Congressman William J. Jefferson, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a Representative from Louisiana, is serving his 8th term. Following the seizure of records from his congressional office, constitutional law professors are debating on t.v. whether the means to achieve the seizure will be successfully challenged.
Non-lawyers may punch the remote to something livelier than a discussion of the “Speech and Debate” clause, a commercial featuring a cute gecko, maybe. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a joint statement of protest, demanding the return of the seized material — and surely mindful of possible repeat performances who-knows-where in connection with Justice Department investigations of Abramoff payoffs.
It’s worthwhile looking into the facts. The 65-page affidavit (not counting attachments) with the application for the subpoena ordering the seizure is available to read in the NPR story. Evidence is sought pertaining to the crimes of wire fraud and bribery, including bribery of a foreign official, and conspiracy.
The affidavit was submitted by an FBI Special Agent, detailing the facts as known through the FBI’s investigation beginning March 2005, which included tapes, witness statements, and documents (bank records, correspondence, corporate records and the like). Paragraph 8 of the Affidavit:
The facts and circumstances described below outline the probable cause that United States Congressman William J. Jefferson, acting in concert with the other targets, has sought, and in some cases has already accepted financial backing and/or concealed payment(s) of cash and/or equity interests in business ventures located in the United States, Nigeria and Ghana (things of value) in exchange for his undertaking of official act(s) as a United States congressman while promoting the business interests of the targets, including Jefferson, himself.
Two other individuals targeted in the investigation have pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to bribe a public official: Vernon Jackson, CEO of telecommunications firm iGate, and Brett Pfeffer, formerly on Rep. Jefferson’s staff and president of an investment firm in McClean, VA. They are “cooperating” pursuant to plea agreements.
Many details are described in the affidavit. For example:
- Rep. Jefferson asked for a percentage ownership interest in a Nigerian company, to be placed in the names of his children, in exchange for his using his official acts to support the venture;
- The Nigerian company was created with the assistance of one of Jefferson’s daughters, also a lawyer;
- He has already received $400,000 cash from iGate;
- His official acts included communication with both the President and Vice President of Nigeria on behalf of the iGate business venture there, which had opposition from the Nigerian telephone company.
- Jefferson had similar meetings with officials in Ghana promoting an iGate business venture there, without disclosing his personal financial interest in the company.
- Rep. Jefferson’s wife operates a Louisiana company, the ANJ Group LLC; the wife and all 5 daughters are members of the company. Under an agreement with ANJ, iGate pays ANJ $7,500 monthly, in addition to 35% of the profits derived from the sale of iGate technology or products connected with the continent of Africa.
- In at least seven other schemes, Rep. Jefferson “sought things of value in return for his performance of official acts.”
- Rep. Jefferson discussed his contacts as head of the Nigerian Caucus in Congress, then received $100,000 cash to forward in exchange for assistance.
The FBI, which had recorded the serial bill numbers, videotaped Jefferson accepting the cash and driving away with it. A few days later, August 3, 2005, the FBI found $90,000 of that cash in the freezer in Rep. Jefferson’s Washington D.C. residence. - Some of the meetings about these business ventures were held in Rep. Jefferson’s office on Capitol Hill. According to an aide, records relevant to the investigation are in that office. The FBI was unable to obtain them in the usual ways.
Hence, the requested search warrant.
Special search procedures were created to filter out politically sensitive and non-responsive items and any information which is privileged, for example, by reason of the Speech and Debate clause. The material will first be reviewed by a “Filter Team” comprised of a DOJ Criminal Justice attorney, a U.S. Attorney from E.D. VA, and an FBI Special Agent, none connected to the case. Potentially privileged items are then reviewed by a District court for a final determination on privilege.
The political fuss was anticipated. It was the court’s Chief Judge who signed the order.
President Bush, who perhaps sees a future teaching first-graders because the job doesn’t require comprehension of constitutional issues, butted in to put people on time-out. I’m no fan of Alberto Gonzales or all of DOJ, but this is clearly a case in which the government is moving carefully to catch the bad guys. No gripe there. Add this “cooling-off” period to the list of Regrettable Bush Actions.
The trial should be fascinating. When, if ever, will anyone apologize to the people in Nigeria and Ghana for the latest Ugly Americans?
