The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports that a sister of Rep. William Jefferson is facing imminent indictment:

U.S. Attorney Jim Letten is expected to announce this afternoon that 4th District Assessor Betty Jefferson, an elder sister of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, has been indicted on fraud-related charges by a federal grand jury. At least one other sibling, the previously indicted Mose Jefferson, is also expected to face additional charges, sources close to the case said.

Letten has scheduled a news conference for 2 p.m. He declined to comment.
Sources close to the investigation say the charges are the culmination of a probe into charities run by members of the Jefferson family and their allies. In a rare move, the FBI announced it was investigating the nonprofits after a 2006 Times-Picayune story revealed apparent self-dealing at them.

Jefferson is still fighting his own federal corruption charges.

A federal judge has rejected Rep. William Jefferson's latest effort to have the case against him dismissed:

But U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III said that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that bribery charges can be brought even if the acts don't fit into the "responsibilities explicitly assigned by law."

He said it will be up to a jury to determine whether the actions alleged by the government relate to the performance of official duties or "settled customary duty or practice" and relates to a government decision or action."

"Whether or not the government is able to prove each of these elements ... is a question properly addressed at trial, not on a motion to dismiss an indictment," Judge Ellis wrote.

Jefferson's trial has been delayed indefinitely while the Louisiana Democrat appeals other pre-trial motions.

From Roll Call (sub. req.):

The House of Representatives and the Justice Department are in negotiations over new protocols and procedures for law enforcement searches of Congressional offices — talks that began in the wake of the controversial May 2006 raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) Capitol Hill office.

An appeals court has ruled that raid was unconstitutional and the Supreme Court on Monday refused a Justice Department request to reconsider that ruling.

According to House General Counsel Irv Nathan, discussions between the House and DOJ are in “preliminary” stages, but “we have put forward concrete proposals.” Nathan said the goal of the discussions — led by his office and by Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher — is to produce “either a set of procedures, a memorandum of understanding or perhaps legislation, that would make clear the rules for law enforcement actions in Congressional offices.” Nathan would not set a timetable for the talks, but said he hoped a resolution could be reached this year.

Roll Call reports (sub. req.) that the court has rebuffed the Justice Department's request for an appeal of last summer's decision.

That decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals in Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) case found that Constitutional protections meant that the feds could only search a Congressional office if the lawmaker was consulted. The lawmaker would also have the right to review materials. So instead of the feds raiding an office and taking material relevant to the investigation, the court suggested that FBI agents could lock down the office, and then allow the lawmaker to set aside Constitutionally protected documents. A judge would decide whether the records could be taken.

Because of the apparent strength of the feds' case against Jefferson, the decision is not likely to strike much of a blow there. But prosecutors and watchdogs were dismayed with a ruling that was a definite blow to public corruption prosecutions in general. As CREW's Melanie Sloan put it, "If I were Ted Stevens, and I had some evidence of wrongdoing, I'd be putting it in my Congressional office, because the court basically just issued a blanket cover against searches.... It's such a help to any corrupt members of Congress, since it offers so much more protection than was previously offered."

The Justice Department had argued in its request for an appeal that the decision "'threatens to complicate numerous ongoing and future investigations' and hinder the ability to use electronic surveillance" as a means of investigating lawmakers.

Rep. Rick Renzi's (R-AZ) lawyers have already signaled that the decision will play a role in their defense. And you can be sure that it will play a role in every prosecution of a lawmaker from here on out. Does the decision mean that prosecutors can't use wiretaps against lawmakers? Does it mean that the feds can't speak to legislative aides?

Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) case seems on track to be the most litigated criminal case in Congressional corruption history, it seems. From The Times-Picayune:

A federal judge Wednesday refused to dismiss bribery charges against Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, rejecting arguments that grand jury testimony had improperly involved "speech and debate" issues protected by the Consitution.

The decision could delay the scheduled Feb. 25 start of the trial if Jefferson chooses to appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A ruling there also could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

From The Hill:

The Department of Justice has subpoenaed six current and former House aides to testify in next month’s trial of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who faces a wide array of public corruption and bribery charges, according to a knowledgeable source.

From The Washington Post:

Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) testified yesterday that an FBI agent cursed at him and told him that "this is going to be the worst day of your life," just before agents searched his Louisiana home as part of the investigation that led to corruption charges against him.

At one point during the tense interview at his house in August 2005, Jefferson said, an FBI agent followed him to the bathroom. "I told him, 'Are you going to the bathroom with me?' " Jefferson said in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. "He said, 'Yes.' "

Minutes later, another agent informed Jefferson that $100,000 he had accepted from a government informant -- allegedly used to bribe the vice president of Nigeria -- had been supplied by the FBI. Leaning forward, the agent yelled, "Where is my [expletive] money?" Jefferson testified.

(The Hill helpfully fills in the expletive.) Jefferson didn't reply, "in the freezer." Instead, he says, he refused to answer any more questions at that point.

From Roll Call (sub. req.):

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis on Friday morning delayed for six weeks the beginning of Rep. William Jefferson’s corruption trial, rejecting a request from the Louisiana Democrat’s lawyers to push the start date back four to six months.

The trial is now scheduled to begin Feb. 25.

So nearly two and a half years after the feds found $90,000 in Jefferson's freezer (he'd accepted a briefcase full of $100,000 in cash from an FBI informant in a hotel parking lot), he'll finally get his day in court. We're looking forward to it.

In a motion filed this week, Rep. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D-LA) wants the bulk of his bribery charges thrown out, saying it was unconstitutional for the FBI to speak with his aides about legislative matters, the Crypt reports.

In August, a DC Circuit court called the FBI's raid of his Congressional office a violation of the Speech and Debate Clause. The day should have sparked a celebration for corrupt politicians, one watchdog said at the time.

No doubt Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) lawyers are watching this case closely, since news broke that the FBI listened in on phone calls between the senator and Veco CEO Bill Allen. Some legal experts say the earlier Jefferson decision might be interpreted to mean it is illegal to tap Congressional phones. Stay tuned.

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.

From The AP:

Rep. William Jefferson accused the Justice Department of bringing corruption charges against him in Virginia to reduce the chance of drawing black jurors.

Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat who has been charged in an international bribery case, made the argument Friday in federal court documents seeking to move the case to Washington.

"The court has an obligation to ensure that the forum selection in this case was not tainted by racially discriminatory motive," Jefferson's attorney, Robert P. Trout wrote.

Well, here's a clear verdict on this morning's appeals court opinion on the FBI's raid of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). It's a great day for corrupt lawmakers, says Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW filed an amicus brief in the case arguing for the search's constitutionality.

It's a "devastating opinion," Sloan says. "If I were Ted Stevens, and I had some evidence of wrongdoing, I'd be putting it in my Congressional office, because the court basically just issued a blanket cover against searches.... It's such a help to any corrupt members of Congress, since it offers so much more protection than was previously offered."

In a previous circuit opinion ruling against Jefferson, a judge had called this sort of protection "a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime."

"I cannot believe that the Justice Department won't appeal this to the Supreme Court," Sloan said. "It's a very expansive readings of the Speech or Debate Clause [of the Constitution]."

The opinion said that FBI agents were wrong to have taken privileged (i.e. legislative) documents, the ones protected by the Speech or Debate Clause, from Jefferson's office. But by saying that, the court effectively prohibits the FBI from entering a Congressional office without the say-so of the lawmaker. Doing that creates a "fox guarding the henhouse problem," says Sloan.

From the AP:

The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office last year and viewed legislative documents, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The court ordered the Justice Department to return any privileged documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat's office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid.

The raid last May of Jefferson's office, remember, caused a furor on Capitol Hill, provoking the rare alliance of then-Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who demanded that the FBI return the documents seized from Jefferson's office.

It seems clear that Jefferson didn't quite get what he wanted here, which was return of all documents seized in the raid. Our legal eagle readers are invited to write in or comment with their reactions or interpretations of the ruling's impact. Are Congressional offices now safe from the FBI's prying fingers?

The introduction to the ruling (pdf) is posted below.

Note: This decision dealt exclusively with the raid of Jefferson's Congressional office. So it shouldn't substantially affect the government's case against him.

Update: Here's some interpretation from CREW, who filed an amicus brief in the case.

Update: Here's the Justice Department's reaction to the ruling, from spokesman Brian Roehrekasse:

“The Department of Justice is pleased that the D.C. Circuit opinion does not find that the search of a congressional office is unconstitutional. We are disappointed with the ruling that requires that a member of Congress be provided advance notice and the right to review materials before the execution of a search warrant. Because of the procedures that were put in place for the execution of the search warrant, the indictment and prosecution of Congressman Jefferson will not be negatively impacted by this decision. The Court of Appeals notes that there is no indication the Executive Branch did not act based on a good-faith interpretation of the law, as reflected in the District Court’s prior approval. The Department of Justice will continue to prepare for trial, scheduled for January 2008, and we are pleased that the D.C. Circuit opinion allows the prosecutors to retain non-Speech or Debate clause documents. The Department will review the decision and evaluate further action.”

Read more »

Wouldn't you know it. Where there's a corruption investigation, there's also the Solomonic wisdom of Dick Cheney. And so it went with the William Jefferson affair, according to part three of Bart Gellman and Jo Becker's Cheney series. Had Cheney not changed his mind on the FBI's power to seize Jefferson's files, the top tier of Justice Department and FBI officials would have quit.

In May 2006, the FBI executed a warrant on Jefferson's House office, seizing numerous documents relevant to its bribery investigation. House Republicans -- and, let's not forget, now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- demanded the FBI relinquish what they'd taken from Jefferson, fearing the precedent the raid would set for other members of Congress and elevating the dispute to a separation of powers issue.

According to Gellman and Becker, Cheney sided with Congress, one of the few times that he's done so since joining the executive ... er, since becoming vice president. And, as the series has demonstrated, Cheney more often than not gets his way with the administration. This time, however, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, his deputy Paul McNulty, and FBI Director Robert Mueller all threatened to resign if forced to return Jefferson's files.

Here's what happened next:

White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten called a meeting on May 25, 2006, to resolve the political and legal crisis. The president's lawyers and congressional liaison were in the room, and so was Cheney. Once again, it was the vice president who came up with a solution, according to a participant. Cheney's plan met his goal of keeping the files from federal investigators. The files would be placed under seal for 45 days. Within hours of the meeting, Bush made Cheney's recommendation official.

The irresistible question: has Cheney inserted himself in the investigation of any other high-profile corruption scandals?

From The Times-Picayune:

Former Orleans Parish School Board president and self-styled corruption fighter Ellenese Brooks-Simms will plead guilty in federal court today to charges that she accepted more than $100,000 in bribes from Mose Jefferson -- the eldest brother of indicted U.S. Rep. William Jefferson -- in exchange for supporting a multi-million dollar math curriculum contract, according to sources close to the case....

This month, in the 16-count indictment handed up against William Jefferson in Virginia, [Mose Jefferson] emerged as a key player who was hired by firms that his brother, the congressman, allegedly helped with trade deals.

Just to help you tell the two brothers apart: William is accused of accepting bribes, and Mose is accused of giving them.

Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) pled not guilty today to 16 federal charges related to 11 separate bribery schemes.

Video of Jefferson saying: "Im going to fight my heart out to clear my name," is on the way.

Jefferson's case became famous when federal investigators found nearly $100,000 in cash in his freezer. He allegedly took the money from an FBI informant in a scheme to bribe a Nigerian official.

The judge has set a trial date for Jan. 16, 2008.

Late Update: Here's Jefferson speaking for the first time following the indictments:

Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) has officially been indicted on racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering according to the Associated Press.

The indictment handed up Monday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, is more than an inch thick and lists 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 200 years.

Almost two years ago, in August 2005, investigators raided Jefferson's home in Louisiana and found $90,000 in cash stuffed into a box in his freezer.

Jefferson, 63, whose Louisiana district includes New Orleans, has said little about the case publicly but has maintained his innocence. He was re-elected last year despite the looming investigation.

Jefferson's case has become best known for the nearly $100,000 in cash found in his freezer that he took from a videotaped encounter with an FBI informant.

His House office was searched by the FBI in 2006, which raised bipartisan outrage amongst Congressional leadership who called the raide unconstitutional on the grounds of the "speech and debate" clause.

Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) takes his case before a Washington, D.C. appeals court panel today, in a move to get back documents the congressman’s lawyers say were wrongfully snatched from his office by the FBI in a raid.

Jefferson has been the brunt of FBI searches and a battery of allegations after he accepted $100,000 from an undercover FBI informant last year, and then stashed the money meant to bribe the Vice President of Nigeria, in his freezer, wrapped in frozen food packaging and aluminum foil.*

The freezer cash isn’t at issue today, though.

Jefferson’s lawyers are going to argue that the Constitution’s “Speech or Debate” clause should have shielded their client from the search of his Congressional office. Politicians on both sides of the aisle rallied around Jefferson last year in support of his argument.

The clause, found here in Article 1, Section 6, reads:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

*Update: This post originally stated that Jefferson has been charged. He has not.

Apparently deaf to the improper tone of the request in the context of a hearing on the firings of the U.S. attorneys, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) encouraged Alberto Gonzales to hurry up and indict Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). The Jefferson case has dragged on for nearly two years and is awaiting the decision of an appeals court on the FBI's seizure of evidence from Jefferson's congressional office.

"I hope that you will tell your prosecutors to wrap this thing up," said Sensenbrenner.

On Thursday, two businessmen will head to prison for conspiring to bribe Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). And Jefferson himself? He'll most likely be enjoying an indictment-free spring as his lawyers battle with prosecutors over documents seized from his congressional office last May.

Read more »

From CNN:

On the same day that the 110th Democratic-led Congress convenes with a plan to immediately pass lobbyist and ethics reforms, the Congressional Black Caucus Thursday gave a standing ovation to Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who faces an FBI probe into bribery allegations.

"The haters... and negative nabobs...the people who spoke against him couldn't prevail against the people who spoke for him," Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, master of ceremonies for the CBC's celebratory event, said Thursday morning.

Ah, Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA).

From Roll Call:

You might think that a guy who’s still the subject of a federal bribery investigation would be more careful than to use taxpayer resources to raise campaign money. But nope, not Jefferson. And heck, he still hasn’t provided us with that “honorable explanation” he promised for the bizarro (and alleged) $90,000 in cash federal agents confiscated from a freezer in his Capitol Hill home.

Last week, House Democrats were shocked to receive a letter from Jefferson — on his official Congressional stationery, no less — asking colleagues to donate money to help him retire his campaign debt.

“As you know,” the letter, dated Dec. 29, 2006, began, “I recently won a grueling race for re-election.” (And won resoundingly in a runoff, despite the ongoing federal probe in which two people have already pleaded guilty.) “In order to get our message out and otherwise compete, we incurred over $200,000 in debt.

“Therefore, I would deeply appreciate it if you would assist me in retiring my debt by contributing $1,000 (or whatever amount you can afford) to my campaign,” Jefferson wrote.

To use public resources to make a fundraising pitch is against House rules, of course. As an explanation, Jefferson's office said it was "a tremendous — tremendous — staff error."

As predicted earlier, it's official. William Jefferson won't be getting his plum spot back.