More Corruption in Congress

[Kulaf]

I would probably need to see the scope of the warrent before I chimed in on one side or the other. This could lead to a lot of abuse........but if the scope of the warrent were narrow enough I probably wouldn't have an issue with it as long as some Congressional rep was there to observe.

[Kulaf]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... 01/21.html

Specifically the Privilege of Speech or Debate section. The Executive must be very careful of what they remove from a Congressional office.

[Ddrak]

Well, the way I read it, they can remove whatever they want in pursuit of a criminal case under a valid warrant. Whether it is useful as evidence in court is a different thing, but the standard is that it has to be part of the actual legislative activity for it to be immune from prosecution, not the preparation or follow-up on the activity.

Hence, documentation covering bribes is fair game while documentation on proposed legislation probably isn't. I'd hardly imagine they would be looking at any legislative documentation anyway, more for the money trail.

Dd

[Partha]

One would think they'd be able to remove legislative documentation that pertained directly to the bribe, also, if it's spelled out in the warrant.

[Kulaf]

Just to bring this old one to a close:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 413D65.DTL

[Harlowe]

I almost forgot about "freezer" guy. It's comforting to see corruption cases actually go somewhere.