Wouldn’t you like to know the source of the money that is used to pay for those judgments against members of Congress? I did – and, boy, was I surprised.
Let’s start with the 1995 Congressional Accountability Act (the “CAA”). It was the first bill “signed into law for the 104thCongress. The legislation applied 11 civil rights, safety, labor, and public access federal laws to the Legislative Branch, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHAct), the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), among others.”
To enforce all of that, the CAA also created something called the Office of Compliance. The OOC has a Board of Directors and a staff. Besides compliance, it also is supposed to “provide an outreach and education program for Legislative Branch employers.”
As for how investigations work, we have been told that when members of Congress have allegations against them for sexual harassment or similar charges, those cases go before the associated ethic committees.
Sounds reasonable, but it is not. Why?
DOJ tells Senate Judiciary confidential informant wasn’t interviewed prior to indictments on Russian nuclear bribery case
“In all my years as a federal prosecutor I would not have ever filed an indictment without interviewing the main witness,” said Victoria Toensing, attorney for William Campbell Jr., former confidential informant.
Department of Justice prosecutors did not interview a confidential informant and main witness in a Russian nuclear industry bribery and laundering case in 2014, prior to issuing its indictments against the defendants, this reporter has learned.
This “oversight” was disclosed in a briefing by the Department of Justice to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday regarding the 2014 case against Russian nationals and co-conspirators, according to several sources directly familiar with the briefing.