a

.

Dowdification at Miller Chevalier

Regular readers of the ACR Blog know that this author is a fan of James Taranto's Best of the Web column at the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Taranto is credited with coining the term "Dowdification". A practice pioneered by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, to "Dowdify" means to selectively omit words or phrases from a quote in order to radically change the quote's meaning. The ACR Blog believes that it has discovered an example of Dowdification in a filing in U.S. v. Kevin Ring by lawyers at Miller Chevalier.

The ACR Blog is in the midst of drafting a post analyzing Mr. Ring's Revised Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (Revised MJOA). Believe it or not, the ACR Blog believes that Mr. Ring's defense team makes a good argument overall that Mr. Ring should be acquitted on the Honest Services Fraud (HSF) counts in the indictment. We are hopeful that the DoJ will be able to counter some of the strongest points raised by the defense. Unfortunately, not all the arguments of the defense are very strong. In fact, one is seemingly misleading.

As we all know, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major HSF ruling in June. Both prosecutors and defense lawyers are scrambling to figure out what the new boundaries of the HSF law are. There are two basic positions:

1. Bribery-esque HSF remains intact. Prosecutors need only to show that a stream of things of value influenced official acts. This is called the Retainer Theory of HSF. The Justice Department can be expected to advance this position.

2. The Supreme Court defined HSF and the Bribery statute to have identical boundaries. Therefore, in order to sustain a conviction of HSF, prosecutors have the difficult burden of proving a quid pro quo arrangement where a specific thing of value was exchanged for a specific official act. Expect defense attorneys to advance this theory.

In an effort to show that case law supports definition #2 of post-Skilling HSF, the defense quotes United States v. Kemp (Revised MJOA, p. 36):

[t]he key to whether a gift constitutes a bribe is whether the parties intended for the benefit to be made in exchange for some official action

Emphasis in original

Ooh. This reading of Kemp would require a quid pro quo arrangement, doesn't it? The parties must intend for the bribe to be made in exchange for an official action. Good for the defense, huh?

Let's actually go to Kemp and review a more complete selection of the quote (p. 37):

Moreover, we agree with the government that the District Court’s instruction to the jury that it could convict upon finding a “stream of benefits” was legally correct. The key to whether a gift constitutes a bribe is whether the parties intended for the benefit to be made in exchange for some official action; the government need not prove that each gift was provided with the intent to prompt a specific official act.

Kemp supports the "stream of benefits" or "retainer" theory favored by the Justice Department. In fact, "the government need not prove that each gift was provided with the intent to prompt a specific official act." It appears to us that it is sufficient for the government to show that both sides understood that a stream of benefits was given in exchange for some (undefined) official action.

This Dowdification distracts from the strength of the defense's other arguments. Specifically, we find the defense's claim that the DoJ failed to show a material misrepresentation, a necessary element of HSF, to be quite strong. We hope the DoJ will be able to effectively respond the defense on that issue. This is a complicated issue and we hope to have a post ready soon.

U.S. v. Fraser Verrusio: "Co-lead Counsel for Government" Reassigned

On July 16, 2010, the Justice Department filed an unopposed routine motion to extend a deadline in U.S. v. Fraser Verrusio. On that day, the government provided this reason for its extension request:

Co-lead counsel for the Government on this case has been re-assigned other matters and another attorney recently assigned to replace him. New counsel will requires [sic] a reasonable but brief period of time to familiarize himself with the case and effectively partner with the undersigned.

This seems like a legitimate reason to grant a seven day extension, and the defense did not object. U.S. Richard W. Roberts granted this extension, and the government must now file its opposition to Verrusio's Motion to Dismiss by July 29, 2010.

The ACR Blog isn't generally interested in the day-by-day scheduling matters of the Court. We're much more interested in the revelation that the "Co-lead counsel for the Government" has been re-assigned. DoJ prosecutor Peter C. Sprung's name appears at the bottom of the document, along with Justin V. Shur. The ACR Blog notices the absence of a name that previously appeared on documents in U.S. v. Fraser Verrusio: M. Kendall Day.

Has Mr. Day been removed from this case? Has Mr. Day been reassigned from any other public corruption case(s) in which he has been involved? The ACR Blog will continue to monitor the situation and report to our loyal readers whatever we learn...

...

Skilling and Verrusio

We looked at the documents filed in U.S. v. Verrusio to see if we could figure out when Mr. Day was most recently identified as an attorney in this case. (We believe that Mr. Day was most recently named on this memorandum dated June 24, 2010. Recall that on June 14, 2010, Mr. Day advised U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle that he would be joining the Kevin Ring prosecution team. Mr. Day's name has not appeared on any filings in Ring since that date.)

During the course of that search, we came across this routine extension request. The defense wanted to extend a deadline by six days:

Mr. Verrusio requests this relief, in part, to allow Mr. Verrusio additional time to consider the impact that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Skilling v. United States, No. 08-1394, will have on this case.

How would Skilling have any effect on Verrusio? The most notable impact of Skilling affects Honest Services Fraud (HSF) cases. Mr. Verrusio is not charged with HSF.

Changes to the HSF law may impact Verrusio indirectly since a couple of likely witnesses against Mr. Verrusio pleaded guilty to a single charge of HSF (Todd Boulanger and Jim Hirni). But there's no way a six day delay in a deadline that has already expired could resolve that issue.

The ACR Blog has discovered another bizarre assertion made by Mr. Verrusio's defense team. We promise to get to that this week.

Invest 97L

Pay attention when it gets in the Gulf.



***UPDATE***
Invest 97L became Tropical Depression #3 during the day and is now Tropical Storm Bonnie. Galveston has a 13% chance of seeing tropical storm force winds due to TS Bonnie.

Who is Erik Einertson?

Erik Einertson, a.k.a. "The Viking", is a former staffer for Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.). We've previously written about Rep. Wilson's appearance in the Kevin Ring indictment, concluding that she was unlikely to face any legal jeopardy in the Abramoff scandal. We also speculated that the relationship between her office and an unnamed lobbyist at Firm B [Todd Boulanger at Greenberg Traurig] described in the original Kevin Ring indictment was maintained through Mr. Einertson. To refresh everyone's memory, here are the relevant paragraphs from the original indictment:

156. On or about January 30, 2003, a lobbyist at Firm B [Todd Boulanger at Greenberg Traurig] emailed a staffer [Erik Einertson] for the New Mexico tribe's [the Pueblo Sandia] U.S. Representative [Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.)], "Sorry I couldn't hangout last night. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to han[g]out with the [New Mexico tribe]. It meant a lot to [K]evin and I [sic]. BTW, you should be all set for the [Los Angeles] Clippers [basketball] game."

158. On or about February 14, 2003, a lobbyist at Firm B forwarded an email from the staffer for the New Mexico tribe's U.S. Representative to defendant RING in which the staffer had written, "How did Kevin's meeting s with the [New Mexico tribe] go? If you guys lose that contract I would be disappointed.

161. On or about March 4, 2003, a lobbyist at Firm B emailed defendant RING, "I'm going to kill [the New Mexico tribe] with [its U.S. Representative] if we don't get hired."

162. On or about March 7, 2003, a lobbyist at Firm B emailed defendant RING, "[The staffer for the New Mexico tribe's U.S. Representative] is going to be in the meeting with [the New Mexico tribe] when they come to town. He's going to give the 'are you guys staying with [Firm B] this cycle? They did a great job on ... legislation ... and really cleared the path for you guys.....yadda yadda.' He's gonna gather as much intel as possible for us."

[Bracketed comments in original]
[Bolded bracketed comments added]

While we speculated in the 2009 post that Rep. Wilson would not likely face legal jeopardy, we also wrote:

I'd be surprised if Mr. Einertson faces any legal jeopardy, the Los Angeles Clipper tickets notwithstanding. Mr. Einertson may, however, appear as a witness in Mr. Ring's [original] trial.

He did not appear as a witness. The ACR Blog is now confident that Mr. Einertson will not face legal jeopardy, and we're now also reasonably certain that he won't be testifying in Mr. Ring's re-trial either. Our always inquisitive readers will almost certainly want to know how we arrived at this conclusion, which brings us to where we left off in last week's post - the final two paragraphs that the DoJ has decided it will NOT attempt to prove in Mr. Ring's Retyped Indictment:

Paragraph 147 makes reference to an email allegedly sent from a lobbyist (Todd Boulanger) from Firm B (Greenberg Traurig) to a staffer for a New Mexico tribe's (Sandia) House Representative (former Rep Heather Wilson, R-N.M.) thanking him and confirming he was "all set for the Clippers game."

Paragraph 151 makes reference to another email sent from a firm B lobbyist (Mr. Boulanger) threatening repercussions for the N.M. tribe with their U.S. Representative "if we (Greenberg Traurig) don't get hired."

Obviously, paragraphs 147 and 151 in the Retyped Indictment are identical to paragraphs 156 and 161, respectively, in the Original Indictment. Clearly the DoJ has no need to call Mr. Einertson to the stand if it has no intention of proving the allegations in the original indictment.

This is good news for Mr. Einertson, and we will not dwell much further on him except to point out that he is currently a CFA charterholder and a Vice President at Wilshire Associates, an investment consulting firm in Southern California. Although Mr. Einertson mentions his prior Congressional service in his Wilshire bio (he departed the Hill in 2005 in the aftermath of the Abramoff scandal), he does not mention that he worked for Rep. Wilson. Mr. Einertson also makes no mention of his days running around in an alcohol-fueled frenzy with Mr. Boulanger and various other Hill miscreants that we have previously referred to as "F Street Gangbangers". Now that Mr. Einertson is married and is a father, it appears he has "grown up". Let's hope he takes the CFA Code of Ethics and Standards more seriously than the typical F Street Gangbanger viewed Congressional ethics. We wish him the best on his new path in life.

Revolutionary Felon

The title of this post is inspired by a draft title for Kevin Ring's book, an insider's view of the Abramoff scandal. We've written about Ring's book before, but the Justice Department kindly provided us excerpts of the rough draft of Mr. Ring's book proposal just yesterday.

Here's an interesting snippet (page 13):

I spent two years secretly cooperating with the FBI and DOJ on an investigation into the biggest lobbying scandal of the past 40 years. I was threatened with indictment and plead guilty [sic].

[I was named Legislative Director for a Member of Congress at 24. I became a partner^[1] in a major law firm at 31. I was a published author at 34. And I became a convicted felon at 36.]

Emphasis added

Mr. Ring indicates that he was writing the proposal in 2007 (page 13). This suggests that the two years Mr. Ring was "secretly cooperating with the FBI and DOJ" were 2005-2007. We don't know the extent of Mr. Ring's cooperation.

The ACR Blog believes that Mr. Ring was born in 1970. When he says that he "became a convicted felon at 36", we're concluding that Ring means he was convicted in 2006. This is all confusing because to the best of our knowledge, Mr. Ring has never been convicted of any crime. What in the world is he referring to? In order to provide context about the events of 2006, Jack Abramoff (Greenberg Traurig) pleaded guilty in January 2006. Tony Rudy (Greenberg Traurig) pleaded guilty in March 2006. Neil Volz (Greenberg Traurig) also pleaded guilty that year. It isn't unreasonable to think that Mr. Ring (Greenberg Traurig) faced immense pressure to "plead guilty" and become a "convicted felon" in 2006, but Mr. Ring did not plead and was not convicted.

At the end of day, the ACR Blog is just plain confused about this passage in Mr. Ring's book. We didn't understand it when U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle ruled this passage of Ring's book proposal inadmissible, but she was wise to do so. With all the background information that we have, this quote still doesn't make any sense to us. A jury who hasn't been following the case wouldn't have a chance of understanding it.

...

^[1] It is the understanding of the ACR Blog that Greenberg Traurig did not have partners during Ring's tenure. The owners were referred to as shareholders, not partners. The significance of this distinction is not clear to us.

U.S. v. Kevin Ring 2.0: What the DoJ Will NOT Attempt to Prove

Yesterday, we wrote about the Bill of Particulars (BoP) filed by the DoJ in the pending case of U.S. v. Kevin Ring. We listed the specific public officials named in the BoP, and because former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif) has protested so loudly that there is "no evidence" to support a corruption investigation of him, we kindly listed the official actions he allegedly took on Team Abramoff's behalf that the DoJ intends to prove at trial. We also invited our gentle readers to check back in often, as there is much to be learned in these new court filings. For example, in Footnote 2 of the BoP (page 2) the DoJ writes:

For ease of reference, the Government has identified the following paragraphs that we do not intend to prove at trial and, consequently, have no objections to redacting from the Retyped Indictment: 33, 82, 83, 102, 106, 111, 112, 130, 147, and 151.

Intrigued to learn what the DoJ decided not to prove, the author of the ACR Blog decided to investigate.

Paragraph 33 makes reference to a fundraising event for Representative 4 (Ernest Istook, R-Okla).

Paragraphs 82 and 83 make reference to tickets allegedly provided by Mr. Ring to a staffer for Representative 5 (John Doolittle, R-Calif)

Paragraph 102 alleges that Representative 5 (Doolittle) emailed Mr. Ring to ask for his help "in raising and additional $13,000 before December 31, 2001."

Paragraph 106 alleges that Mr. Ring emailed Mr. Abramoff to ask "if they could raise another $25,000 as soon as possible" because Rep Doolittle was "spooked" by a primary challenger.

Paragraph 111 makes reference to five tickets allegedly provided to two of Mr. Doolittle's staffers to attend a baseball game at Camden Yards.

Paragraph 112 - we'll just quote this one in its entirety: "On or about June 27th, 2002, Volz sent an email to defendant RING in which Volz, after noting that they had secured a $3.5 million earmark for a client, stated that he assumed that they would "jack up" the client's fees after obtaining a couple of million dollars and reported that he was talking with Representative 5's Legislative Director (Peter Evich was Doolittle's LD on this date) to help Representative 5 "with the moderates."

Paragraph 130 alleges Mr. Ring expensed catering costs for an event (fundraising?) for Representative 5 (Doolittle).

Paragraph 147 makes reference to an email allegedly sent from a lobbyist (Todd Boulanger) from Firm B (Greenberg Traurig) to a staffer for a New Mexico tribe's (Sandia) House Representative (former Rep Heather Wilson, R-N.M.) thanking him and confirming he was "all set for the Clippers game."

Paragraph 151 makes reference to another email sent from a firm B lobbyist (Mr. Boulanger) threatening repercussions for the N.M. tribe with their U.S. Representative "if we (Greenberg Traurig) don't get hired."

So what can we learn about the DoJ's courtroom strategy from its decision to drop the burden of proof associated with these allegations? First of all, Paragraphs 33, 102, 106, and possibly Paragraph 130 reference fundraising events, and since the mere mention of fundraisers has raised Judge Huvelle's concern in the past, it would appear that the DoJ believes they can make its case without going there. In addition, because defense attorney Andrew Wise has also (rightfully) raised objections to the inclusion of evidence of fundraisers on the grounds that such activity is protected political speech, we believe the DoJ's move is a wise decision.

Secondly, Paragraphs 82, 83, and 111 all reference event tickets Mr. Ring allegedly provided to staffers for former Rep. John Doolittle. We're not sure why the DoJ finds these paragraphs to be expendable. One plausible explanation is that these gifts were provided to staffers who were not identified in the BoP. Of course, there could be any number of plausible explanations.

Paragraph 112 is frankly just a bit mysterious. "Jack(ing) up" the fees charged to clients is certainly not illegal, nor is attempting to help Rep. Doolittle "with the moderates." Furthermore, this paragraph does not describe any action(s) taken by either Mr. Ring or Rep. Doolittle, so perhaps the DoJ rightfully concluded that this referenced email has no relevance to the case.

That leaves Paragraphs 147 and 151. To be continued...

U.S. v. Kevin Ring: Bill of Particulars

U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle issued an order last week requiring the Justice Department to file a Bill of Particulars (BoP) in U.S. v. Kevin Ring. Yesterday, the DoJ complied. As always, the ACR Blog provides access to primary sources. Click here for the BoP.

The BoP specifies allegations related to Count 1 of Kevin Ring's Retyped Indictment. This count is conspiracy to violate the (1) Illegal Gratuities and (2) Honest Services Fraud (HSF) statutes. The BoP lists items the DoJ intends to prove at Mr. Ring's retrial including the identities of the public officials alleged to be involved as well as the items of value the public officials received and the acts allegedly committed by the public officials.

The following public officials are specifically named in the BoP:

John Albaugh (Istook)
Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.)
David Lopez (Doolittle)
Peter Evich (Doolittle)

Gregory Orlando (Doolittle)
Laura Blackann (Doolittle)
Neil Volz (Ney)
William Heaton (Ney)

Jennifer Farley (White House)
Robert Coughlin (Dept. of Justice)
David Ayers (Dept. of Justice)

We'd like to take a moment to make special note of the fact that former California Congressman John Doolittle makes the DoJ's list of public officials who allegedly received items of value and performed official actions. We certainly hope that Mr. Doolittle stumbles upon our humble little blog. You see, just a month ago, Mr. Doolittle claimed there was "no evidence" to support a corruption investigation into him. Obviously, Mr. Doolittle has not been following this scandal very closely, and the ACR Blog is always willing to help inform others. The BoP lists the following official actions allegedly committed by Mr. Doolittle:

• Assistance regarding the immigration status of Carmencita Abad, a vocal advocate for wage and labor reform in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, including sending a letter to INS (55);

• Assistance in obtaining appropriations for the CNMI, specifically, appropriations for Rota and Tinian harbors, ports, and airports, including speaking with other
members of Congress (58, 59);

• Assistance regarding Puerto Rico’s commonwealth status, including the introduction of a bill regarding statehood (62, 63, 65), and chairing a hearing on Puerto Rico statehood (77, 78);

• Assistance regarding the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, specifically, efforts to prevent legislation harmful to Ring’s and Abramoff’s client’s business interests, including signing a letter (66, 67), and meeting with Ring’s client (72);

• Assistance with an earmark for a Russian housing project, including meeting with Ring and Abramoff’s Russian clients(74);

• Assistance in obtaining appropriations for a CNMI water project, including meeting with other members of Congress (91);

• Assistance in obtaining an earmark for a jail grant for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, including speaking with other members of Congress and congressional staffers (95, 97, 98, 101);

• Assistance with a tribal-governance dispute within the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa/Meskwaki, including meeting with the client and signing a letter to the Department of Interior (125, 127);

• Assistance seeking tribal recognition for one of Ring’s clients, the Mashpee Wampanoag, including meeting with the client and signing a letter to the Department of Interior (132, 134);

• Assistance in inserting earmarks into various legislation which benefitted Ring’s and Abramoff’s clients (120, 121. 123).

We've mentioned many of these alleged official acts before. But the alleged "[a]ssistance with an earmark for a Russian housing project, including meeting with Ring and Abramoff’s Russian clients" is new to us. The ACR Blog has always been interested in the Russian angle of the Abramoff scandal. We hope to learn more about this in the future.

...

One interesting aspect of the BoP is that the DoJ doesn't appear to be alleging a specific item of value was exchanged for a specific official act for any public officials. In fact, it appears to the untrained eye of the ACR Blog's author that the DoJ is suggesting that a stream of things of value were given to public official and a number of official acts were performed in return. This appears suspiciously close to the "Retainer Theory" of HSF found in U.S. v. Kemp, a case approvingly cited by the Supreme Court in its recent string of cases limiting the reach of the HSF statute. The ACR Blog has already opined that the "Retainer Theory" of HSF remains intact after Skilling.

...

Read the Bill of Particulars and check back with the ACR Blog later. There are a lot of new facts to be discussed.

U.S. v. Kevin Ring: DOJ to Pursue Eight Charges; Bill of Particulars Ordered

U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle held a hearing earlier this week related to the prosecution of former Abramoff lieutenant Kevin Ring. Neither the author of the ACR Blog nor our Washington Correspondent could attend this proceeding. Fortunately for all of us, there were two informative articles written by professional journalists to help keep us all up to date. Roll Call's Jennifer Yachnin and National Law Journal's Mike Scarcella both penned pieces with our favorite fact culled from Mr. Scarcella's article which appeared in the Blog of Legal Times (BLT):

Public Integrity Section trial attorney Peter Koski said the high court’s June 24 ruling in Skilling v. United States has “no impact whatsoever” on the prosecution of Ring.

Ms. Yachnin corroborated Mr. Scarcella's reporting, writing (Hat tip to an anonymous commenter for providing the text of the Roll Call article):

Federal prosecutor Peter Koski told Huvelle that the Justice Department does not plan to drop any of the eight charges it has filed against Ring, including five counts of honest services fraud.

“The Skilling opinion has no impact whatsoever on this case,” Koski said.

This is in alignment with the ACR Blog's opinion that "Skilling provides no relief" to Mr. Ring.

In conjunction with Tuesday's hearing, Judge Huvelle also issued a scheduling order. The order tells us that Mr. Ring's retrial will begin October 28, 2010.

Additionally, and probably more significant to the defense, Judge Huvelle ordered the DoJ to provide a Bill of Particulars (BoP) to Mr. Ring and his defense counsel:

On or before July 13, 2010, the government shall file a bill of particulars identifying which of the overt acts listed in Count I ... are relevant to an alleged scheme to provide public officials with things of value in exchange for “official acts," as that term is defined in Jury Instruction No. 31 of the first trial [Dkt. 113]. The bill of particulars shall specify the identities of the public officials, things of value, and official acts at issue.

Roll Call's Ms. Yachnin reports that Judge Huvelle reminded prosecutors during the hearing that the post-Skilling legal landscape is a different place:

“This is not the same arena we were in before,” Huvelle said. She ordered government prosecutors to outline “what official acts were the result of bribery, who did they target to do what” in documents due later this month.

We're certainly hopeful that we'll get to see the BoP. Specifically, we're looking forward to confirming "the identities of the public officials" who participated in this scandal and the "official acts" they performed. It seems very unlikely to the ACR Blog that the BoP will be helpful to Mr. Doolittle (R-Calif.) in his search for employment, nevertheless, this is an undeniably positive development for Mr. Ring and his defense team at Miller Chevalier. It also seems more than fair to Mr. Ring. Despite our belief in his complicity in this scandal, we want Mr. Ring to be fully aware of the charges against him in order to provide him with a fair trial in a court of law.

Horace Cooper Sentenced

Horace Cooper -- GUILTY

On Thursday, July 1, U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle sentenced Abramoff scandal figure Horace Cooper for the misdemeanor charge of "Making and Using a False Certificate or Writing".

According to the Judgment filed last week, Mr. Cooper was sentenced to:

3 Years Probation
$500 fine
$25 special assessment
300 Hours Community Service

Judge Huvelle determined that Mr. Cooper did not have the "ability" to pay interest on the $500 fine and waived the interest requirement.

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.