Extended Page THE MANDATE 1. OVERLAY THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS ON THE MANDATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MANDATE IS MET.. JG 000007743 THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT IN THE MATTER OF SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH REPORT OF COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT JANUARY 16, 1997 J. RANDOLPH EVANS ARNALL GOLDEN & GREGORY, LLP Counsel to Respondent Speaker Newt Gingrich ED BETHUNE BRACEWELL & PATTERSON, LLP Co-Counsel to Respondent Speaker Newt Gingrich IN THE MATTER OF SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT Report of Counsel for the Respondent This is the Report of Counsel for the Respondent Speaker Newt Gingrich. This Report is being submitted in connection with the Sanction Hearing specified in Rule 20 of the Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ("Rules") regarding written submissions by counsel.' The Report is subject to two limitations. First, the Report has been prepared without the access to all of the information collected by the Investigative Subcommittee. Respondent was limited to certain exhibits made available by the Committee; selected transcripts made available by the Committee; and public documents. Second, Respondent has not been afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery or otherwise develop information relating to the matter before the Committee. Overview On December 21, 1996, the Investigative Subcommittee issued a Statement of Alleged Violation. The Statement was the product of an investigation by the Investigative Subcommittee and Special Counsel. It is important to note that the process was one-sided: witnesses were not subject to cross-examination; documents were not subject to pertinency or admissibility standards; and traditional rules establishing standards for admissibility, pertinency and reliability of evidence were 1 Contributing to the preparation of this report were Anthony W. Morris, Esq. and Stefan C. Passantino, Esq. of Arnall, Golden & Gregory, L.L.P. and Shannon H. Ratliff, Esq. of Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P. not applied. Respondent was not permitted to participate in the examination of witnesses or documents. Also on December 21, 1996, Respondent submitted an Answer admitting the alleged violation. Pursuant to Rule 19(c) of the Rules, Respondent's admission relieved the Committee of determining through an adjudicatory subcommittee at a Disciplinary Hearing whether the single count in the Statement of Alleged Violation was proven by clear and convincing evidence. At such a Disciplinary Hearing, Respondent would have been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, challenge documents and obtain discovery. With the Statement of Alleged Violation and the Answer, the next process contemplated by the Rules is a Sanction Hearing pursuant to Rule 20. This process does not entail a trial on the merits of the alleged violation. Instead, the process is limited to determining the appropriate sanction, if any, for the violation. This Report is submitted for that purpose. This is not a report in response to the Special Counsel's Report. It does not contain a fact by fact, argument by argument response to the Special Counsel's Report. Respondent does not accept as true the asserted factual statements and characterizations thereof beyond the facts contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation admitted by Respondent's Answer. It is relatively easy for an attorney, such as the Special Counsel, to piece together testimony and documents, free from the tests of cross-examination, hearsay limits and other evidentiary standards to assure accuracy, and free from the boundaries of reality, to reach virtually any conclusion through clinical forensic reconstruction. This Report is designed to put the facts before the Committee in the context of the real world so that the Committee can determine the appropriate sanction, if any, for the violation, in the absence of an adversary process. Let there be no mistake, Respondent has accepted the Investigative Subcommittee's Statement of Alleged Violation. In doing so, Respondent has accepted the facts contained therein. This does not mean, however, that Respondent accepts as true those asserted facts not contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation. To assist the Committee in its decision-making process, attached hereto as Appendix A is a timeline of the events relating to the Renewing American Civilization course. This Report is submitted to place the general body of facts in the context of reality as opposed to a version of the facts viewed with hindsight that could only exist in a laboratory free from the dynamics of the real world. For assistance in placing the facts in context, please see Appendix B. Scope of Hearing There have been a myriad of charges and allegations made against Respondent. With the exception of the single violation contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation, those charges and allegations are untrue and groundless. The only violation before this Committee for purposes of determining the appropriate sanction, if any, is the violation contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation. The Statement of Alleged Violation describes conduct which violates Rule 43(1) of the Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Rule 43(1) provides as follows: A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Rule 43, clause 1. Paragraph 52 of the Statement of Alleged Violation contains the only violation found, and states that: |