Prosecutors said it is unsurprising that there are references to former Rep. Aaron Schock's sexuality in witness statements. | AP Photo Prosecutors deny probing Schock's sexuality

Prosecutors are denying claims that they improperly investigated former Rep. Aaron Schock's sexuality as they probed allegations that he used his office and campaign funds for personal purposes.

In a late-night court filing Friday, prosecutors rejected Schock's lawyers' arguments that such inquiries into the former lawmaker's personal life were part of a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct so outrageous that the criminal case against the Illinois Republican should be thrown out.


The prosecution team denied investigating Schock's sexuality, but said it did need to establish the nature of his relationship with a Panamanian diplomat because his travels with her appeared related to campaign expenses the government believed may have been unrelated to his campaign.

"We fully agree with Defendant Schock that his sexuality is completely irrelevant in this criminal matter," prosecutors Timothy Bass and Eugene Miller wrote in the filing in federal court in Urbana. "It was not of interest to the government, and the government did not inquire about it."

Prosecutors said it is unsurprising that there are references to Schock's sexuality in witness statements because the issue was the subject of gossip and rumor for years among his friends and staffers, even occasionally being mentioned in the media.

"Out of the approximately 116 witness interview reports during the investigation and since the indictment, only 4 contain any references to Defendant Schock’s sexuality, and those references were initiated by the witness, not by the government," Bass and Miller wrote. "Defendant Schock’s attempts to attribute misconduct on the part of the government based on an issue that he himself admits pre-dated the grand jury investigation is simply meritless."

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Schock was indicted on 24 felony counts last November stemming from an FBI investigation into his use of his House office expense allowance and campaign funds for personal gain. The indictment alleges Schock illegally pocketed tens of thousands of dollars in improper mileage reimbursements, camera equipment, and proceeds from selling tickets to the World Series and Super Bowl.

Schock resigned in March 2015, hours after a POLITICO report about tens of thousands of dollars in mileage reimbursements that appeared to be inflated. He has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges. His lawyers have attributed some of the transactions the government portrays as theft or fraud as nothing more than sloppy bookkeeping.

Prosecutors acknowledge that their investigation did explore Schock's relationship with Karla Gonzalez, a Panamanian diplomat and Harvard Law School graduate, because of travel they took together that was charged to Schock's government credit card and due to an episode where Schock allegedly accused a former staffer of accessing Gonzalez's social media accounts.

The prosecution says Schock falsely told the ex-staffer that the FBI and Capitol Police were investigating the matter, causing her to incur more than $10,000 in legal fees. Schock later used campaign funds to reimburse the ex-staffer, prosecutors contend.

"It was therefore incumbent upon government investigators to determine the nature of the relationship between the Congressman and the diplomat, whether the expenses were accurately reported, or whether the FEC and House travel reports contained false representations," Bass and Miller wrote. "At no time, however, did the government ask any of the more than 100 witnesses in this nearly 20-month investigation, inside or outside of the grand jury, about Defendant Schock’s 'sexuality' or who he 'slept with.'”

To justify its inquiries about Schock and Gonzalez, the prosecution repeatedly cites a recent, high-profile instance where investigators explored the romantic life of a prominent politician: the probe that led to the prosecution of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who is set to go on trial next week in Newark on corruption charges.

Gonzalez was not charged in the case. The court filing describes her as "a foreign diplomat with diplomatic immunity and was not associated with his Congressional or campaign office."

Indeed, no one other than Schock is named as a defendant. Prosecutors say they granted limited forms of immunity to various witnesses in exchange for their statements or testimony.

In the filing submitted just before midnight (CT) Friday, prosecutors also reject claims that they improperly coerced or harassed witnesses before the grand jury. While the government lawyers said the allegations were unfounded, they urged U.S. District Court Judge Colin Bruce to hold a hearing on the issue so that the court can hear testimony from a lawyer for a former political director for Schock, Karen Haney. Prosecutors say the lawyer will refute the defense's claims that she was improperly pressured or threatened by investigators.

Schock's trial is currently set to begin next January.