Former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik, while seeking a Clinton-campaign job for his son, tipped off the campaign about a new inquiry into the campaign. The Justice Department’s inspector general report highlights the impropriety of this episode.
Kadzik, from DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs, “improperly disclosed non-public information to the Clinton campaign and/or should have been recused from participating in certain matters,” according to the IG report published today.
Their inquiry stemmed from emails released by WikiLeaks in 2016 showing that Kadzik sent Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta a “heads up” message alerting him about a new FOIA filing “and proposed schedule for the release of the Clinton emails, and about a congressional oversight hearing, which could include questions about the Clinton emails.” That email to Podesta came mere weeks after Kadzik had reached out to the campaign to help his son secure a job with Clinton’s White House bid. According to the report, Kadzik did not know whether the information he passed along to Podesta was public at the time it was sent (though it was, in the form of a Politico report).
Kadzik, per the IG’s description, was “participating in senior staff meetings where Clinton-related matters were discussed and signing letters to Congress regarding Clinton-related matters on behalf of the Department.”
“There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails,” Kadzik sent Podesta on May 19, 2015. That came after Kadzik sent an email to Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon on April 23 inquiring about a job for his son. His son emailed Podesta his resume on May 5, though ultimately never took a job with the campaign.
After WikiLeaks published the emails between Kadzik and Podesta, Kadzik recused himself from Clinton-related matters on Nov. 2, 2016, six days before the election.
Laying out the facts behind Kadzik’s conduct, the IG report specifically analyzes whether he violated three regulations from the Standards of Ethical Conduct binding members of the executive branch. While the IG cleared Kadzik on multiple counts of potential violations, the report notes he “fail[ed] to strictly adhere to his recusal.”
First, the report tackles Kadzik’s efforts on behalf of his son.
“In April and May 2015, Kadzik, his wife, and son reached out to personal acquaintances in the Clinton campaign in an attempt to obtain a job for his son RS with the campaign,” the IG notes. “At the same time, Kadzik was participating in senior staff meetings where Clinton-related matters were discussed and signing letters to Congress regarding Clinton-related matters on behalf of the Department.” Because, as the IG states, “these circumstances would cause a reasonable person to question Kadzik’s impartiality in Clinton-related matters during the time [his son] was seeking employment with the Clinton campaign,” the report concludes Kadzik should have recused himself after reaching out to the campaign on behalf of his son or disclosed them to a departmental ethics officer.
“Although Kadzik did not commit an ethics violation by failing to recuse himself under Section 502(a)(2), we found that his failure to recognize the appearance of a conflict by participating in Clinton-related matters when he, his wife, and his son were trying to get his son a job with the Clinton campaign demonstrated poor judgment,” the report states. That Kadzik’s son was not a dependent or a member of his household at the time aided the official’s case, as his son’s employment would provide the elder Kadzik no financial benefit.
“Poor judgment” came up again in the IG’s conclusion as to whether Kadzik violated the terms of his recusal from Clinton-related matters, determining that “he exercised poor judgment when he failed to fully respect his post-November 2 recusal” because he continued to forward emails within the DOJ regarding Clinton-related matters without clearly identifying his recusal, which constitutes participation by their definition.
Kadzik’s “heads up” email to Podesta didn’t violate any rules, the IG declared, because the information in the message was public at the time Kadzik sent it. That conclusion is perfectly logical, though it’s worth noting Kadzik didn’t seem to know it was public. By virtue of the subject line “Heads up,” Kadzik seems pretty clearly to have been trying to tip off the campaign ahead of the information becoming public. His email also makes no reference to the Politico article, and the IG notes “Kadzik wrote in his Tuesday morning email that he did not know if the document had yet been filed and admitted the same … in November 2016.”
The WikiLeaks emails, by the way, show the extent of Kadzik’s personal relationship with Podesta. The two planned a dinner at Podesta’s home in mid-January 2016. Kadzik invited him to his birthday party the prior March. They were both on email invitations to other parties. Describing Kadzik in a 2008 email, Podesta wrote, “Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail.”
Analyzing Kadzik’s action through the prism of executive branch regulations is complicated. Here’s what is simpler: A top official who was actively involved in investigating Clinton-related matters had a friendship with her campaign chairman. He asked the campaign about a job for his son, then tipped them off to inside information he says he didn’t know was public at the time.
As if his relationship with Podesta alone weren’t enough, Kadzik was in friendly contact with the campaign, helped his son apply for a job, and then gave them a “heads up” related to relevant information. It’s a bad look for the DOJ, and a case study in the personal conflicts officials should avoid.
