http://www.washtimes.com/investiga/investiga1.html
"Clinton appointees meet
privately
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
he eight federal judges appointed by President
Clinton to the U.S. District Court in Washington
meet privately every month in closed-door sessions
that other jurists believe are improper and call into
question the court's impartiality.
"I cannot imagine any legitimate reason for them
to meet together once a month, even socially," said
one veteran courthouse official familiar with the
sessions.
"It's not only in bad taste, it certainly has the
appearance of impropriety. It's hard to imagine any
rationale for these meetings."
Another court official said they "reek with
impropriety."
Concern among courthouse officials about the
meetings, which are described in e-mail addressed
monthly to each of the eight judges, comes at a time
that Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway
Johnson is being publicly criticized for selectively
assigning criminal cases against friends and
associates of Mr. Clinton's to judges the president has
appointed.
None of the eight Clinton-appointed judges, all
of whom were named to the bench between 1994 to
1998, would comment on the meetings or their
content.
"I have no comment to make on these matters,"
said U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr., the
only one of the eight who personally answered a
telephone call. A spokeswoman for Judge Richard W.
Roberts returned a call but said only that the judge
"declined comment."
Four judges appointed by other presidents, both
Republican and Democrat, said the meetings have
been taking place for some time, although specific
topics are not known. They question the propriety of
the sessions and lament what they described as the
"loss of collegiality" when the judges fail to come
together as a group -- which the others do often.
"The Clinton appointees have confirmed that they
meet together, and we know they do, but where they
go and what they discuss I just don't know," said one
judge. "But a very important part of what we do here
is our collegiality. We all come with political
viewpoints but we try to leave politics behind.
Unfortunately, the Clinton appointees have gone off
on their own."
The nature of the isolation, another judge said,
was punctuated by an e-mail message sent to all of
the judges inviting them to a birthday party for U.S.
District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, a 1994 Clinton
appointee. The message asked the judges to guess
Judge Urbina's age for a prize but excluded members
of the "Magnificent Seven" -- a name the first seven
Clinton appointees had used to describe their group
before Judge Roberts' 1998 appointment.
There are 23 judges at the federal courthouse,
including the eight named by Mr. Clinton. Five were
appointed by President Carter and five by President
Reagan. Four were named by President Johnson and
one was picked by President Nixon. None of the
other judges hold separate meetings, courthouse
sources said.
Questions of impropriety at the courthouse have
drawn the attention of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, whose chairman, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch,
Utah Republican, is considering whether to begin an
investigation or call for hearings to resolve the issue.
During a confirmation hearing yesterday for two
Justice Department officials, Mr. Hatch described as
"deeply troubling" reports that Judge Johnson had
bypassed the court's random case assignment
procedures "by taking the unusual step of
handpicking" judges appointed by Mr. Clinton to hear
cases involving Webster L. Hubbell and Charles Yah
Lin Trie.
"Even if deviations from the district court's
random case assignment procedures are technically
permitted by local rule, I share the concern that has
been expressed by other judges on the court that
these assignments will damage the public's
confidence that these cases were impartially
adjudicated," he said.
Committee member Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Republican, echoed Mr. Hatch's concerns, adding that
as a former prosecutor he was "stunned" by the
Johnson assignments.
He said it "might be necessary" for the committee
to investigate the matter to restore the public's
confidence.
On Tuesday, Judge Johnson defended her
decision not to follow the court's traditional
random-assignment process when she assigned the
Hubbell and Trie cases to U.S. District Judges Paul L.
Friedman and James Robertson --both Clinton
appointees.
She said the cases were assigned to "highly
capable federal judges" and that "politics was not and
is never a factor in our case assignments."
She said the chief judge has the right to assign
"protracted and complex cases" when it is deemed
necessary, noting that "my predecessors and I have
used this assignment system to enable our court to
expeditiously handle high-profile criminal cases with
their unique demands on judicial resources."
"It is the responsibility of the chief judge to move
the docket as expeditiously as possible. That is all
that was intended by these assignments," the judge
said.
Some judges questioned whether the Hubbell
and Trie cases, both of which ended in plea
agreements, could be considered protracted or
complex. They said several high-profile and lengthy
trials have been assigned through the
random-selection process.
Judge Friedman, who has declined comment on
the matter, threw out several charges against Trie
brought by the Justice Department's campaign
finance task force. Trie later pleaded guilty when the
rulings were overturned by the federal appeals court.
Judge Robertson was overturned in June when
the appeals court reinstated a felony charge against
Hubbell for making false statements to conceal his
work on a fraudulent Arkansas land project. The
court said the judge erred when he dismissed the
first count of a 15-count indictment brought by
Kenneth W. Starr."
It keeps piling on doesn't it?
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
"Clinton appointees meet
privately
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
he eight federal judges appointed by President
Clinton to the U.S. District Court in Washington
meet privately every month in closed-door sessions
that other jurists believe are improper and call into
question the court's impartiality.
"I cannot imagine any legitimate reason for them
to meet together once a month, even socially," said
one veteran courthouse official familiar with the
sessions.
"It's not only in bad taste, it certainly has the
appearance of impropriety. It's hard to imagine any
rationale for these meetings."
Another court official said they "reek with
impropriety."
Concern among courthouse officials about the
meetings, which are described in e-mail addressed
monthly to each of the eight judges, comes at a time
that Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway
Johnson is being publicly criticized for selectively
assigning criminal cases against friends and
associates of Mr. Clinton's to judges the president has
appointed.
None of the eight Clinton-appointed judges, all
of whom were named to the bench between 1994 to
1998, would comment on the meetings or their
content.
"I have no comment to make on these matters,"
said U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr., the
only one of the eight who personally answered a
telephone call. A spokeswoman for Judge Richard W.
Roberts returned a call but said only that the judge
"declined comment."
Four judges appointed by other presidents, both
Republican and Democrat, said the meetings have
been taking place for some time, although specific
topics are not known. They question the propriety of
the sessions and lament what they described as the
"loss of collegiality" when the judges fail to come
together as a group -- which the others do often.
"The Clinton appointees have confirmed that they
meet together, and we know they do, but where they
go and what they discuss I just don't know," said one
judge. "But a very important part of what we do here
is our collegiality. We all come with political
viewpoints but we try to leave politics behind.
Unfortunately, the Clinton appointees have gone off
on their own."
The nature of the isolation, another judge said,
was punctuated by an e-mail message sent to all of
the judges inviting them to a birthday party for U.S.
District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, a 1994 Clinton
appointee. The message asked the judges to guess
Judge Urbina's age for a prize but excluded members
of the "Magnificent Seven" -- a name the first seven
Clinton appointees had used to describe their group
before Judge Roberts' 1998 appointment.
There are 23 judges at the federal courthouse,
including the eight named by Mr. Clinton. Five were
appointed by President Carter and five by President
Reagan. Four were named by President Johnson and
one was picked by President Nixon. None of the
other judges hold separate meetings, courthouse
sources said.
Questions of impropriety at the courthouse have
drawn the attention of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, whose chairman, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch,
Utah Republican, is considering whether to begin an
investigation or call for hearings to resolve the issue.
During a confirmation hearing yesterday for two
Justice Department officials, Mr. Hatch described as
"deeply troubling" reports that Judge Johnson had
bypassed the court's random case assignment
procedures "by taking the unusual step of
handpicking" judges appointed by Mr. Clinton to hear
cases involving Webster L. Hubbell and Charles Yah
Lin Trie.
"Even if deviations from the district court's
random case assignment procedures are technically
permitted by local rule, I share the concern that has
been expressed by other judges on the court that
these assignments will damage the public's
confidence that these cases were impartially
adjudicated," he said.
Committee member Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Republican, echoed Mr. Hatch's concerns, adding that
as a former prosecutor he was "stunned" by the
Johnson assignments.
He said it "might be necessary" for the committee
to investigate the matter to restore the public's
confidence.
On Tuesday, Judge Johnson defended her
decision not to follow the court's traditional
random-assignment process when she assigned the
Hubbell and Trie cases to U.S. District Judges Paul L.
Friedman and James Robertson --both Clinton
appointees.
She said the cases were assigned to "highly
capable federal judges" and that "politics was not and
is never a factor in our case assignments."
She said the chief judge has the right to assign
"protracted and complex cases" when it is deemed
necessary, noting that "my predecessors and I have
used this assignment system to enable our court to
expeditiously handle high-profile criminal cases with
their unique demands on judicial resources."
"It is the responsibility of the chief judge to move
the docket as expeditiously as possible. That is all
that was intended by these assignments," the judge
said.
Some judges questioned whether the Hubbell
and Trie cases, both of which ended in plea
agreements, could be considered protracted or
complex. They said several high-profile and lengthy
trials have been assigned through the
random-selection process.
Judge Friedman, who has declined comment on
the matter, threw out several charges against Trie
brought by the Justice Department's campaign
finance task force. Trie later pleaded guilty when the
rulings were overturned by the federal appeals court.
Judge Robertson was overturned in June when
the appeals court reinstated a felony charge against
Hubbell for making false statements to conceal his
work on a fraudulent Arkansas land project. The
court said the judge erred when he dismissed the
first count of a 15-count indictment brought by
Kenneth W. Starr."
It keeps piling on doesn't it?
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"