U.S. v. Fraser Verrusio: House Blinks

A couple of weeks ago, the ACR Blog examined some inside baseball related to U.S. v. Fraser Verrusio. The Justice Department alleges that Mr. Verrusio made false statements (Count III) on a financial disclosure form he was required to file as a staff member of the U.S. House of Representatives. In the effort to prosecute Mr. Verrusio for this alleged felony, prosecutors subpoenaed John Sassaman, a former Senior Counsel on the House Ethics Committee, to provide testimony about the House financial disclosure forms. On Mr. Sassaman's behalf, the House of Representatives moved to quash the subpoena on Speech or Debate Clause grounds. The ACR Blog was unimpressed by the reasoning of the House lawyers:

In this particular instance, though, we're not so sure that the Speech or Debate Clause protects the legislative branch from what the Justice Department seeks. As we discussed last summer, proceedings in Congress typically have great protections. Speech or Debate privileges also apply to congressional staffers such as Mr. Sassaman. But the testimony sought by the Justice Department does not relate to any proceeding. The Justice Department merely wants a witness to discuss factual matters about forms.

Today, lawyers representing the House of Representatives (and indirectly, Mr. Sassaman) appear to have blinked. They have informed U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts that a deal with the Justice Department may be forthcoming:

On July 1, the Standards [Ethics] Committee, pursuant to Rule 4(q) of the Committee’s Rules, referred to the [Justice] Department certain documentary evidence that may be relevant to the prosecution of this case.

As a direct result of the Committee’s July 1 referral, counsel for Mr. Sassaman and the Department are now engaged in discussions aimed at amicably resolving the Sassaman subpoena matter. Because the House is in recess this week and most Committee Members have returned to their home districts, it is possible those discussions will not be concluded until the following week when the House is again in session. If the discussions are concluded successfully, it will be unnecessary for this Court to expend time and resources to resolve the pending motion to quash.

The House Ethics Committee has already provided some evidence to the DoJ. Discussions between the DoJ and Ethics Committee continue. Presumably, the DoJ wants even more evidence and/or testimony, and it looks like the Ethics Committee is in the mood to negotiate. Any deal acceptable to the Justice Department is acceptable to the ACR Blog. Let's hope we will be able to chalk this one up to the good guys.