Domenici Gets a Subpoena

/8 Comments/in /by

I’m guessing he’ll cite the William Jefferson and Tom Feeney precedent and ignore this and then Dannehy will hit a wall. But for the moment, at least, Pete’s been served (h/t scribe):

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed records of former Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico.

[snip]

The grand jury subpoena for some of Domenici’s records has been confirmed by two private attorneys who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not representing the former senator.

Domenici’s attorney, K. Lee Blalack, has declined to comment.

So long as Domenici can shield stuff through speech and debate, he can probably protect Bush without too much personal downside.

8 replies
  1. phred says:

    Doesn’t speech and debate cover things revealed on the floor of the Senate (or House as the case may be)? How broadly may this clause be applied for other conduct?

  2. emptywheel says:

    That’s probably what it should cover, but with the Jefferson case, they ruled that DOJ couldn’t raid Jefferson’s office (I think his freezer was fair game, though, which is why that is still progressing).

    They’re basically saying anything official can’t be subpoeaned without the support of the member of Congress (again, I invite the lawyers to correct me here).

    Which sort of makes it hard to crack down on corrupt members of Congress–or the former Presidents they’re protecting.

  3. scribe says:

    I think you’re taking it a tad too far, EW. The point in the Jefferson case was that there was no segregation of materials which were arguably “legislative” from those which were not. And there was a gross infringement on the traditional powers of the Legislature over its own buildings, grounds and offices.

    Not that that was accidental, mind you. I think DoJ, Gonzo and the brighter thug-lawyers in Bushco knew that, by grossly infringing on Congress in a raid as they did, they could spark a judicial reaction which would serve to protect them against future prosecutions for using the Congress to effect their programs in the way they did.

    But, still, going back to Gravel v. United States – I’d like to see the arguments on how calling the President (or Rover) and asking/telling them to fire an Executive Branch official (Iglesias) or institute prosecutions of Democrats (prosecuting also being an executive branch function) has anything to do with gathering or gathering information, drafting legislation, or preparing to pass legislation. It doesn’t – any arguments that this was anything other than an exercise in political thuggery are both speculative and lame. Remember, assuming Jefferson was soliciting/receiving a bribe, he still was doing it in the context of a quid pro quo with someone who wanted legislation in return for his money. The quid pro quo bribery statute is the one in trouble from Speech and Debate because a quid pro quo requires bribe (as a matter of logic) some legislative action on the part of the congresscritter and that would be (arguably – Gravel does not go that far b/c it doesn’t have to) protected under Speech and Debate. That reasoning, BTW, is why the feds charged Ted Stevens with making false statements – there was no arguable legislative purpose to filling out Senate disclosure forms and therefore no Speech and Debate defense available to Ted.

    • scribe says:

      Oops. This

      The quid pro quo bribery statute is the one in trouble from Speech and Debate because a quid pro quo requires bribe (as a matter of logic) some legislative action on the part of the congresscritter and that would be (arguably – Gravel does not go that far b/c it doesn’t have to) protected under Speech and Debate. That reasoning, BTW, is why the feds charged Ted Stevens with making false statements – there was no arguable legislative purpose to filling out Senate disclosure forms and therefore no Speech and Debate defense available to Ted.

      should read:

      The quid pro quo bribery statute is the one in trouble from Speech and Debate because a quid pro quo requires (as a matter of logic) that a bribe be offered/paid in return for some legislative (in)action on the part of the congresscritter. That legislative (in)action and the negotiations/discussions leading up to it would be (arguably – Gravel explicitly does not go that far b/c it doesn’t have to) protected under Speech and Debate. That reasoning, BTW, explains why the feds charged Ted Stevens with making false statements – there was no arguable legislative purpose to filling out Senate disclosure forms and therefore no Speech and Debate defense available to Ted.

    • bmaz says:

      Yep, Scribe is right. Jefferson even contemplates a process; the DOJ just doesn’t like it because they can’t bigfoot their way into a suspect’s document lair like they are used to and cops always want the easy and oppressive way.

  4. BlueStateRedHead says:

    …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 from the same, and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

    attendance at the session does it mean the present? why presume it offers retroactive protection?

    said records, say phone records, may well be in his home, sort of like a freezer?

    Do we know from where the call to the USA came?

    BTW, why Domenici and not Wilson?

Comments are closed.