Business

BOSTON (AP) — Members of a U.S. Senate committee investigating Steward Health Care's bankruptcy passed two resolutions Thursday to carry CEO Ralph de la Torre in contempt of court – one for civil contempt and one other for criminal contempt – for failing to testify before the committee.

The votes come after de la Torre refused to attend a committee hearing last week despite a subpoena. Both resolutions might be sent to the complete Senate for consideration.

Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said de la Torre's decision to disregard the subpoena left the committee no selection but to bring contempt of court charges.

“For months, this committee has called on Dr. de la Torre to testify about the financial mismanagement and events at Steward Health Care,” Sanders said at Thursday's hearing. “He has arrogantly refused to appear time and time again.”

Alexander Merton, an attorney for de la Torres, said in a letter to the committee on Wednesday that the committee's request to permit him to testify in court was a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Constitution protects de la Torre from being coerced by the federal government into giving a sworn statement to portray him “as a criminal scapegoat for the systematic failures of the Massachusetts health care system,” Merton wrote, adding that de la Torre would comply with testify at a later date.

“Our fear that the hearing could be used to ambush Dr. de la Torre in a pseudo-criminal trial was made clear last week when the Committee called witnesses who described Dr. de la Torre and Steward executives as 'healthcare terrorists' and advocated for Dr. de la Torre's detention,” Merton added.

The resolution for civil enforcement of the subpoena directs Senate Counsel to file suit within the District Court for the District of Columbia to compel de la Torre's testimony before the committee.

As a part of the resolution of the criminal contempt issue, the matter could be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who would prosecute de la Torre for failure to comply with the subpoena.

“Even though Dr. de la Torre may be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Even though he may own fancy yachts and private jets and luxurious properties around the world. Even though he can afford some of the most expensive lawyers in America, Dr. de la Torre is not above the law,” Sanders said.

Texas-based Steward, which operates about 30 hospitals nationwide, filed for bankruptcy in May.

Steward has tried to sell half a dozen hospitals in Massachusetts, but the corporate received inadequate offers for 2 other hospitals, Carney Hospital in Boston and Nashoba Valley Medical Center within the town of Ayer, and each hospitals were forced to shut.

A federal bankruptcy court this month approved Steward's sale of other Massachusetts hospitals.

Steward also closed pediatric wards in Massachusetts and Louisiana, closed neonatal wards in Florida and Texas, and eliminated the maternity ward of a Florida hospital.

At the identical time, de la Torre personally earned a whole lot of hundreds of thousands of dollars and purchased a $40 million yacht and a $15 million luxury fishing boat, Sanders said.

Ellen MacInnis, a nurse at St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in Boston, testified before the committee last week that patients were exposed to preventable harm and even death under the direction of stewards, especially in understaffed emergency rooms.

She also said there was a case where Steward didn’t pay a supplier who supplied funeral boxes for the stays of deceased newborns that needed to be taken to the mortuary.

“Nurses were forced to pack the babies' remains into shipping boxes,” she said. “These nurses pooled their own money, went to Amazon and bought the funeral boxes.”

The federal judge who’s hearing the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump dismissed the case on July 15, 2024.

Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that special counsel Jack Smith, who’s leading the prosecution, was improperly appointed to office and didn’t have the authority to bring the case to trial.

Here's how the federal government has used special prosecutors in high-profile investigations over time and the way Cannon's ruling, which Smith said, he’s appealingwould affect ongoing and future cases.

A transient history of independent legal advisers

Ensuring impartiality within the U.S. Department of Justice may be difficult since the attorney general is appointed by and accountable to a partisan president, giving presidents the facility to influence the attorney general to pursue a political agenda.

president Richard Nixon did so through the investigation of the Watergate break-inwhich threatened him with involvement in criminal activities and the top of his presidency.

On the evening of October 20, 1973Nixon ordered the Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fireplace Archibald Coxwhom Richardson had appointed to steer the Watergate investigation. Richardson refused and resigned.

Nixon then ordered the Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned. Finally, Nixon ordered the Solicitor General Robert Borkthe subsequent highest official within the Justice Department, demanded that Cox be fired. Bork complied.

This dramatic series of events, sometimes called Saturday Night Massacredemonstrated how presidents can exert political influence on federal criminal investigations.

After the Watergate scandal taken under consideration Bill to rework the Justice Department into an independent agency to higher protect it from presidential influence.

This would have been consistent with the unique intentions of lots of the Founding Fathers. But Congress opted for a more modest reform and passed the Ethics in Government Act of 1978which was enacted by President Jimmy Carter and created the Office of Independent Counsel.

This enabled investigations into misconduct, beyond the control of the President The Attorney General could appoint a special panel of three judges to appoint an independent lawyer to conduct the investigation.

The Government Ethics Act In addition, Justice Department employees, including the Attorney General, were barred from participating in any investigation or prosecution that might lead to “a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance of such” for the investigator.

The US Supreme Court has already supported legal counsel

Just a few years later, the Reagan administration argued that independent consultants were unconstitutional. Their reasoning was that the law violated the Appointment clause of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which states that “Officers of the United States” shall be “appointed by the President,” and “subject to the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

In 1988The Supreme Court ruled that independent legal advisors are constitutionalsince the Appointments Clause also states that “Congress may delegate the appointment of inferior officers to the President, the Courts, or the heads of departments alone.”

Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled that appointees could possibly be considered either “principals,” who should be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, or “inferior” appointees, who could possibly be appointed by a department head, akin to the Attorney General, or by judges.

The Supreme Court ruled that a “independent legal counsel should be considered as subordinate and not as primary responsible.”

Creation of special advisors

In 1999, the Ethics in Government Act – the one Sunset clause – needed to be renewed.

At that time, each parties and their presidents had been humiliated by previous investigations by independent lawyers. The Republicans were shocked by the Iran-Contra scandalwhile the Democrats were ashamed of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

It was also unclear which party would win the White House within the upcoming 2000 elections, and neither party wanted the opposite to have a bonus in the long run. During this stalemate, each parties decided to easily let the Government Ethics Act expirewhich might end the potential for appointing future independent advisers.

Later that yr, then-Attorney General Janet Reno said authorized the appointment of so-called special investigators who could investigate certain sensitive matters, much like the way in which independent investigators work.

Robert Mueller was a special counsel appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. 2017 to analyze possible Russian interference within the 2016 election and possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

John Durham was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr in 2020 to analyze the origins of the investigation that led to Mueller's appointment.

In 2022 Michael Smith was appointed special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee investigations into former President Donald Trump's role within the January 6 riot and Trump's handling of classified government documents after he left office in 2021.

In 2023, Garland appointed Robert Hur as special counsel to analyze President Joe Biden's handling of classified information after he left office as vice chairman in 2017.

Also in 2023, Garland appointed David Weiss as special counsel to analyze Hunter Biden's illegal gun purchases and tax-related issues.

Impact beyond Trump

In early July 2024, the Supreme Court governed that past, current and future presidents enjoy partial immunity from prosecution.

Although the legality of special counsel was not at issue on this case, Judge Clarence Thomas used his consensus to challenge the legality of Smith's appointment. Thomas argued that Congress had not passed a law giving the Attorney General the authority to appoint a special counsel.

Thomas noted that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 had “expired” and that Congress had not reauthorized the appointment of an independent counsel since then. Thomas subsequently questioned the authority of attorneys general to appoint special counsels.

In its 93-page decision Judge Cannon dismissed the case against Trump, repeating Thomas' argument.

Cannon asked whether there may be “a statute in the United States Criminal Code that would allow the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution?”

Then she answered her own query.

“After carefully examining this fundamental question, the answer is no,” she wrote.

Cannon's decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court, and if that happens, the end result could affect greater than just Trump's classified documents case.

According to Cannon’s ruling, all special prosecutors, including those investigating Joe and Hunter Bidenmay be deemed unconstitutional.

Editor's note: This story comprises material from a previous story published on December 14, 2022.