Nothing has been easy or simple about the investigations into the sexual harassment allegations against John Falcicchio, and Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s probe of potential criminal charges is no exception. Loose Lips hears that a messy turf war has broken out among the various entities to examine the scandal embroiling Mayor Muriel Bowser’s former right-hand man.
After more than a year of pursuing the matter, Schwalb is now starting to talk tough about obtaining documents from two of the entities that led investigations of Falcicchio, according to correspondence obtained by LL. The AG is pressing the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of the Inspector General to hand over the files they’ve compiled for their respective inquiries. And he’s threatening legal action if they refuse.
“Refusal to produce this information will not only impede [the Office of the Attorney General’s] ability to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation but will also necessitate the OAG pursuing alternative means to obtain this information through the legal process,” Schwalb wrote in a June 14 letter to the MOLC. He did not specify what information he is seeking about Falcicchio, who resigned suddenly as Bowser’s chief of staff and deputy mayor in March 2023 and has since attempted to reestablish himself as some sort of private consultant.
This tug-of-war over the Falcicchio files has been going since at least August 2023, when Schwalb’s lawyers sought access to the information that the MOLC collected, according to the correspondence. (That happens to be right around the same time LL first revealed Schwalb’s investigation of Falcicchio for possible misdemeanor sex offenses.) But Bowser’s attorneys have been rebuffing those efforts, citing concerns about the privacy government employees they interviewed. At one point Bowser’s attorneys said in emails that they’d only provide this information if they were subpoenaed.
Eugene Adams, the head of the MOLC, wrote in a June 17 letter that his office has backed off of that position and would be willing to provide some information, particularly if OAG could be more specific about what it’s looking for. Yet the conflict still has not been resolved, and Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau is preparing to hold a hearing Wednesday on the OIG’s investigation of the matter.
“Given the nature of the relationship between our offices and the occasionally overlapping responsibilities they share, I was surprised at the gratuitously formal and aggressive tone of the letter,” Adams wrote to the AG in June. “Specifically, your comment about the independence and integrity of our investigation, as well as a less than veiled threat to seek legal recourse if OAG doesn’t get what it wants, strikes me as less than collegial. Be that as it may, the MOLC has no intention of fighting about this and, instead, invites a modicum of cooperation—NOT because it is required—but because it facilitates this exchange and likely narrows the items OAG may seek.”
A spokesperson for Schwalb’s office declined to comment. The MOLC writes in a statement that, “notwithstanding recent exchanges with OAG about their claimed entitlement to any and all documents from the MOLC,” the agency has “already offered the documents/materials relevant” to the matter.
Although Schwalb’s investigation has been ongoing for some time now, the AG has based his latest requests for documents on a referral of possible criminal activity from the inspector general’s office. The OIG’s independent investigation of the whole sordid affair, run by the law firm Arnold and Porter, contains only a glancing reference to the matter, noting that one of the two government employees who accused Falcicchio of harassment described conduct that could be criminal in nature. The OIG sent a referral over to Schwalb for further investigation on May 16, according to documents LL obtained.
But Inspector General Daniel Lucas also noted in that May letter that the mayor’s attorneys maintain custody of much of this information, particularly the files compiled by the MOLC, which managed the first two internal probes of the accusations against Falcicchio. Both of those inquiries found that he likely harassed two women, both government employees. This did not sit well with Schwalb, however, who is also pressing OIG to hand over the “350,000 documents” collected by Arnold and Porter’s attorneys as part of their review.
“The OIG’s apparent departure from the standard protocol of sharing information between law enforcement agencies is inconsistent with its duties under relevant D.C. law,” Schwalb wrote in a June 14 letter to the OIG director. “It is perplexing … that the OIG, in making the criminal referral to OAG based on Arnold & Porter’s review of the MOLC investigation, would require OAG to seek information from the very entity that, given its role and relationship in the Executive Office of the Mayor, led the Council to require independent counsel in the first place.”
An OIG spokesperson declined to comment.
Adams, for his part, argues in his June letter that the MOLC “sent everything from the investigative file to Arnold & Porter.”
“I don’t understand” why the OIG doesn’t have the information Schwalb is looking for, Adams adds.
What’s more, Adams claims that Schwalb might already have much of the material the MOLC collected, because OAG investigators interviewed Falcicchio’s first two accusers last year. “Therefore, OAG likely already knows what was told to us by the complainants,” Vanessa Natale, the MOLC’s deputy director, wrote in an August 2023 email to Schwalb’s deputies, which Adams included in his response. “Moreover, OAG should ask the complainants for the documentary evidence shown to the Washington Post but not provided to our investigator, as well as the names of individuals that can support their allegations against Mr. Falcicchio.”
Natale also argued that handing over any other details about the witnesses they interviewed would “chill the participation of witnesses and complainants in the sexual harassment process” moving forward. Hence, why she asked for a subpoena; the AG’s office actually has very limited subpoena power, per the D.C. code, and can only demand documents within three days of any alleged offense.
“In this context, OAG has no subpoena authority, a remarkably limited criminal jurisdiction over any alleged charges or crimes—and the release of the requested documents/materials are constrained by applicable personnel regulations and/or Mayor’s Order, especially where OAG can conduct its own investigation into the alleged conduct underlying the criminal referral which OAG has known about since last summer,” MOLC writes in its response to LL’s inquiry.
Adams added in his letter earlier this month that “our hesitancy would be eased if there was a clearer idea of what OAG is looking at as actionable criminal conduct and what information/evidence might support that.”
LL would note, though, that the OIG report is clear that the second woman to make claims against Falcicchio wrote in her initial letter reporting his actions that she could claim “common law sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliation” under federal and local civil rights laws. It’s not exactly a mystery what Schwalb’s investigation might entail, and it probably isn’t too hard for Adams to imagine what information they’d like to see.
The mayor’s attorneys have insisted up and down that their investigation was impartial, that they thoroughly reviewed all the relevant facts and that they’ve tried to transparently communicate all this to the public. But time and again, the office sure seems to have fallen short of those goals.
The OIG report, in fact, laid out several ways in which the MOLC’s review fell short. LL might submit that a little humility and a little less defensiveness might be in order.