Lawmaker, cop spar over evidence

Video of a hearing shows U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston vowing “consequences” over the U.S. Capitol Police chief’s refusal to return equipment evidently belonging to her that his agency is holding as part of a criminal investigation into a staffer.

Wasserman Schultz, a former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, is one of eight members of the House Appropriations subcommittee that handles the budget for the legislative branch.

Wasserman Schultz grilled Capitol Police Chief Matthew R. Verderosa at a May 18 subcommittee hearing. Video of the exchange is on the YouTube channel of the Appropriation Committee’s Republican majority.

It’s coming to light a week later because it was dissected and disseminated Wednesday by the conservative Daily Caller website, which suggested the exchange between the congresswoman and the chief had broader implications. The story has been picked up and spread around the internet by numerous conservative websites.

“The Florida lawmaker used her position on the committee that sets the police force’s budget to press its chief to relinquish the piece of evidence,” the Daily Caller wrote.

Wasserman Schultz’s communications director, David Damron, said that wasn’t what was happening.

“The Congresswoman was asking the Capitol Police to follow their own equipment-return policy, and as we understand it, that is now happening. The consequences she referred to would be notifying the Sergeant-atArms that this policy was not being followed,” Damron said via email.

The public affairs office for the Capitol Police didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In South Florida, Wasserman Schultz was condemned by Tim Canova, who unsuccessfully challenged Wasserman Schultz in the 2016 Democratic congressional primary and has indicated he might run again in 2018.

“We demand that Wasserman Schultz recuse herself from the House Committee on Appropriations’ Legislative Branch Subcommittee on any matter dealing with the Capitol Police budget,” Canova wrote in a Facebook post. “Now she uses her position on this subcommittee to threaten the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police.”

Canova added that “as long as Wasserman Schultz is in public life, the Democratic Party will be dragged down.”

Earlier this year, Politico reported on an investigation of data breaches and equipment thefts from congressional offices. In February and again in March, Politico reported that one of the staffers under investigation, who had worked for several Democrats, had been terminated by some but was still employed by Wasserman Schultz’s office.

The May 18 exchange between Wasserman Schultz and Chief Matthew R. Verderosa was fraught. She questioned him about his relationship with his oversight board and said the agency needed to do a better job at planning and projecting its needs.

She also inquired about the morale of rank-and-file officers and pressed him on what’s being done to improve diversity at the agency. At one point, she said, “I don’t mean any disrespect. But it is hard to take your word for it. As you said, you’re in the leadership now. You’re not in the rank and file.”

Wasserman Schultz then turned the subject to what happens to equipment that’s lost and found by the Capitol Police.

Wasserman Schultz told Verderosa that her understanding was that if there’s equipment owned by a member of Congress that’s been “lost,” it is found by the Capitol Police, “and [if ] there is no ongoing case related to that member, then the equipment is supposed to be returned.”

Verderosa said that’s true “in a general sense.”

Wasserman Schultz demanded a yes-or-no answer about whether the equipment is supposed to be returned; the chief said it depends on the circumstances, and she said she didn’t understand how that was possible.

Wasserman Schultz: “Under my understanding the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate members’ equipment when the member is not under investigation. It is their equipment and it’s supposed to be returned.”

Verderosa: “I think there’s extenuating circumstances in this case, and I think that working through my counsel and the necessary personnel, if that in fact is the case, and with the permission of, through the investigation, then we’ll return the equipment. But until that’s accomplished I can’t return the equipment.”

Wasserman Schultz: “I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and should expect that there would be consequences.”