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."