Supreme Court Takes a Dive on Jefferson Lawsuit
By Tom Fitton
The U.S. Supreme Court handed congressional crooks a gift last week when it refused to hear a case involving an FBI search of Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson's congressional office. Thanks to this ruling, members of Congress will continue to have a 'law enforcement free zone' in which to conduct corrupt and criminal activity – their taxpayer-funded congressional offices.
According to the March 31st edition of The Wall Street Journal:
'The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a dispute between the Justice Department and Congress over the 2006 criminal raid of Rep. William Jefferson's Capitol Hill office'Last August, a Washington-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a court order barring prosecutors from using evidence gathered in the office raid. When the government asked the D.C. Circuit to reconsider the stay, it voted 5-4 to leave the restrictions in place.'
In a one-line order, without comment, the Supreme Court ruled that it would not hear the case.
For those who need a reminder, here's a bit of the back story. Jefferson was nabbed in a sting operation accepting a $100,000 bribe from an FBI informant to broker business deals in Africa. (You may recall that during the conversation with the informant, who was wired, Jefferson famously remarked, 'All these notes we're writing to each other, as if the FBI is watching.') Well, the FBI was watching (and listening), and during a subsequent search of Jefferson's home, investigators found $90,000 in cash stuffed in the congressman's freezer.
The FBI then obtained a search warrant and took its investigation to Jefferson's Capitol Hill office collecting thousands of pages of documents and computer files. That's when the trouble started. Leaders of Congress from both parties complained that the search somehow violated the separation of powers. The District Court rightly rejected this argument. However, the Court of Appeals did not, ruling that the evidence collected was inadmissible.
Why?: ''The U.S. court of appeals'agreed with Jefferson's lawyers that the so-called speech and debate clause barred FBI agents from poring over papers and files in a congressional office. The judges reasoned that some of the papers may contain politically sensitive material.'
As you may recall, Judicial Watch filed an amicus brief in this lawsuit. Here's what we had to say on the Speech or Debate clause argument:
'In order for Congressman Jefferson to enjoy the protection afforded by the Speech or Debate clause, it is incumbent upon him to demonstrate'that his actions were legislative activities'All of the actions allegedly taken by Congressman Jefferson were allegedly for the sole purpose of using his status as a U.S. Congressman to solidify a business venture in which he stood to make millions of dollars'Such actions are anything but official'they are clearly not legislative.
In other words, the Speech or Debate Clause was not intended to allow members of Congress to conceal corrupt and criminal activity. Taking a bribe is not part of the legitimate legislative process. The Supreme Court erred in not hearing this case and overturning the erroneous appellate court decision.
Now the Justice Department is trying to negotiate an agreement with congressional leaders on the terms and procedures to obtain evidence for criminal inquiries from congressional offices. But Congress has the upper hand, along with the crooks in its midst who now have 'sanctuary' from the rule of law.
Hillary Clinton FBI File Scandal Reemerges
Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued a ruling last Monday in Judicial Watch's lawsuit involving Hillary Clinton's scheme to illegally obtain the private FBI files of prominent Republicans during the Clinton administration. While refusing to force Hillary to testify in the lawsuit at this time, Judge Lamberth left the door open for Judicial Watch attorneys to revisit the issue at a later date. The court seems to have reset the clock on this important litigation, which has been on hold for several years awaiting court action.
Here, in a nutshell, is what scandal is all about (as described in our litigation): In the 1990s the Clinton White House, the FBI, Hillary Clinton and others violated the privacy rights of members of the Reagan and first Bush administrations by wrongly accessing their FBI files, among others. Over 900 of these sensitive files were illegally gathered by the Clinton's Office of Personnel Security (OPS), which was run by the Clinton White House counsel's office. (We think Hillary Clinton masterminded the whole scheme, running the White House Counsel's office and directing the hiring of former bar bouncer Craig Livingstone to run OPS and preside over the theft of the files.)
While the lawsuit is still working itself through the courts, Judicial Watch has already earned some significant victories throughout the course of its 'Filegate' investigation and litigation. For example:
· As a direct result of our lawsuit, for the first time in U.S. history a President of the United States was found by a judge to have committed a crime. The court held that Bill Clinton criminally violated Kathleen Willey's privacy rights by releasing her confidential government files to the media in order to smear her reputation when she was making sexual harassment allegations against him.
· Through its Filegate investigation, Judicial Watch uncovered another obstruction of justice scandal by the Clinton administration, when Judicial Watch discovered that the Clinton-Gore White House illegally concealed e-mails from Congress, various independent counsels and Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch's discovery resulted in a six-month evidentiary hearing where top Clinton White House officials were deposed. In addition, our efforts led to investigations by Congress and the Office of Independent Counsel. Unfortunately, the court recently ruled this week that there was no evidence of a conspiracy or obstruction of justice. We respectfully disagree. But, in the same ruling, the court described as 'loathsome' the actions of two top Clinton White House officials. One of the two officials singled out by the judge for their loathsome actions is Cheryl Mills, who is, as best as I can tell, general counsel for Hillary's presidential campaign and is on the board of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Foundation.
· In a separate but related the lawsuit, rather than face Judicial Watch lawyers in court, the FBI and the Department of Justice offered a settlement to Judicial Watch client and former FBI Special Agent M. Dennis Sculimbrene. Sculimbrene exposed key facts related Hillary Clinton's role in the Filegate scandal. He was then subjected to retaliation, including an illegal FBI background check, the removal of his White House pass, and forced retirement.
As I've said time and time again, with the Clintons, past is prologue. That is one reason why Judicial Watch is so aggressive in pursuing our investigations and lawsuits related to the Clinton scandals.
I'll be sure to keep you updated on the status of the Filegate litigation.
Senate Showdown over Democrats' Obstruction of Bush Judicial Appointments
Republicans finally appear to be showing some backbone in pressing for President Bush's judicial nominees to receive up-or-down votes. Senator Arlen Specter has said he is prepared to 'shut the Senate down' until progress is made. The question is: Is it too little, too late?
This according to The Wall Street Journal:
'It's not every day that a Member of the world's greatest deliberative body stops by to chat about his plans 'to close the Senate down.' Especially if his name is Arlen Specter. But the Pennsylvania Republican tells us he's concluded that this is the only way to prod Democrats to vote on, or even hold confirmation hearings on, President Bush's appeals-court nominees'
''Mr. Specter says he has recommended that Republicans 'go full steam ahead' until Democrats agree to hold confirmation votes. He has in mind a series of procedural stalls that would make it next to impossible for the Senate to get anything done. These could include refusing to accept the usual unanimous consent motion to have the previous day's deliberations entered into the official record without a formal reading, a process that would take hours. So would reading the text of many bills, which can run to hundreds of pages.'
Specter certainly has reason to gripe. Just look at the numbers. As the Journal points out, when Specter was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Republican controlled Senate confirmed 15 of Bill Clinton's appellate court nominees. Leahy has confirmed six with no plans to move forward on the other 11 nominations, some of which involve positions that have been deemed 'judicial emergencies.'
Of course, the numbers do not tell the whole sordid story. Leahy and other liberals in the Senate have played politics with the judicial confirmation process ever since President Bush took office. They even resorted to unconstitutional filibusters of judicial nominations during President Bush's first term. Senate Republicans have repeatedly backed down (see Senator John McCain's 'Gang of 14') and the Democrats and their liberal special interest allies continue to have the upper hand.
That's why it is a little hard to trust that Republicans will stay united and do what is necessary to force up-or-down votes on these nominees, as the Constitution requires. Liberals are content to stall the confirmation process through the elections. The clock is ticking.
Tom Fitton is President of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation that fights government corruption. Visit www.judicialwatch.org for more information on Judicial Watch's legal campaigns and programs.