Hi Citoyen92 -- You are knowledgeable, so I have a question. I'm no expert on the Speech and Debate Clause; however, my impression was that it mainly protected statements made on the HOuse of Senate floors during Congressional debates. Does the protection also arguably extend to efforts to collect evidence/materials outside of the Capitol that would then be used in statements on the House/Senate floor? That would seem to be a significant extension, but perhaps it is possible. But if the clause doesn't cover such activities then Rep. Cooper might not be protected by the Speech and Debate Clause.

However, let me hasten to add that is NOT to imply that Rep. Cooper has necessarily done anything unlawful. I don't know, and I have no particular expertise in the legality of(allegedly) accessing information from websites without official "permission". I think that's a murky and evolving area. (That the FBI supposedly is investigating some action by Rep. Cooper, by itself, is not particularly relevant: the FBI investigates many things, and many of its investigations do not result in any criminal charges.)

Thanks. I'll quote "answers.com" - first, I like their analysis, and think it's overall pretty accurate:

In the American Constitution, the Speech and Debate Clause, which protects legislators from punitive executive or judicial action, reinforced the separation of powers among the government's three branches. Interpretation of this clause has centered on a definition of “legitimate legislative activity.” Such activity had been commonly held to extend beyond debate on the floor of the respective chambers to include views expressed in committee deliberations and reports and to encompass the act of voting as well. In Kilbourn v. Thompson (1881), the Supreme Court gave this clause its broadest interpretation, defining protected actions as “things generally done in a session of [Congress] by one of its members in relation to the business before it”

The article goes on rightly to say that there were several Supreme Court cases in the 70's that more deeply examined Speech/Debate. All of them are irrelevant to this set of fact - unless Cooper was dealing in classified info. If the info was classified, then a case involving Mike Gravel would become relevant - essentially a ruling that MoC's cannot take classified information and as an agent get the media to publish it.