Mr. Craig Oswald
Assistant United States Attorney
Federal Building, Fifth Floor
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Mr. David Buvinger
Assistant United States Attorney
Federal Building, Fifth Floor
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Mr. J. Kenneth Lowrie
Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Sirs:
This is a formal request that the United
States (the Government) use its influence to have the Laborers'
International Union of North America (LIUNA) dismiss General Executive
Board Attorney Robert D. Luskin. Further, the Government should
fully impose the terms of the consent decree as provided in the
February 13, 1995 Agreement (the Agreement) between the Government
and LIUNA.
The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC)
is contacting you at the instruction of Frank J. Marine, Deputy
Chief Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Department
of Justice. Mr. Marine's November 8, 1996 response letter stated
that NLPC should contact you if NLPC had specific details or information
believed to be of interest to the Government in its oversight
of the LIUNA internal reform program (letter attached).
For over three years, the Government has invested an incredible amount of trust in the scandal-ridden LIUNA by allowing LIUNA to pursue an internal reform program allegedly designed to remove the influence of organized crime.
This trust is unfounded especially in light
of Mr. Luskin's recent actions which demonstrate a troubling conflict
of interest.
Mr. Luskin was one of the fifteen signatories
of the Agreement in which LIUNA averted a Government takeover
similar to that of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
in 1989. When signing the Agreement, Mr. Luskin committed to ensuring that all locals and other entities
within LIUNA are rid of any corrupting influence of any member
of organized crime. Mr. Luskin was also assigned the considerable
responsibility, under the LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure
passed in 1995, of enforcing the Agreement with the authority
to file charges against any member or officer of LIUNA.
To execute such obligations, Mr. Luskin should
be required to perform his duties with the utmost integrity and
impartiality. For Mr. Luskin to do otherwise would be an insult
to LIUNA members and would make a mockery of the Agreement and the Landrum-Griffin Act.
Yet, in recent weeks, Mr. Luskin has insulted
LIUNA members and has made a mockery of the Agreement. He has
demonstrated a clear and overt bias which calls into question
his integrity as well as his commitment to an impartial investigation
of LIUNA General President Arthur A. Coia and to the LIUNA internal
reform program.
In seven newspaper articles and three television
appearances, Mr. Luskin has defended President William J. Clinton and attacked the Whitewater Independent Counsel
Kenneth W. Starr. Here are four illustrative examples:
"Robert Luskin, a former federal prosecutor
who is a defense attorney in Washington, said Starr's inquiry
has gone out of bounds. 'These are incredibly intrusive tactics
that tend to be reserved by prosecutors for the most serious cases
involving the most serious offenses,' Luskin said. 'In real life,
you would never see a prosecutor using these tactics to pursue
these kinds of allegations, even if he decided to investigate
the case.'" (John Henry, "Has Starr gone too far?"
Houston Chronicle , February 15, 1998.)
"While the federal perjury statute applies
to private lawsuits, prosecutors rarely bring such cases to court, generally leaving it to litigants and judges
to sort out who is lying and take appropriate action. 'If I'm
the prosecutor that case is brought to, I would decline the case
because it seems to me that you ought not to be indicting the
president ofthe United States for things that you don't indict
Joe Six-Pack for,' said criminal defense lawyer Robert Luskin."
(Ruth Marcus, "Allegations Against Clinton Could Lead To
Impeachment," Washington Post , January 22, 1998.)
"In an interview yesterday with PBS,
Clinton strongly denied any such improper action, but did not
respond to questions about whether he spoke with Lewinsky. Luskin
said that is exactly why defense lawyers instruct clients not
to talk to potential witnesses. 'You never know what someone will
say about such conversations,' Luskin said. 'You want to eliminate
the possibility of an occasion in which your client can be accused
of saying these kinds of things.'" (Ruth Marcus, "Allegations
Against Clinton Could Lead To Impeachment," Washington Post
, January 22, 1998.)
"At the same time, legal experts said
it was difficult to imagine Starr bringing a federal obstruction
of justice case against Clinton or his partisans for what appears
to be an exercise of their First Amendment rights. 'I'm stupefied,'
said criminal defense lawyer Robert Luskin,
a former federal prosecutor. 'What incredible bad judgment. I
don't think you use the grand jury authority to harass people
who are criticizing you. ...If the idea is that somehow you can't
accuse the prosecutor of being an unscrupulous dog without trying
to obstruct justice, that's crazy.'" (Ruth Marcus, "Legal
Battle in Clinton Probe Getting 'Much Too Personal,'" Washington
Post , February 25, 1998).
The following are Mr. Luskin's other media
defenses of President Clinton to date:
"Burden of Proof," CNN , January
28, 1998.
Ruth Marcus, "As Ginsburg Broadcasts,
Colleagues Air Their Disbelief," Washington Post , February
2, 1998.
Brian McGrory, "Clinton Prosecutors
Enter Pivotal Stage of Investigation," Boston Globe , February
4, 1998.
Laurie Asseo, "Television Offers
American Myriad Ways To Indulge In Latest Crazy -- Legal Watching,"
Associated Press, February 5, 1998.
"Burden of Proof," CNN , February
11, 1998.
"The Big Show," MSNBC , February
17, 1998.
Brian McGrory, "Lewinsky Lawyer Tells
Altered Tale," Boston Globe , March 6, 1998.
Given the history of the LIUNA case, this
is unacceptable conduct for Mr. Luskin. Aiding the President in
this manner, demonstrates that Mr. Luskin has
a clear bias which harms the objectivity of his investigation
of Mr. Coia.
Ever since LIUNA averted a Government takeover
in 1995, there have been credible allegations that Mr. Coia and
LIUNA "got off easy" because of Mr. Coia's close friendship
with the President and First Lady. Here is just a sample:
"In 1995-96, LIUNA was a major campaign
cash source for President Clinton and his allies. LIUNA provided
the Democratic National Committee with $421,400
in "soft money" contributions. LIUNA's Political Action
Committee, the Laborer's Political League, disbursed $2.3 million
in 1995-96 for the elections with the overwhelming majority going
to allies of the President. According to Federal Election Commission
reports, LIUNA is on pace for similar figures in 1998.
Mr. Coia is reported to have a remarkable
level of access with the President and First Lady. A regular visitor at the White House, Coia has had private
breakfasts with the First Lady. He flew on Air Force One with
the President to Haiti, and he was invited to Denver to see the
Pope. Mrs. Coia was named to the site selection committee for
the 1996 Democratic National Convention. In June 1994, Mr. Coia
co-hosted a huge dinner for the DNC which raised $3.5 million.
In 1994, Mr. Coia gave President Clinton
a golf club emblazoned with the Presidential seal. The President returned the favor by giving Mr. Coia a Calloway
"Divine Nine" club. The President wrote Mr. Coia, "Dear
Arthur, I just heard you've become a grandfather -- Congratulations!
Thanks for the gorgeous driver -- it's a work of art. Best, Bill."
Given that at least an appearance exists
that the Clinton-Coia friendship saved Mr. Coia from dismissal
and LIUNA from a Government takeover, Mr. Luskin should
have imposed the strictest policy impartiality on subjects pertaining to the President so as to avoid even the
slightest appearance of a conflict of interest and bias. Mr. Luskin
should have said "no comment" when asked
by reporters about the legal affairs of President Clinton. Mr.
Luskin should have declined offers to appear on television shows
discussing the legal affairs of President Clinton. But he did
not; and in not doing so, Mr. Luskin compromised his
investigation of Mr. Coia and his commitment to the LIUNA internal
reform program.
Further, calling into question Mr. Luskin's
impartiality towards Mr. Coia was Mr. Luskin's recent attack on
NLPC. In a letter to U.S. Representative Frank Mascara,
Mr. Luskin defended Mr. Coia against NLPC criticism. (NLPC is
unable to attach a copy of Mr. Luskin's letter because
he has refused to give NLPC a copy. NLPC has knowledge of the
letter because a of January 12, 1998 article in
the Nashville Banner which is attached.)
As the Government is aware, NLPC is highly
critical of Mr. Coia and strongly believes that because of his
links to organized crime that he should not be allowed
to remain as LIUNA General President. As long as Mr. Coia remains
at LIUNA, so will organized crime.
Nevertheless, it is in no way appropriate
for Mr. Luskin to defend Mr. Coia against such criticism. That
is a job for LIUNA's press secretary or Mr. Coia himself.
Mr. Luskin is not charged with LIUNA public relations; he is charged with impartially cleaning up this mob-dominated
union.
Mr. Luskin, however, has demonstrated he
is incapable of impartiality. He has a clear and overt bias favoring
President Clinton and Mr. Coia. If Mr. Luskin appears to have
links or sympathies with one side, how can a fair investigation
and proper oversight be conducted? Some will not have confidence
in Mr. Luskin's impartiality; and thus, they will be far less
cooperative with the investigation and other matters. Others will
perceive Mr. Luskin as an ally and try to use him, directly or
indirectly, to their advantage. Mr. Luskin's apparent conflict
of interest places the integrity of the LIUNA internal reform
program in serious question.
Without an oversight offical who is, and
is perceived to be, totally and unquestionably impartial, the
rank-and-file LIUNA member suffers. Union democracy suffers. LIUNA
members deserve a corruption-free union and should not have to
tolerate any more corruption and embarrassment.
Given this information, NLPC respectfully
requests that the Government take whatever action is available
and appropriate to have Mr. Luskin immediately relieved of his
duties at LIUNA. The Government should act before the March 18,
1998 hearing by LIUNA Independent Hearing Officer Peter Varia
into Mr. Luskin's -- now suspicious -- charges against Mr. Coia.
Further, NLPC requests that the Government immediately dismiss
Mr. Coia and implement the pending consent decree as provided
for in the Agreement because of the damage done to the LIUNA internal
reform program by Mr. Luskin's recent conduct.
Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Boehm, Esq.
U.S. Representative Henry J. Hyde
U.S. Representative Bill McCollum