Posted on 05/28/2008 7:25:56 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
A federal judge has refused to dismiss bribery charges against Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).
Jefferson is accused of orchestrating a complicated, and multi-layered scheme to receive bribes from companies seeking business in Western Africa. Proving bribery against a lawmaker is difficult because prosecutors must show that the defendant provided an “official act” such as a voting a certain way or sponsoring legislation in return for money or items he received. His lawyers argued that Jefferson didn’t do anything in his capacity as a congressman that could be considered a bribe.
U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III turned that legal theory on its head in his denial of the motion to dismiss, filed late last week. He ruled that bribery charges could be brought even if the activity in question doesn’t appear to fit into “responsibilities assigned by law.”
He said it is up to the jury to decide whether Jefferson’s promotion or advocacy of certain business projects to the politicians in the African countries and the travel associated with that are related to his duties as a congressman.
In his denial, Judge Ellis declared that the question of whether or not the government is able to prove its bribery case “is a question properly addressed at trial, not on a motion to dismiss an indictment.”
Jefferson’s trial has been postponed indefinitely while an appeals court considers his legal team’s appeal of an earlier ruling on a different pre-trial motion. In that motion, hi s lawyers argued that prosecutors obtained the indictment by unconstitutionally infringing on his privileges as a congressman.
Ah. Thanks for the post. I was wondering what was going on with this case.
I am sure this would be a slam dunk for the Supremes’.
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]
All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.
And the media seems to pretend that the ex-White House presstitute with a book to sell is a bigger scandal than this creep from Louisiana who went to retreive his moola during the Katrina aftermath while people were stranded.
What am I missing? Sounds like he's off the hook.
He’s moving on up.
But somehow the MSM stuck “culture of corruption” on the GOP.
not no, HELL NO!
Sure looks like a white boy in that rockpile to me!
Unfortunate turn of events for Obama/Osama whatever his name is.
We can only hope that the trial of William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana will be played out during the August - October time frame and that Republicans will spin it the way Dimocratz love to spin the news about a Republican being roasted over an open pit fire.
Is that a pic of Alcee Hastings, impeached judge (accepting bribes) but current representative from the fine state of Florida?
I actually do know who it is.
Stalling tactics. Jefferson is eventually going t oprison.
Didn’t Jefferson’s lawyers try to get a change of venue to move the trial to Washington D.C. so a black jury could cut him loose? Is that motion still up in the air?
Will they let him out whenever he's needed in Congress for a vote?
A felony conviction will disqualify him from holding office.
A felony conviction will disqualify him from holding office.
Only if he is a Republican!!!!
There’s plenty of room for him there, they’re striving for diversity.
Personally, I don't understand all the manufactured hoopla about the McClellan story now, it is redux from last year and even the publisher who "tweaked" the book admitted then that McClellan believed Bush didn't lie:
Nov 2007 - Publisher: McClellan doesn't believe Bush lied-(The FACTS Finally Come Out)
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.