A document obtained by POLITICO shows that Ernst took statements at the scene. Ernst's role in sex assault case questioned

In recent days, Iowa Senate hopeful Joni Ernst has pitched herself as a leader-in-waiting on the hot-button issue of sexual assault in the military, telling Time that she experienced harassment firsthand while serving and calling for investigations into sexual misconduct to be removed from the chain of command.

But Ernst’s familiarity with the issue goes beyond that: A decade ago, when she was serving in the National Guard in Kuwait, a soldier under her command was accused of rape in a case that military investigators later deemed unfounded. And her role in the case is coming under scrutiny as the Republican state lawmaker is locked in an election that could tip the balance of power in the Senate.


Ernst told the accuser in 2012 that she had nothing to do with the probe by the Criminal Investigation Command, or CID. “I was not involved with the investigation — period,” she wrote in an email to the woman. But a document obtained by POLITICO shows that Ernst took statements at the scene and provided them to CID investigators.

( Driving the Day: Florida gubernatorial primary recap)

Ernst’s campaign would not make the candidate available for an interview, but representatives denied any discrepancy. They acknowledged that Ernst collected statements from occupants of the accused man’s tent and gave them to investigators, but said she had no bearing on the investigation. While the statements Ernst took may have been used to check the consistency of witness accounts, the campaign representatives said, the CID conducted an independent probe and concluded on its own that the rape allegation was unfounded.

The sequence of events, documents show, unfolded like this: A man under the command of Ernst, who was a National Guard captain in Kuwait, was accused on New Year’s Day 2004 of raping a female servicemember from another unit. Ernst requested statements from the occupants of the accused man’s tent and delivered them to the CID investigating officer, according to an investigative report.

The investigating officer “coordinated with CPT ERNST. [The officer] learned that CPT ERNST had identified all occupants of [the accused solider’s] tent and requested they all provide her with a statement documenting their knowledge of the events of 1 Jan 04. CPT ERNST provided these statements to” the investigating officer, investigators wrote in a report.

( Also on POLITICO: Military hardware for college cops)

In parenthesis, the report then says, “see statements for details.” Additional military documents on the case were not immediately available.

The campaign referred a reporter to retired Maj. Gen. Mike Nardotti to speak about the case. Nardotti was not involved in the investigation at the time, but he reviewed documents and said Ernst acted appropriately. Nardotti, who has supported congressional candidates in both parties over the past 15 years, said he has no affiliation with the campaign. He previously served as the army’s judge advocate general.

( Also on POLITICO: The incredible shrinking defense industry)

“No matter what the local command does, it has no effect on CID,” said Nardotti, now a partner at lobbying giant Patton Boggs. “The fact that she told them to basically prepare statements, that’s fine,” he said, referring to the statements that Ernst collected from subordinates after the accusation was first made. Nardotti noted that the case ultimately was dismissed, though the accused man was punished for drinking alcohol.

The accuser, whom POLITICO interviewed in May, was discharged “under honorable conditions” from the military a month after she alleged the rape occurred, according to a certificate of discharge. The reason cited was misconduct. There was no direct explanation in the documents for that apparent contradiction.

CID determined initially that she made false official statements and then swore to them, according to Army correspondence. In 2011, CID conducted a “thorough review” of its earlier investigation and determined the false swearing offense was unfounded, the correspondence shows. The finding that she made false official statements was not changed at that time.

The accuser has been seeking to draw attention to Ernst’s involvement in the rape investigation. In 2012, she emailed Ernst to ask about the case. Replying from her official state Senate account, Ernst wrote: “CID at Camp Arifjan handled this investigation. I was not involved with the investigation — period. Any sworn statements were taken by CID; I was not involved. The Article 15 is non-judicial punishment as you are aware, and was given for consumption of alcohol in violation of General Order 1a.”

Susan Burke, an attorney who has represented victims in military sexual assault cases, including Ernst’s accuser, reviewed documents concerning the case at the request of POLITICO and disagreed with Ernst’s characterization of her role. “The CID report shows beyond dispute that she is involved with the investigation,” said Burke, a Democrat. Burke appeared at a news conference in March 2013 with Ernst’s opponent, Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), concerning a case of alleged sexual assault in the military.

Ernst is running against Braley in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country. National Democrats have privately urged reporters to look into the sequence of events in 2004 as Braley’s lead has evaporated. His campaign declined to comment for this story.

In a story published earlier this month, Ernst told The Des Moines Register that had the charges against the man under her command been founded, they “would have gone to a higher level.”

The accuser has tried to reverse the sexual assault investigation’s conclusion since leaving the military. Email correspondence between her and a military official show that some evidence used in the sexual assault investigation was destroyed 10 years ago.

She also has notified several congressional offices about her circumstances, and a House member has “performed military-related casework for her,” according to an aide to her congressional representative.

Elizabeth Hillman, who served on an independent panel that reviewed the military’s policies on sexual assault, said after reviewing documents relating to the case that it is “important that we understand the past before we can move ahead” on improving military sexual assault investigations.

“Then-Captain Ernst’s role in one such incident seems worth understanding better, particularly since it seems to involve so many elements common to other troubling military sexual assault cases: the use of alcohol, dispute over consent, and a possibly career-ending report of sexual assault by another soldier,” said Hillman, a professor and academic dean at University of California Hastings College of the Law.

Hillman and Burke both support Ernst’s stance on removing the chain of command from sexual assault investigations. Nardotti “strongly” disagrees with separating investigations from the chain of command.

Austin Wright contributed to this report.

Update: Burke wrote in an email late Monday night that she checked her files and found that she had once represented the accuser in this case. Burke said she reviewed the records and it was “very clear from timeline of events/timeline on statements that the statements Ernst took were used by CID and kept in the CID investigative file.”