Appeals court expands lawmakers legal protection

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – An appeals court has ruled, in a case arising from the Abramoff scandal, that statements federal lawmakers make during congressional ethics investigations cannot be used against them in criminal probes.

The case involves former Florida Republican Rep. Tom Feeney and a golf trip he took to Scotland, paid for by now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The House Ethics Committee said in 2007 that the trip violated House rules and Feeney agreed to pay the U.S. Treasury $5,643, the purported cost of the trip.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington revealed in an opinion unsealed Thursday that the Justice Department subsequently began an investigation into statements Feeney made to the committee. The opinion, which did not name Feeney but described elements of his case, concluded that statements to the ethics committee are excluded from criminal investigations by the Constitution.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_go_co/us_congressman_ethics;_ylt=Anr_YVIq0b56mo._SLa1wxWyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJtNGNoZmtwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNzEwL3VzX2NvbmdyZXNzbWFuX2V0aGljcwRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDYXBwZWFsc2NvdXJ0

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[atreides1]

2. If this keeps up

A member of Congress will be able to eat a live baby, and as long as the investigation is conducted by the "Ethics" committee it can't be used to prosecute them.

Judges protect the politicians, and the politicians protect the judges.

[earcandle]

3. That is really dumb. Hypocritical. Unethical.

[sabra]

4. D.C. Court: DOJ Can’t Subpoena Congressional Probes

Source: WSJ

Should the Executive branch of government be able to peer into the housekeeping of the Legislative branch? That question is now under debate at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, though it’s looking like the Executive branch will get shot down.

The court is considering whether federal prosecutors investigating politicians should be able to obtain testimony and documents those politicians provide to their own congressional ethics committees. BLT has the story.

Here’s what happened, according to the D.C. court’s opinion, unsealed yesterday: The Ethics Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives opened an investigation into whether a certain congressman — previously identified by WaPo as ex-Florida Rep. Tom Feeney (pictured), who was part of the government’s investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff — violated House Rules by accepting private funding for a trip. The congressman maintained the trip was primarily for the purpose of legislative fact-finding.

After the House committee had closed the matter, prosecutors began an investigation into certain statements the congressman made in his responses to the committee. They served grand jury subpoenas on lawyers who repped the congressman before the committee. The congressman moved to quash the subpoenas on the ground, among others, that they called for testimony and documents protected by Article I, Section 6, the Speech or Debate Clause, of the Constitution. That happens to be clause that says of senators and representatives that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel heard arguments in January in a rare closed-door hearing. In the opinion unsealed yesterday, the court unanimously reversed a trial court ruling that the congressman must turn over documents and other testimony to prosecutors via a grand jury subpoena. The trial court had ruled for the Justice Department in May 2008 but did not release an opinion. (A lawyer for Feeney, a Republican who was defeated in the November 2008 elections, previously declined to comment to WaPo and BLT.)


Read more: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/10/dc-court-doj-cant-subpoena-congressional-probes/