Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door for Jefferson to Challenge Evidence

[Wretched Excess]

Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door for Jefferson to Challenge Evidence

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a Justice Department appeal of a lower court ruling that the FBI raid of Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) office in the Rayburn House Office Building had violated the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.

linky

ruh, roh

[Wretched Excess]

more from elsewhere:

In something of a surprise, the U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear an appeal involving the FBI's unprecedented search of the Capitol Hill offices of Congressman William Jefferson.

A federal appeals court ruled that the FBI wrongly used its own agents look through the material seized to determine what might be covered by congressional privilege. This is a considerable victory for Jefferson, largely validating his objections to the search and giving him certain bragging rights. But prosecutors claim they have sufficient evidence independent of the search. The cash in his freezer, for example, was found well before Jefferson's offices were searched.

linky

so, it's just the evidence from the office that may be exculded . . .

[Lord Undies]

I read the court's denial of ruling and got the impression the court did not think it was appropriate to get involved while negotiation between the Department of Justice and the Legislative Branch were ongoing.  The court left the door open for a future settlement if needed.

This isn't as cut-n-dry as it appears.

[Wretched Excess]

I read the court's denial of ruling and got the impression the court did not think it was appropriate to get involved while negotiation between the Department of Justice and the Legislative Branch were ongoing.  The court left the door open for a future settlement if needed.

This isn't as cut-n-dry as it appears.

I am still reading details;  where did you find that?

[Lord Undies]

I read the court's denial of ruling and got the impression the court did not think it was appropriate to get involved while negotiation between the Department of Justice and the Legislative Branch were ongoing.  The court left the door open for a future settlement if needed.

This isn't as cut-n-dry as it appears.

I am still reading details;  where did you find that?

That was four hours and a hundred webpages ago.  I really don't remember where I read the ruling.  It has to be in a thousand places by now.

[Wretched Excess]

I read the court's denial of ruling and got the impression the court did not think it was appropriate to get involved while negotiation between the Department of Justice and the Legislative Branch were ongoing.  The court left the door open for a future settlement if needed.

This isn't as cut-n-dry as it appears.

I am still reading details;  where did you find that?

That was four hours and a hundred webpages ago.  I really don't remember where I read the ruling.  It has to be in a thousand places by now.

you obviously don't get panic stricken when there is an important element of an important story that you haven't found yet.   

[Lord Undies]

I read the court's denial of ruling and got the impression the court did not think it was appropriate to get involved while negotiation between the Department of Justice and the Legislative Branch were ongoing.  The court left the door open for a future settlement if needed.

This isn't as cut-n-dry as it appears.

I am still reading details;  where did you find that?

That was four hours and a hundred webpages ago.  I really don't remember where I read the ruling.  It has to be in a thousand places by now.

you obviously don't get panic stricken when there is an important element of an important story that you haven't found yet.   

I'm waiting to see if you got the same impression as I.  It is all in the wording.

[Wretched Excess]

I read the court's denial of ruling and got the impression the court did not think it was appropriate to get involved while negotiation between the Department of Justice and the Legislative Branch were ongoing.  The court left the door open for a future settlement if needed.

This isn't as cut-n-dry as it appears.

I am still reading details;  where did you find that?

That was four hours and a hundred webpages ago.  I really don't remember where I read the ruling.  It has to be in a thousand places by now.

you obviously don't get panic stricken when there is an important element of an important story that you haven't found yet.   

I'm waiting to see if you got the same impression as I.  It is all in the wording.

I haven't found that info anywhere else, thus my question      it leaves the door open to a challenge to some of the evidence seized in the FBI raid on his congressional office, but doesn't touch all of it.

I just think they need to move the trial up to, say, october.

Without comment, the justices declined to review a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which concluded last August that agents had violated the Constitution by the methods it used in the May 2006 search.

The appeals court did not find that the raid itself was unconstitutional; rather, it found that the F.B.I. violated constitutional separation of powers by allowing agents to look freely through Congressional files for incriminating evidence.

The ruling last August told the bureau to return legislative documents to Mr. Jefferson. It did not, however, affect other items seized from his office, including computer hard drives. Nor did it affect evidence seized in a separate raid on the Congressman’s Washington-area home, including $90,000 found wrapped in aluminum foil in frozen-food containers in his kitchen freezer.

The 18-hour search of Mr. Jefferson’s office on Capitol Hill marked the first time that the F.B.I. had searched a Congressional office, and it touched off a clash between the Bush administration and lawmakers of both parties. Mr. Jefferson has been indicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, conspiracy, money laundering and obstruction of justice. He has pleaded not guilty. The Justice Department said last August that the circuit court ruling would not affect the prosecution of Mr. Jefferson.

link

[Lord Undies]

A republican taps his foot under a restroom stall and there is a ROAR for his resignation.  A democrat gets caught with $90,000 in his freezer, is a redhanded known crook,  but we must what for the democrat's case to be settled before we jump to any conclusions about his integrity or his ability to serve in congress.

I love it!

[Wretched Excess]

A republican taps his foot under a restroom stall and there is a ROAR for his resignation.  A democrat gets caught with $90,000 in his freezer, is a redhanded known crook,  but we must what for the democrat's case to be settled before we jump to any conclusions about his integrity or his ability to serve in congress.

I love it!

it's unfortunate that a slimeball like jefferson is hiding behind something as revered as the speech and debate clause;  but that appears to be what is happening.

I wonder if the republicans can spin this into a campaign issue;  "return the control of congress to the republicans, and keep the white house in republican hands, or watch the democrats quietly shove this under the carpet".

[Lord Undies]

A republican taps his foot under a restroom stall and there is a ROAR for his resignation.  A democrat gets caught with $90,000 in his freezer, is a redhanded known crook,  but we must what for the democrat's case to be settled before we jump to any conclusions about his integrity or his ability to serve in congress.

I love it!

it's unfortunate that a slimeball like jefferson is hiding behind something as revered as the speech and debate clause;  but that appears to be what is happening.

I wonder if the republicans can spin this into a campaign issue;  "return the control of congress to the republicans, and keep the white house in republican hands, or watch the democrats quietly shove this under the carpet".

It would have to be broken down into something more simple, like....

"Do you have $90,000 in YOUR freezer?  Democrat Representative William Jefferson did, and he then tried to hide his corruption inside his office.  Do we need more corrupt democrats laughing at our laws?"