Friday’s House Ethics Committee was the scene of a hearing where the results of an investigation into State Representative David Cook were supposed to be revealed, along with a vote on whether or not to dismiss the complaints or refer them to the full House. In advance of the hearing, Cook’s attorney’s raised strongly worded objections to the quality of the report, to the idea of releasing its content to the public without anything from Cook to rebut it, and to proceeding to a vote on the basis of a report they called “little more than an unobjective hit piece.”
Dennis Wilenchik, one of Cook’s attorneys, closed his letter to the committee with these words:
The principle of due process is fundamental to government. In its simplest terms, it is to be fair. I will supplement this letter with more detail if given the opportunity, after having a reasonable opportunity to more carefully and fully respond to it beyond less than 24 hours. Giving the report to the press at this time is in my judgment not fair or reasonable until we have been afforded such opportunity to fully contest its content, to have a fair hearing on it, and to present witnesses so you can hear the actual evidence and our cross examinations. That is America at its best and finest. That is what we should strive for. To try to sanction or admonish or remove a representative of the people otherwise, as I say, would be the lowest ebb of an already tarnished system.
The Committee stayed behind closed doors for several hours in Executive Session and Cook won a partial victory, as he was given one week to submit a written rebuttal to the report the investigators took months to write, but Committee Chairman John Allen made it clear that the Committee had little interest in offering anything else in terms of fairness or due process.
Where Cook’s team wanted the press to get to hear both sides at the same time, Allen and the committee voted to give the investigator’s report to the press right away, ensuring a rough media cycle for Cook and a field day for the media.
Where Cook’s team wanted to contest the content of the report and have a fair hearing, Allen and the committee denied the request and agreed to give Cook or his attorney no more than one hour at the next meeting to make a statement.
Where Cook’s team wanted to present witness that would refute the report and support Cook’s claims, Allen and the committee refused to allow Cook to present any evidence or any witnesses.
So after months of investigations and interviews of witnesses that Cook’s attorneys were not allowed to participate in or cross-examine, Cook now has one week to respond without being allowed to present evidence or witnesses.
Wilenchik likely predicted how Allen and the Committee would proceed based on their handling of the entire matter to date, because in his letter he accurately described the way the House Ethics Committee has evolved over the last few years:
This process has recently become a lethal tool to destroy political rivals which is a stain on the institution. The formula has been successful and will repeat until members recognize the gravity of the injustice. The scheme is simple: pay a third party to interview and craft a scathing report that casts a member in the worst possible light, filled with untruths, innuendo and invasive tactics. One powerful member releases the report to the media to create a firestorm and prevent the member from being heard when he attempts to point out all of the factual inaccuracies.
While Allen and the committee members (Democrats Engel and DeGrazia, and Republicans Cobb and Griffin) seem determined to damage Cook in the run up to his contested primary, voters in Cook’s district may ignore what some are calling “Trump”ed up charges that remind them of the Trump Impeachment Scam, because the people named in the complaints have all denied the charges in their entirety and investigators do not appear to have substantive evidence of any of them.
Wilenchik isn’t the only one who believes that the Committee’s handling of the matter is questionable. Rep. Kelly Townsend shares concerns about the tactics employed by Allen.
“I find it hard to believe that the Ethics committee did not allow Rep. Cook to ask questions or cross examine his accusers, nor present any exculpatory evidence,” said Townsend, who was in attendance on Friday’s hearing. “I also find it unbecoming of the Chair, John Allen, to treat him with disdain during the Ethics Committee meeting today. Because of such contempt, saying he would not answer any of his questions and that he needed to leave the room and could not observe the Executive Session portion of the hearing while others who were accusing him were allowed to stay, it makes you wonder if this is not personal.”
Wilenchik’s full letter is here.
[pdf id=200384]