Horowitz’s most recent plea for the added authority—he’s the only one of the 72 statutory inspectors general (IGs) in the federal government who can’t investigate such allegations within his department—came during a March 23 House budget hearing.
“As a result, these types of misconduct allegations against department lawyers, including any that may be made against the most senior department lawyers (including those in departmental leadership positions), are handled differently than those made against agents or other department employees.”
The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), whose leader is appointed by the attorney general, handles misconduct allegations against DOJ lawyers.
“There is no principled reason to send those cases to an [OPR] that is overseen by the deputy attorney general and the attorney general, whose leader is appointed by them and can be removed by them,” Horowitz said. “I would venture to say that I doubt any member of Congress has ever been seen before you [the appointed head of OPR] to testify publicly.
“I think there is a lack of transparency, and I know from speaking with prosecutors across the country, defense lawyers across the country, and various nongovernmental organizations, that their confidence in that oversight ability has been challenged over the years.”
Giving Horowitz the new authority could put him at the center of an emerging controversy over the failure of the DOJ prosecutors to provide defendants charged with crimes in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol with video footage that could potentially change their pleadings.
Also, Horowitz’s investigation of multiple cases of abuse by FBI officials of the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act could have exposed misconduct overlooked by the OPR. The abuse was in connection with allegations that employees among then-candidate Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign staff cooperated with members of Russian intelligence.
Horowitz told the March 23 hearing that the Senate has been the main roadblock. The proposal was approved in 2020 by the judiciary panel on a 21–1 vote but was never brought up by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for a vote by the full Senate.
A spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told The Epoch Times on March 27 that Durbin and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) plan to reintroduce the proposal, which they co-sponsored in the 117th Congress, in the current legislature. The spokesman was unable to say when that would happen. Lee’s spokesman didn’t respond to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.
“As a result, DOJ’s Inspector General would be fully empowered to investigate allegations of professional misconduct against department lawyers,” they wrote.
“In addition to enhancing oversight and public accountability at DOJ, this simple, common-sense reform will bring DOJ in line with the practices in other federal agencies where allegations of attorney professional misconduct are already subject to investigation by Inspectors General.”
In addition to Durbin, eight members of the Senate judiciary panel co-sponsored the Inspector General Access Act in the 117th Congress, including Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Democrats on the panel co-sponsoring the bill included Dianne Feinstein of California, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Chris Coons of Delaware, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.
“When Congress created the Department of Justice IG in 1989, Congress had detailed discussions with [then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh], and they reached a compromise to keep investigations of allegations of attorney professional misconduct within the [OPR],” Cotton said, quoting Attorney General Eric Holder as calling the proposal “deleterious and unnecessary” in 2007.
“In other words, Eric Holder thought it would compound the problems it purported to address.
“I want to note that the [OPR] has historically conducted its investigations with integrity and competence. ... That’s important because it is composed of both attorneys, former prosecutors, and former defense attorneys who have decades of experience and expertise in special ethics rules and the many complicated decisions any department attorney makes in the course of charging grand jury proceedings or jury trials.”