it is acceptable to the minority as well. I might at least point out that there appears to be some ambiguity in the existing law in terms of who may contribute how much to legal defense funds. So whatever ambiguity is in existing law, this would apply with equal ambiguity. Second, it seems to me we have to raise the issue, at least initially, as to whether or not such a provision could possibly be applied retroactively. In other words, there are ongoing cases in the Senate and the House, and also in the executive branch. If those individuals who are currently the subject of lawsuits are in the process of raising funds, we clearly have to state whether or not they should be allowed to do so, whether it is an ethical violation as opposed to a legal prohibition. That is something we will need to either clarify in report language or conference language, should we conclude a conference on this legislation.
On the recordMay 5, 1994
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing ambiguities in legal defense fund contributions and potential retroactive application of related provisions.
Share
More from William Cohen
Oct 7, 2023
Right now they've got to provide for the defense as best they can for the Israeli citizens who are now at risk and those who have been kidnapped and may be subject to torture and abuse.
Jul 26, 2022
Remember your oath of office. Do not allow the military to be used for political purposes. Your oath is to the Constitution and not to any one President.
Sep 20, 2023
The most important thing for us to remember is we will lose the support of our NATO allies and we'll lose any credibility in the Asia Pacific, the Indo-Pacific region.
Mar 10, 2022
It's clear that he can't conquer the hearts and minds, of the Ukrainian people.





