u.s.

Department of Justice
Office of LegislativeAffairs

.-. nun'
.--------.- ----

Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washingto/!. D.C :!1J530

May 25, 2010

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Chainnan
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chainnan:

This responds to your letter, dated April 17, 2008, requesting that the Office of the
Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) open an investigation of
allegations of "selective, politically-motivated prosecutions" by the Deparlmenl of Justice in
several criminal prosecutions, including the Georgia Thompson matter. An identical response is
being sent to the other Members who joined in your letter to us.

On May 5,2008, OPR infonned you that it had a pending investigation involving
allegations of selective prosecution relating to the prosecution of Ms. Thompson in the Eastern
District of Wisconsin. OPR has completed its investigation into allegations that the prosecution
of Ms. Thompson by then-fonner United States Attorney Steven Biskupic was brought for
improper partisan political reasons. While our public disclosure of the infonnation set forth
below might otherwise be prohibited by the Privacy Act, we are providing it to the Committee in
response to your oversight request and consistent with 5 U.S.c. 552a(b)(9).

The investigation was initiated following the reversal of Ms. Thompson's conviction by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on April 20, 2007, in United States v.
Thompson, 484 F.3d 877 (7thCir. 2007). Although the Court of Appeals did not refer to possible
partisan political motives in either its remarks at oral argument (during which a judge said the
government's evidence was "beyond thin") or in its written opinion holding that no crime had
been proven, there was public speculation that Ms. Thompson had been prosecuted for improper
partisan political reasons. In a committee report attached to your letter to OPR, you note that
then United States Attorney Biskupic's name had appeared on Department official Kyle
Sampson's list of "weak" United States Attorneys in March 2005, but was later removed from
the list. Some United States Attorneys on the lists were later told to resign, and it was speculated
that Mr. Biskupic's prosecution of Ms. Thompson caused his name to be removed from the list,
thus avoiding his removal as United States Attorney.
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Page Two

Based upon its investigation, OPR found that Mr. Biskupic initiated the investigation in
the wake of extensive media coverage alleging that a state official, Ms. Thompson, had
improperly awarded a travel contract, over the objections of the selection committee charged
with evaluating proposals, to Adelman Travel Group, a Milwaukee based firm whose principals
made significant donations to the Democratic governor's campaign fund. OPR also found that
Mr. Biskupic took special measures to ensure that politics did not playa role in the case by
enlisting the support and assistance of state officials who were Democrats, including utilizing
state investigative resources. OPR found further that the case was based on the evidence
provided by the selection committee members who were convinced that Ms. Thompson steered
the travel contract to Adelman Travel Group for the political gain of her superiors and for her
own advantage. In addition, OPR found that the indictment in the case did not clearly lack a
basis in fact or in the case law as it existed prior to the appellate decision in this case.

OPR concluded that Mr. Biskupic did not violate a clearly and unambiguously applicable
obligation by prosecuting Ms. Thompson. Based on its examination of the legal authorities
governing such prosecutions prior to the appeals court decision in Thompson, OPR concluded
that the government was not precluded from charging her as it did in this case. In addition, OPR
found no evidence to support the allegation that Mr. Biskupic indicted Ms. Thompson for
improper partisan political reasons. Mr. Biskupic did not know that his name had appeared on a
list of "weak" United States Attorneys in March 2005, and he had no reason to bring charges to
please his superiors in order to retain his position. OPR found no evidence that Mr. Biskupic
was ever told his job was in jeopardy and no evidence that Department personnel involved in the
decision to remove certain United States Attorneys knew anything about the Thompson
investigation. Accordingly, OPR concluded that Mr. Biskupic did not breach any professional
obligation in this matter, but rather, acted appropriately under the circumstances.

We hope that this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may
provide additional assistance with this or any other matter.

Sincerely,

~~
Ronald Weich
Assistant Attorney General

cc: The Honorable Lamar Smith

Ranking Minority Member