You had to know this was going to happen.  CREW did.

Just over a year ago, in the wake of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the case against William Jefferson, which found that the Constitution's Speech and Debate clause prohibits searches of congressional offices by the executive branch, Melanie Sloan predicted this would become an issue in the case against Senator Ted Stevens:

Nevertheless, this ruling may have a profound impact on the government's ability to thoroughly investigate other cases of congressional corruption. For example, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) now has every incentive to store in his congressional office any document concerning the renovations of his house, secure in the knowledge that it will be beyond the reach of federal investigators.

In fact, that has come to pass. Stevens is now using the speech and defense clause as a defense in his criminal tria to prevent the testimony of his staffers:

Sen. Ted Stevens accused the Justice Department of trampling on the independence of Congress, arguing Thursday that the corruption case against him should be thrown out.

That legal argument will test the limits of a court ruling that prosecutors fear could limit their ability to investigate corruption on Capitol Hill. Stevens said FBI agents went too far when they questioned his Senate aides.

The Alaska Republican is scheduled to go on trial next month on charges that he lied on Senate disclosure records about hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and services he received from a powerful oil services contractor, Veco Corp.

Stevens said the FBI's long-running corruption probe intruded on his Senate affairs. He cited the Constitution's speech-or-debate clause, which prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement authority to interfere with legislative business.

This could actually slow down the proceedings that Stevens was hoping to expedite so it could wrap up before Election Day.

Today's media coverage on the House vote for an investigation of the "Coconut Road" earmark address the concerns raised by CREW after the Senate and House votes.  The reality is the investigation by the Department of Justice won't proceed -- and the rather important document called Constitution of the United States is one of the biggest roadblocks:

But critics contend that House members may be so open to an investigation precisely because they know it won’t go anywhere. “It’s laughable,” said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “They want the headlines, so they’re going to do this. But it’s an absolute farce.”

Stanley Brand, a former general counsel for the House, said the barriers to investigation and prosecution — especially in the Coconut Road case — arise straight from the Constitution. “The Speech or Debate Clause would prevent Justice from questioning lawmakers about what happened on the House floor or outside in the enrollment process,” he told Politico this week. “That’s the essential nature of the crime, or the alleged crime.”

“There’s nothing outside the scope of the clause,” Brand added. “I don’t know what they’re doing.”

Major decision in from the U.S. Supreme Court today -- a decision not to review the appeal of the U.S. Department of Justice stemming from the case of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). When the Court of Appeals ruled in Jefferson's favor, CREW stated it was "a decision devastating to the investigation and prosecution of congressional corruption." With today's action, the devastating decision stands:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt the Justice Department a major blow in its case against Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) in a decision that could make it more difficult for the government to investigate other members of Congress.

The Supreme Court denied a Justice Department appeal of a lower court ruling that aspects of the FBI raid on Jefferson’s Rayburn office violated the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.

Rep. Rick Renzi wants a delay in the start of his trial. Based on this article in CQPolitics, it sounds like his lawyers intend to use the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause as a defense:

Embattled Rep. Rick Renzi , R-Ariz., has asked a federal judge in Arizona to delay his scheduled April 29 trial on conspiracy, fraud, extortion and money laundering charges stemming from a land-swap deal.

Prosecutors will not oppose the Arizona lawmaker’s bid to have his trial deemed a “complex case,” which would allow more time to sort out motions, discovery and other pre-trial issues.

Renzi’s lawyers also said that because he is a sitting congressman who faces allegations related to his legislative activities, they would raise the issue of legislative privilege afforded by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate clause.

Renzi pleaded not guilty March 4 to a 35-count indictment — handed down Feb. 21 — that charges he conspired with one former business partner in a land-swap scheme and with another associate to commit insurance fraud.

Renzi, 49, maintains he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

Today, according to The Politico, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are deciding whether they will hear the an appeal in the case of the raid on the office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA).   The issue is the constitutionality of the FBI raid on the congressional office of Mr. Jefferson.  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled the raid was unconstitutional.  CREW called that decision "devastating to the investigation and prosecution of congressional corruption."  We could know next week if the Supreme Court will hear the case:

The Supreme Court will consider this Friday whether to take up a Justice Department request to overturn an appeals court ruling finding the May 2006 raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) unconstitutional.

An announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision on whether it will take up the case could come as early as next Monday, although there is no way of actually predicting what the high court will do.

The Justice Department’s request, and a counter-motion by Jefferson’s legal team arguing against Supreme Court intervention, are scheduled to be “distributed for conference” among the justices this Friday. The Supreme Court could place the case on the “Orders List” released the following Monday, or or add the case to its schedule on a future list.

The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to allow searches of congressional offices, arguing that leaving the August 2007 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - which found the FBI search an unconstitutional violation of Jefferson's privileges under the Speech or Debate Clause - is hampering ongoing criminal investigations of lawmakers.

Jefferson, who is being supported by a bipartisan group of senior House leadership aides, argues that the appeals court ruling was correct. Under the Speech or Debate Clause, legal action cannot be taken against lawmakers and staffers for legislative activities. Jefferson's legal team successfully argued on the appeals level that the FBI search of his office was unconstitutional.

Lawyers for Rep. William Jefferson tried to have the charges against him dismissed claiming the grand jury testimony of the congressman's staff violated the Constitution's speech and debate clause.  The federal district court judge hearing the case did not accept that argument:

The attorneys for Jefferson, who did not appear at the Wednesday hearing, said that testifying about such legislative matters violated the "Speech or Debate" clause of the Constitution meant to shield the law-making process from interference by the executive branch. Attorney Gloria Solomon argued that the government's case, which alleges that Jefferson took nearly $400,000 in bribes to promote companies in Africa, was predicated on the tainted grand jury testimony.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III disagreed. In a ruling from the bench, he said that the staffers' testimony was constitutionally benign and that it only illuminated the source of Jefferson's influence overseas.

"That's why people bribe congressmen, because they have influence," Ellis said.

He said the testimony was not "relevant to the charges" and was only referenced in passing in the June 2007 indictment against Jefferson. Ellis called the defense argument, "wildly far-fetched and simply not plausible."