« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Prosecutors Worry Court Decision May Threaten Pol Wiretaps
Keep your fingers crossed, Ted. The AP is reporting that a recent decision in the Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) case could make it impossible to tap lawmakers' phones in corruption cases. That's good news for Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), since it was just reported that he was secretly recorded by the FBI while on the phone with former Veco CEO Bill Allen.
The decision, which one watchdog group worried would be a boon for corrupt politicians, dealt with the FBI's raid of Jefferson's Congressional office. The court found the raid unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the Speech or Debate Clause because agents thumbed through protected legislative documents.
And in an appeal of that decision last week, the Justice Department argued that the ruling "'threatens to complicate numerous ongoing and future investigations' and hinder the ability to use electronic surveillance."
The decision is already starting to affect federal investigations. The AP also reported that some members of Congress interpret the ruling as protecting staffers from speaking to the FBI.
Josh
Zachary
oh hell no.
The constitution only applies to congressmen?
September 21, 2007 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when did the FBI need a warrant to wiretap or bug anyone? Everyone should keep their cool until this democracy fad blows over.
September 21, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This scenario seems different than the Jefferson case in that whatever Jefferson kept in his office, he had an expectation of protection or confidentiality. Stevens, however, talked over the phone to someone, vitiating that expectation of protection or confidentiality. Don't say anything over the phone unless you are willing to make that public.
September 21, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The court found the raid [on Jefferson's office] unconstitutional...because agents thumbed through protected legislative documents."
This does not appear to be the case with Stevens. Keep looking, Ted.
September 21, 2007 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone believe that this Jefferson case is still being debated? How much cold cash did they find in his freezer? What was his original defense when they found the money? Someone help me here.
September 21, 2007 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Equality under law may negate expectation of special exemption.
September 21, 2007 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Equality under law may negate expectation of special exemption."
If we had equality of law, half of Washington would already be behind bars. Equality under the law only applies to democracies.... something we lost a few years back...
September 22, 2007 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lawmaker wiretaps may well threatened. When a partisan Justice Dept. "oversteps" it's bounds, the court should think twice before granting them permission to do anything. This is part of democracy's checks and balance. It's clear to most Americans that Jefferson was engaged in illegal activity. So why was it again that the Justice Dept. couldn't follow the law?
AF
September 22, 2007 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least in Alaska, you don't ned any court order to record a conversation when one the the party consents, as Bill Allen did.
We may finally get something we haven't had since Wally Hickel appointed Ted-For-Life to the hallowed Bob Bartlett's Senate seat when he died --- a REAL Alaskan in that slot.
There are a lot of Alaskans that won't miss him.
September 22, 2007 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I remember correctly from my Criminal Law classes, people do have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to their phone conversations. That is why the government needs (in theory at least) a warrant in order to start a wiretap.
However, even if it is not legal for the FBI to tap lawmakers phones, that is irrelevant if the wiretap was placed on VECO CEO Bill Allen's phone, and the conversation was caught in that manner. It seems that Sen. Stevens would have little defense were that the case.
September 22, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on several factors:
1. The locale. Was Stevens subjected to the wire while he was within Congressional purvue -- in which instance the cited Constitutional clause would appear to apply. In the Jefferson case, his DC Congressional office was raided. The Stevens wire likely occurred in Alaska, and not necessarily in his Congressional/campaign office -- to which that clause may not apply to begin with.
2. Ex post facto: and action made illlegal after the fact may not apply to that action before it was made illegal.
All in all, there's no story here unless and until we get more facts on those specific points.
September 24, 2007 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Stevens and his son Ben have been using the oil companys and the fish procesors as thir own personal cash machiens. I was a fisherman in Alaska untill our fishing quota of the catch was givin to the Japenese consortiums now they control the majority of alaskas fish. My last trip to the bering sea I made 6000 bucks in 7 months who makes the money now the Japs. We were sold out by these assholes
October 25, 2007 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Stevens and his son Ben have been using the oil companys and the fish procesors as thir own personal cash machiens. I was a fisherman in Alaska untill our fishing quota of the catch was givin to the Japenese consortiums now they control the majority of alaskas fish. My last trip to the bering sea I made 6000 bucks in 7 months who makes the money now the Japs. We were sold out by these assholes
October 25, 2007 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink