Legislators Using Law As Shield In Probes

Clause Complicates Congressional Cases

A constitutional clause designed to protect members of Congress from abusive or harassing lawsuits is increasingly being used by lawmakers as a shield in public corruption investigations, frustrating investigators even as the FBI attempts to police wrongdoing at a pace not seen since the Watergate scandal.

Under a constitutional provision known as the "speech or debate clause," lawmakers have wide protections that cover their work on Capitol Hill. That means legislation, floor speeches, and wiretaps that capture information related to votes and strategy are often out of bounds in developing a criminal case.

The latest lawmaker to seize on the controversial legal argument is Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), who is citing the wiretaps of his Verizon Wireless BlackBerry in trying to persuade a court to throw out charges of fraud, extortion and conspiracy against him.

For four weeks surrounding the 2006 midterm elections, FBI agents secretly listened as Renzi and fellow House members traded phone calls to gossip about congressional leadership races and fret over the future of the Republican Party. The conversations also revealed intrigue and favor-trading among House members and their aides.

Earlier this week, Renzi received a boost when the House leadership, both Republicans and Democrats, asked the judge in his case for permission to file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of at least some of Renzi's arguments.

With 3,500 open cases across state, local and federal government, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has called targeting corrupt officials the bureau's "top criminal priority."

But critics say Congress members suspected of using their offices for personal gain are using the law as a shield.

"It's the biggest issue in federal corruption prosecutions," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and a former federal prosecutor. "If courts continue to expand the breadth of the clause, we are likely to see more bribery and other illegal conduct by legislators go unpunished."

Recent examples of the constitutional tug of war abound:

· In their ethics indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), prosecutors referred elliptically to legislative favors that Stevens did for oil services company Veco and others in exchange for home improvements and gifts. But they refrained from presenting that material to the jury or including an explicit bribery charge in the indictment in part because of the lawmaker's legal protections. Before his conviction Monday, Stevens had attempted without success to get the trial judge to throw out some of the evidence against him by citing the constitutional clause. The issue could form one basis for his likely appeal, analysts said.