BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Dem, GOPer Agree: Law Says Don't Prosecute Me, Bro
Email
Print
ShareMarch 28, 2008 11:42 AM
Even in the heat of a bitter election season, there appears to be growing comity between red and blue lawmakers these days. At least among those indicted on federal charges.
Arizona Rep. Rick Renzi, a Republican, is fighting 35 felony counts including fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. In a new filing, his lawyers now say his activities are insulated from Justice Department scrutiny by the U.S. Constitution.
That argument echoes one being made -– against all odds, some say -– by Rep. Bill Jefferson, D-La., who is fighting federal charges that he took bribes in exchange for official acts.
Jefferson's legal team is trying to get most of the case against its client dismissed by citing what's known as the "speech and debate" clause -– an item in the Constitution which protects lawmakers and their staff from legal action if it relates to their official duties. (The judge in the case has called their argument "wildly far-fetched and simply not plausible.")
In their filing, Renzi's lawyers indicated they will raise the speech and debate clause, also.
Who says there's no bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill?
March 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (10)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Bunch of greedy lawyers trying to work the system. I sadly am not surprised. Seems like a public caning and jail time is in order for these crooks.
Posted by: RonPaulSupporter | Mar 28, 2008 1:00:56 PM
We "civilians" go to jail. They the priviledged do NOT. Tyranny anyone?
Posted by: cba | Mar 28, 2008 1:02:29 PM
For seven years the Bush administration has held itself above the law, repeatedly acting in defiance of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and various laws of our land. Why wouldn't congressmen try to do the same thing. It's worked for Bush.
Posted by: JR | Mar 28, 2008 1:07:30 PM
Without seeing the legal arguments, how can people judge them? duh.
Posted by: tony | Mar 28, 2008 2:19:13 PM
Kick the lying cheaters out and lock them up!
Posted by: Dave | Mar 28, 2008 2:36:05 PM
JR,
duh, if the government continues its conspiracy of silence, refusing to release documents, destroying computer hard-drives and e-mails, claiming privilege, the facts are beyond the reach of justice. Legal arguments cannot be refuted based upon unavailable evidence.
That my friend is the reason we have a Constitution and laws that require production of such evidence. So we are all treated equally under a transparent system of law.
Duh.
Posted by: Gwendolyn J. Shotwell | Mar 29, 2008 4:35:25 PM
The CROOKED Greedy scum bag politicians ARE NOT protected by the "speech and debate' clause in the Constitution. These committed CRIMES that have NOTHING are not related to their official duties.They used their position in government to ILLEGALLY enrich themselves..Typical ARROGANT, CRIMINAL politicians. Give them the MAXIMUM sentences.They're SLEAZY SCUM ..
Posted by: Tim | Mar 30, 2008 7:53:16 AM
Guilty before PROVEN innocent:
Tyranny anyone?
Posted by: E | Apr 1, 2008 1:02:49 AM
E posted the "guilty before proven innocent"...but Jefferson was proven innocent. Not in a court of law, but with videotape of him taking the bribe, and withthe FBI finding 90k of the 100k bribe wrapped in saran wrap in his freezer. Besides, innocent until proven guilty is only the rule for the government. We're perfectly capable of presuming crooks to be crooked no matter how slick their lawyers may be. (OJ Simpson, or Bill Campbell, anyone?)
Not to mention all the other things politicians get away with scot-free.
Hillary swearing under oath the rose billing records didn't exist, and two days after the statute of limitations expired, they showed up in her office.
Perjury anyone? Well, having a Clinton guilty of perjury being president would hardly be new.
Posted by: Matthew | Apr 17, 2008 2:53:00 PM
The Dept of Justice engages in "selective" prosecution and acts of "nolle prosequi" as it suits the inner circle elite.
US Attorney Tom O'Brien shut down the Public Corruption Unit after we provided proof of Ethics violations by US Attorney Colm F Connolly in Delaware.
Mukasey and O'Brien state that the disbanding of the unit was to make the Dept of Justice more efficient.
AT WHAT???
Stand up and fight for your American way of Life
or
LET IT GO!
Posted by: Laser Haas | Apr 25, 2008 3:01:55 AM
Post a comment
