeit her rights under the constitution. A stay is not required by precedent or policy. Despite being aware of this invest despite being aware of this investigation for years the Department of Justice did not request a deferral of these did not request a full deferral of these proceedings and it was not until January that the Department of Justice requested a limited deferral um limited to collecting witness interviews by that time the interviews you are The interviews are already completed and the request was already moved.

Excuse me. Can you get closer to the mike?

Yes.

Thank you.

The bipartisan investigative subcommittee conducted a thorough review over two years, and weeks after respondent was indicted, determined to move forward and to adopt the charges before you. The investigative subcommittee felt that respondent had caused enough delays throughout its reviews. Respondent's criminal trial has already been delayed, and although that trial is currently scheduled for April, Respondent's counsel acknowledged to the subcommittee that he anticipates the trial will be further delayed. There is no guarantee Respondent's criminal trial will take place this year or sooner after. There is a significant institutional interest in proceeding without further delay. Respondent's motion to reconsider her request for a stay should not be granted, and today's hearing should proceed as scheduled. The subcommittee has soundly exercised its discretion in and deny in respondents' motion and it should not reverse that decision now. Thank you.

Uh thank you for that response. Uh the members will now have the opportunity to ask questions of both counsel. Uh we'll begin and we will rotate that. Uh I will begin and then uh Mark and so we will rotate that uh uh by members of the adjudicatory subcommittee. Um Mr. Zierer, f for the record uh I think it's been stated that this matter has been under investigation by the committee since twenty twenty three uh this has been a very slow a very deliberate process uh there has not been a rush uh to judgment uh in this matter uh and and i will say that i am aware of multiple occasions to where uh requests were made uh of the committee uh requests for additional time to hire attorneys uh and that was done in your case uh think you were at least the third attorney possibly the fourth attorney who the committee has dealt with during the course of this. Uh we have granted extensions for uh not only the right to retain counsel, we've granted extensions on uh timing to respond to motions, uh we've allowed motions to be responded to after deadlines, and so uh I I think that the committee uh has made uh at least up to this point a a good faith uh effort uh to try to make sure that uh we are protecting the rights uh of your client. Um um the counsel for uh the committee did bring up and I think you stated uh last week that you intended or expected let me say that you expected the criminal matter which was set next month to be continued and there were there were conversations between you and the US attorney's office while nothing had been ruled yet. but you did expect that there would be some continuance. Uh that continuance I would assume would probably likely be to summer or fall at the earliest. Uh and then we also made you aware of certain blackout periods that would come into play. Uh and uh that would then further negate our ability to resolve this matter uh in a timely fashion. Um a at at this point um you've not made a motion for any s uh certain time of continuance your motion has been to continue the matter s past the criminal action uh and so uh my question to you uh is does there exist a circumstance in your mind where the ethics committee not just in this case but in any case that we should make a finding if there's a pending criminal case um the ethics committee i think uh in the santos matter which was the most recent matter in which we had a member uh that was under uh federal indictment. Uh in that matter uh the committee conducted an investigation, uh the committee issued a report, uh and then based on the report uh the house then took up a motion to expel, a motion that I sponsored uh to expel Mister Santos based on his uh conduct uh that had been found. Uh and so you're right when you argue that we did not go through this, uh these are additional uh protections for which uh your client is receiving that Mister Santos did not. Uh but I c- but my question is uh and one for clarity, you're requesting not for just you're not requesting additional time, but you're requesting that this matter be continued past a criminal matter whenever that may be. Uh and then the second question is do you believe that there exists a circumstance where a member who was charged with a crime uh that this committee should make findings or recommendations uh until that criminal matter is resolved. So with that I'll give you the opportunity to answer the question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I I recognize the good faith efforts that the committee has made up to this point without question, and I want to acknowledge that. Um I I do want to uh correct one thing that staff said about the criminal matter, staff indicated that the criminal trial has already been delayed once and that's incorrect uh it has not been delayed it is currently set for trial in april um i agree with the chair it's most likely late summer early fall but i'm not the judge so i don't get to decide that um as as as far as um the question as to whether or not it would be possible to address this prior to the resolution of the criminal trial. Um, I would like to answer that by explaining that there's really two different major um difficulties with going forward at this time.

Mm-hmm.

One of them are the constitutional concerns that I raised before, about a tainted jury and and the fifth amendment right. Those concerns would not be addressed with a hearing in this committee prior to a resolution of the criminal case. So, if the concern is protecting a member's constitutional right to a fair trial, if the concern is protecting a member's constitutional right to, for example, exercise their fifth amendment to remain silent, And of course, she's not being compelled here to testify by staff, but her lawyers are telling her you can't get up and start talking about it until we have the criminal case, just just to clarify. So for those concerns, the only way to address those concerns would be to pend uh uh uh pending the criminal case, staying this until the criminal case is resolved. The other difficulty is the fact of the matter that I've been on the case for about two and a half three weeks and to expect an attorney to go through hundreds of thousands of documents and multiple witness statements and interviews, and then prepare their own witness interviews and affidavits and respond to evidence that's been accumulated for two and a half three years, in a period of two and a half three weeks is impossible absolutely impossible so if one of the concerns is that she is or that the member is represented by a competent counsel that's prepared in these hearings then that concern could be addressed with a delay shorter than staying the matter until the resolution of the criminal case. Um the chair pointed out the time frames before the elections that you're running up into and I understand those concerns and I appreciate them and I share those. Um I still think it would be possible for us to if the concern was was making sure she had competent counsel to represent her then a a shorter continuance would be possible to maybe sometime in the beginning or middle of June in order to sort of develop these arguments. Um, you know, to respond to the motion for summary judgment in a in a thorough in a thorough way. Uh, we did our best in the last, you know, few hours putting something together, but to really, uh, give it the amount of attention that it deserves, it's going to take work, it's going to take time. And so, something more than two and a half, three weeks, would give me enough time in order to come before the committee prepared and offer competent counsel to the congresswoman. And I've no doubt that every member of this committee wants the congresswoman to be represented by a competent attorney who's going to do a good job. Because the only way you're going to get to the truth, the only way you're going to discover what really happened, is if you hear from both sides and you have competent attorneys on both sides presenting the facts to the committee and cross-examining witnesses. And that simply cannot happen in the time frame that we have in front of us right now. I clearly the committee has a desire to get this resolved in a timely fashion. And I completely understand that, Mister Chairman, and I appreciate that. understand from my point of view from my perspective rushing into this from my perspective i i'm not saying that the committee is rushing but for me to rush into it having only had the case for two and a half three weeks uh that's that's dangerous territory i mean lawyers really shouldn't be practicing law like that you you you don't want a doctor running into a uh a surgery uh unprepared not sure exactly where in the brain she's going to operate on. I mean, things take time, and and what I'm asking the committee is putting aside the constitutional risks involved, which is why we're we're arguing to the committee that in order to protect those rights, a stay would be appropriate. Um, but also for reasons of her having a competent counsel, i would suggest to the committee that uh a continuance to allow me uh time to prepare a thorough response to the summary judgment motion and to and to raise for you in a coherent way all of the facts which we disagree with that that the committee has compiled and presented before you the committee staff has compiled rather mr. peter

party my time's expired and i'll uh recognize uh the ranking member but For the record, there has been no request made for additional time. The only request that you have made or your your client has made to this committee is to continue the matter cr past the criminal action uh and so I want

Yes, sir.

the record to reflect that uh that we have ruled on that motion and we are here to reconsider that uh but there has not been a request made to continue uh today's hearing so with that I'll recognize the ranking member for uh his uh five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I appreciate, um, your comments and as well as counsel. Um, so my question is sort of if not now, when, um, following up on the Chairman's, how long do you expect the criminal trial to take? And I say this in the context as a non-lawyer, uh, having read everything I could about this case in the public and what we have, a lot of it is already public, particularly in Florida. So, um, while we wanna be respectful of due process, when is this going to play out in your estimation, given your experience as a trial attorney. And then in the context of what I struggle with, the reason this is separate, institutionally, constitutionally is we have a while we wanna respect the constitutional rights, we have an obligation as given to us, and having watched the previous time we had a case like this and the Rangel case was not dissimilar in some ways from the argument that he provided, uh in this room in two thousand and ten so the question is i are if not now when in the context of much of what we are gonna hear today is already been very public um particularly in florida and the florida media so um actually there's three questions there are those two and put yourself in our position as we are required to do to protect the integrity of this institution,

Right.

including if we hear the evidence as quickly, I'm reminded of the expression justice denied is justice delayed, um we're doing a disservice to our responsibilities in this committee if we don't act with a level of concern about that how quickly we adjust or we address the issues of justice, irrespective of what the conclusion is.

Sure, well I I mean I think the I think the answer to that question is is the committee should do everything in its power to get this issue resolved as soon as it possibly can be resolved while protecting the members' constitutional rights. Right? I mean that's it. Um the fact that there have been lots of stories in the press, and I agree with you, there have been lots of stories in the press, There is a tremendous amount that is not in the press, and and really that's what my concern is. For example, there's there's at least twelve different witnesses, I think, that have been interviewed, uh a handful have been given depositions, uh interviewed by staff, lots of different statements being made. All of those things have not made it into the press. Uh they may, i it's all public record, and they and they have the opportunity to do it. But I'm talking about in the real world, in real life, and and the real world and real life is going to be what appears on Facebook, and what gets onto TikTok, and and what is weaponized. And and the risk here is the weaponization of the work of the committee being directed at the Congresswoman for political reasons, all of which, you know, arguably is fair game in politics, right? Like it's a contact sport, And I get it, and all of that is fair. But it's not okay if it violates her constitutional right to a trial. And we can expect that all of that is going to take place. So if the question is well if not now, when, my answer to the committee is as soon as possible. As soon as possible, without interfering with the member's constitutional right to a fair trial.

So

I go ahead, I'm sorry.

So if the trial just continues, you've done this a long time, when do you would you have some kind of reasonable prediction as to when there would be an appropriate time, other than from a chronological standpoint, other than when it ends? Because you could be a party of continuing it as well.

Right. So so I if I understand the question correctly, I I think that the trial is likely to begin maybe the end of the summer or or early fall as as as the chairman said uh i think the trial itself is probably expected to last a couple of weeks would be my guess um and that's when it would be resolved so really we're i'm not talking about years talking about a matter of months in order to protect a constitutional right so uh you know on the one hand you have this this this not just a desire but a a a a goal, an appropriate goal, to get this resolved as quickly as expeditiously, as reasonable, right? And as appropriate. On the other hand, you have a member wanting to protect their constitutional rights. And their attorney, their criminal defense attorney, is coming to you and saying, look, this is a problem. It's a problem because a lot of the things that are in the press for would never be admissible in federal court. But, but that stuff is out there, and this committee's work is putting a spotlight on all of it. Yeah, it's out there in the public arena. I agree, uh, ranking member, but not the way it will be if this committee starts issuing rulings and making decisions on on things like summary judgment motions then it's a whole different ball game. So, I you know, I I think at the end of the day we're talking about asking you to to stay this for a matter of months. And and I understand I understand the desire to get it completed. But let me ask the members of the committee, do you go through all of this angst when the Department of Justice asks for a deferral? Because it seems to me that when the Department of Justice walks in here and says, don't talk to any more witnesses, staff immediately agrees. Or when the Department of Justice walks in and says we're gonna stay this, we want you to stay this matter until our criminal case is resolved, the committee immediately agrees. I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that's what happens. And if we give such deference to the Department of Justice, why aren't you giving the same deference to a member of Congress? The executive is not a more powerful branch of this government than the house. They're co-equal branches. And I would respectfully suggest that if we're going to allow the Department of Justice to decide when these hearings take place, Well then uh we should be concerned about the committee members as as well. Basic fairness.

I just conclude that uh from my perspective that's a mischaracterization. We don't let the Department of Justice to decide, and that's what you're arguing, as I hear it. That's the precedent, and there's a reason for that. Uh you're back.

Uh the ranking member yields back. Ashley, any questions? Glenn, any questions?

Yes.

You're recognized.

I don't know if this is on. OK. Um, OK, Mister Barzee, couple questions for you. Um, when we were talking about this, I guess it was last week, and you talked about needing six additional months. Um, is that a different time frame than what you're talking about today? Or was it for a different issue.

I it's a different issue, I I I think it's got a little confused. Um, so

Okay. What what what was the six months' referencing?

I that that was a reference to how much time I would want if I was taking on this case, and I had to come in and argue it, and and I was saying, well, I would want at least six months in order to review hundreds of thousands of documents, interview the witnesses that needed to be interviewed, and be ready to prepare for an adjudicatory hearing.

Okay, but it's not. No. You're sa okay. So then the request you're making is to delay, I guess, the motion for summary judgment until after the trial is over? Is that right? Right. Take take take Let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say the judge sets the trial date well, Yes, sir. well actually before I do that on when he sets the trial date, have you had additional conversations with the No, sir. about when a trial date might be set, since we last talked. No, sir. No, OK. So let's say the Department of Justice and you all and the judge agree to say it, six months, they set it out, then um, you know, November or something along those lines, or perhaps later. Would your request be to delay the motion for summary judgment until after the trial? And uh, by the way, the Fifth Amendment Right, doesn't extinguish with the trial, it would go to sentencing if I read your your motion correctly. So would you want the trial six months for the trial date and then the sentencing date which could be two or three months after that before we would have the motion for summary judgment or would you be amenable to doing something sooner than that?

Uh something sooner, absolutely one hundred percent. Uh as soon as a criminal case the the issue of guilt or innocence is determined by a jury. As soon as a jury's work is done, we would be completely one hundred percent ready for the committee. So it's we're not asking for a delay until sentencing

All right.

or or appeals are extinguished or anything like that.

Okay.

It's just until the jury's work is done,

Okay, fair enough.

because that's what we have to protect.

Let me ask the next one before I run out of time. So um no uh no offense to you, we just we just have a five minute clock,

No, no. Okay, got it.

that's all. So um With respect to the fifth amendment argument uh you know one of the things I would want you to do um if we get to the motion for summary judgment is to explain where the fifth amendment issue would arise. In other words and I know you raised it I haven't I just had this time to skim through your motion so you raised it a few times with respect to creating a uh you know issue with respect to um dispute with r- r- with respect to material facts, but I'd want you to tell me how that is. And we don't know we don't need her to testify. You wanna keep her I get it. You don't wanna put her in a Fifth Amendment exposure scenario. But I would at least want representations about what it is that she would say, or what is that Fifth Amendment issue that would arise. Um and the other part I'd wanna know about that too is whether you can raise it through additional witnesses or documents. You attached some documents here, I haven't had a chance to go through all of them. But I'd wanna know why you can't raise some of those issues just for the dispute of material fact piece. We're not talking about a full-blown trial. Just for that piece, why can't you tell us that? Uh and then the last part I would ask on this, and actually for committee counsel. Um Why not give them the same deference that arguably we give to the the Department of Justice with respect to these kinds of issues. Department of Justice, and we don't always just agree to what they request, but are we giving the same kind of deference to um the member here that we we would with respect to the Department of Justice under similar kinds of circumstances?

Uh I'll take the question for committee counsel first. Uh first as a uh initial matter, the committee does not always defer at the request of the Department of Justice. That's not just recent precedent but precedent throughout the years. Uh uh secondly as to the question of why not to provide deference to respondents when they seek the committee deferral, uh the committee has sometimes stepped back not just at the request of a respondent, but in recognition of the Fifth Amendment concerns when there is a brief non-delatory proceeding like when a a member is arrested for drunk driving or something like that uh but this is uh a complex matter that has gone on for many years and what's unique about this case versus many of the other matters where the committee did defer at the request of the Department of Justice is that in many of those other cases the allegations came to light because of the indictment that the Department of Justice released. But the committee's investigation predates that of the Department of Justice. The committee has a truckload of evidence relating to a sitting member of Congress, and those same TikToks that are inundating the jurors of South Florida are affecting the American public's view of this institution. And so it is a live question now.