Posted on 12/21/2007 1:07:39 PM PST by SmithL
(AP) -- WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to toss out a lower court ruling that says the FBI was wrong to raid Democratic Rep. William Jefferson's office, a decision the Bush administration argues will hinder corruption investigations of Congress.
In an appeal filed this week, government lawyers said that only the nation's highest court can decide whether the 18-hour raid was an unconstitutional breach of congressional authority or a proper tactic in a lengthy corruption inquiry.
"Only this court can resolve this important question," the Justice Department wrote in its 28-page appeal, filed Wednesday. "Until it does so, investigations of corruption in the nation's capital and elsewhere will be seriously and perhaps even fatally stymied."
Jefferson's attorney, Robert P. Trout, did not immediately returns messages seeking comment Friday.
The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process, and the FBI should have given Jefferson a chance to argue that some of the documents involved legislative business, according to the August ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The May 2006 raid was part of a 16-month international bribery investigation of Jefferson, a nine-term Democrat from New Orleans. He is accused of accepting $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman, $90,000 of which was later recovered in a freezer in the congressman's Washington home.
Jefferson pleaded not guilty in June to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa.
In its August ruling, the federal appeals court held that the raid itself was constitutional. But it ordered the Justice Department to return any legislative documents it seized from Jefferson's office on Capitol Hill....
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Yeah, a $100K in a freezer is related to congressional business.
Congress just wants a free pass to conduct felonies and store evidence in the confines of their office.
$10 says Jefferson walks AND gets to keep the $100 K.
Syllabus
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
408 U.S. 501
United States v. Brewster
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
No. 70-45 Argued: October 18, 1971 -— Decided: June 29, 1972
Appellee, a former United States Senator, was charged with the solicitation and acceptance of bribes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c)(1) and 201(g). The District Court, on appellee’s pretrial motion, dismissed the indictment on the ground that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution shielded him “from any prosecution for alleged bribery to perform a legislative act.” The United States filed a direct appeal to this Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (1964 ed., Supp. V), which appellee contends this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain because the District Court’s action was not “a decision or judgment setting aside, or dismissing” the indictment, but was instead a summary judgment on the merits based on the facts of the case.
Held:
1. This Court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (1964 ed., Supp. V) to hear the appeal, since the District Court’s order was based upon its determination of the constitutional invalidity of 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c)(1) and 201(g) on the facts as alleged in the indictment. Pp. 50507.
2. The prosecution of appellee is not prohibited by the Speech or Debate Clause. Although that provision protects Members of Congress from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for performance of such acts, United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 185, it does not protect all conduct relating to the legislative process. Since, in this case, prosecution of the bribery charges does not necessitate inquiry into legislative acts or motivation, the District Court erred in holding that the Speech or Debate Clause required dismissal of the indictment. Pp. 507-529.
Reversed and remanded.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which DOUGLAS J., joined, post, p. 529. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS and BRENNAN, JJ., joined, post, p. 551. [p502]
And they convicted Scooter Libby of a non crime....
Arrests them all and be done with it. Our founders believed in citizen government not in a career criminal class of leaders.
“Jefferson’s attorney, Robert P. Trout,”
This guy sounds fishy to me. I’ll bet he’s fallen for Jefferson’s lies hook, line, and sinker! I hope the SCOTUS rises to the bait, and puts Jefferson in the cooler. There are bigger fish to fry! Like Hilary!
Yuk, yuk, yuk.(rolls eyes)
I think they could use you on the Tonight Show in Hollywood right about now.:)
He took the money in order to do certain things in his capacity as a congressman, so I guess it would be congressional business.
Somebody needs to read their Constitution. It merely says that member are privileged from arrest while Congress is in session and when traveling to/from a session. It says nothing like "cannot investigate". There is another provision that says they cannot be questioned "in any other place" for things they *say* on the floor of Congress.
This is the shame our country has gotten to, the USSC has to answer whether a congressmen has the legal right to hide evidence in their offices and are granted unchallenged immunity if they do so?
Why is this criminal still in congress?
If he were a Republican he’d have been thrown out a year or so ago.
He is not the only criminal in congress.
Senator Kennedy killed Mary Jo, Democrat.
Nope. He pleaded guilty. So that part of the case is over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.