1 2 Harrington Shores. He knew Mr. Jenrette had substantial financial problems, and he knew Mr. Jenrette was under great stress at the time. That contradicts Amoroso's testimony at the trial, who said, of course, he didn't know any of these things, they just didn't know about it. But I think this committee, in determining what to do in this case, should hear from these people who pulled the strings behind the scenes, Mr. Webster, Civiletti, Heymann and Good, so that they can see just what the Bureau did here and determine what, if any, guilt there is on Mr. Jenrette's part. If the Justice Department and the FBI knew, and we know they knew, and we can prove it, that Mr. Jenrette had severe alcoholism as an illness that he was being treated for at that time, he was under severe financial stress, that he had just testified for a friend in a criminal trial in South Carolina and the Justice Department was hammering away at him and telling his attorney Mr. Varderman at that time that he may very well be indicted in the near future, and then the department, with all that knowledge and all the stress, whether it is right or wrong, having put that on Mr. Jenrette's shoulders, goes to him and gives him a miracle opportunity to take $50,000 to solve his problem, and Mr. Jenrette still doesn't take the money, I say it shows you something about some high quality and morality in the man. The Chairman. I read this voluminous transcript, and it. 1 2 does address the question you referred to, it stresses about the alcoholism and it stresses about finances. Most of what 3 4 you have said, if not all you have said, it seems to me is in this transcript. 6 7 Mr. Robinson. Well, some of it is. The problem is, sir, that John Good has testified they knew all these things that I just referred to. All the witnesses at the trial before the jury said they didn't know these things. We tried to The Chairman. But it is clear from the transcript that there was knowledge, it seems to me. 8 9 10 talk to me. 11 12 13 14 15 17 in. Mr. Robinson. I wish it had been clearer to the trial jury, but if it was that clear It seems to be clear. Mr. Robinson. I don't concede that they shouldn't come 18 19 20 i 21 The Chairman. I am not addressing the merits of your motion. I am just trying to say to you that we are not without evidence in this with regard to the trials and stresses of The Chairman. But we will address that later when we 24 address the motion. 25 5 I would like everybody to At one o'clock we will go back to the small chamber that we have for discussion 6 among ourselves about these motions, and then at two o'clock we will come back to hear further. 7 Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, what is before me? And I apologize for not being here at our last meeting; I was out of Review for me the motion of the committee in considering the Jenrette case. Was it under Rule 14? 8 the country. 9 10 Mr. Thomas. The similar rule we adopted in the Myers Mr. Prettyman. 14 18 Mr. Robinson. May I inquire, is Mr. Stokes going to be in attendance today, or is that unknown? The Chairman. It is not known to me personally. The Chairman. He has certainly been notified. We can't 1 2 guarantee the attendance of everybody. We follow the rules. Mr. Robinson. I am not being critical. The Chairman. Will you address the next motion. Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir. This is a 9-page motion. "Motion by Congressman Jenrette to Defer Preliminary Inquiry, or, in the Alternative, to Defer Disciplinary Hearing." 6 7 The Chairman. Mr. Robinson. 8 We are listening. "The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has determined to proceed promptly to hold a disciplin 10 11 122 ary hearing for the sole purpose of determining what sanction if any to recommend to the House of Representatives on Representative Jenrette as a result of a jury verdict of guilty for bribery and conspiracy. In the course of this determination, fact that (1) he has not been sentenced; (2) due process motions are still very much in issue; (3) a motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict has not been ruled upon. Moreover, evidentiary hearings held in connection with these pending mo tions reveal more and more evidence of government perjury that is being uncovered each week. "The Committee is apparently listening to its counsel without all the facts. In its consideration of the Myers in quiry, the Committee used three factors: (1) even if the 24 trial court would conclude that the government's conduct in 25 1 the case violated the Congressman's rights under a due process 2 guarantee, such a decision would not impact on the evidence 3 reviewed by the Committee; (2) that the jury verdict of guilty 4 constitutes a 'conviction' within the meaning of Rule 14 of the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Committee's Rules despite the fact that the due process issue has not yet been addressed by the trial court; and (3) that in view of the impending Congressional adjournment, Congress man Myers had failed to show cause for departing from that "Congressman Jenrette and his codefendant as well as all 13 hearings on the due process issues until after a verdict. 1 14 15 (The Courts also rejected the defense contention that the due process defense should be submitted to the jury. In the typical criminal trial matters of due process are determined before trial. For some reason these 'ABSCAM' cases have gen 16 17 18 19 20 ; 21 erated new rules and procedures as if Congressmen do not qualify That is a little too flowery, so I apologize, but I wrote |