The criminal trial of William Jefferson is continuing in Federal District Court in Alexandria,VA.  Nola.com continues to liveblog the proceedings.

Today, an accountant who used to work for the congressman, his campaign and his wife's "consulting" company testified that Mrs. Jefferson's firm took in lots of money, but had no real expenses:

A company created by the wife of former Rep. William Jefferson billed a Kentucky technology firm for thousands of dollars in consulting fees without spending anything on normal operational expenses like office space, clerical workers, telephones or travel, the congressman's former accountant testified today.

Jack Swetland, a New Orleans CPA who served as the Democratic congressman's tax accountant and campaign treasurer, said he was aware that the ANJ company, named for Jefferson's wife and daughters, was supposed to be getting $7,500 a month from iGate Inc., and made a one-time deposit of $300,000 from the telecommunications firm, while incurring no expenses.

Federal prosecutors allege ANJ was nothing but a shell company created to hide the payments iGate was making for Jefferson's help in brokering deals in West Africa. Jefferson is facing a 16-count indictment that includes bribery and fraud charges. Jefferson has pleaded innocent, and his defense team says that his actions were as a private citizen and not subject to the bribery statute.

Bruce Alpert from the Times-Picayune is liveblogging the criminal trial of former Congressman William Jefferson at nola.com.

From Alpert's reporting, we get the testimony of the government's first witness, Vernon Jackson:

The federal corruption trial of former Rep. William Jefferson resumed this morning with testimony from the founder of a technology firm who has pleaded guilty to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to companies controlled by the congressman's family.

Vernon Jackson, former CEO of iGate, said he made the payments in exchange for Jefferson's help in arranging contacts and deals with Western African officials. He said Jefferson was using his influence as a congressman, not acting as a consultant or private businessman.

The distinction is key to the government's 16-count indictment of Jefferson, who is accused of trading on his public office for personal gain. Jefferson has pleaded not guilty, and his attorneys argue that the bribery charges against him should be dismissed because they do not involve "official acts" such as voting or introducing legislation and earmarks.

Conducting the examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebeca Bellows asked Jackson if Jefferson ever told the various officials and business people they met that he was acting as a private businessman, Jackson said: "Never."

Did he ever reveal his financial state or business interests in Jackson's company? "No."

It's been a long time in the works with appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, but today, the trial of former Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) begins:

Nearly four years after federal agents found $90,000 in alleged bribe money in his freezer, former congressman William Jefferson goes to trial Tuesday on charges he sought money, stock and payments to his relatives in exchange for his help in landing African business deals for U.S. companies.

The Louisiana Democrat has maintained his innocence since the FBI raided his homes in New Orleans and Washington in August 2005 and found cash an informant allegedly gave Jefferson to bribe a Nigerian official. Juror screening is to begin in Alexandria, Va., for Jefferson's trial on 16 federal charges, including bribery, conspiracy, money laundering and racketeering.

The last congressional corruption trial ended with the conviction of then-senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, last fall. In April, Attorney General Eric Holder asked a judge to throw out Stevens' conviction. The two top officials in the Justice Department's anti-corruption division are under investigation for their roles in the Stevens case, where prosecutors failed to turn over key evidence which could have helped the senator's defense to charges he failed to report gifts from wealthy friends.

Yet another delay in the start date for the corruption trial of former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson:

A federal judge on Wednesday delayed yet again the trial of former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson to give his attorneys a week to look for an expert witness.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III set the trial for June 9. Ellis had previously said there would be no continuation of the case that began four years ago.

“It’s not easy to eat these words,” said Ellis, of Virginia’s Eastern District Court.

We've been following the ups-and-downs and ins-and-outs of the charges against Jefferson for years now.  CREW named Jefferson, who lost his seat in 2008, of the most corrupt members of Congress, with good reason:

Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA) is a ninth-term member of Congress, representing Louisiana’s second congressional district. Rep. Jefferson’s ethics issues, for which he has now been indicted, stem from his business dealings and his misuse of federal resources. Rep. Jefferson was included in CREW’s 2006 and 2007 reports on congressional corruption.

Federal Indictment

On June 4, 2007, Rep. Jefferson was indicted on 16 criminal counts, including two counts of conspiracy to solicit bribes, two counts of solicitation of bribes by a public official, six counts of honest services fraud by wire, one count of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, three counts of money laundering, one count of obstruction of justice and one count of racketeering.  The indictment stems from multiple instances in which Rep. Jefferson agreed to perform official acts for 11 different companies in return for bribes payable to him and his family members.  The indictment was the culmination of a criminal investigation that began in approximately March 2005.

The 94-page indictment outlines in considerable detail multiple bribery schemes in which Rep. Jefferson participated.  These include bribes that Rep. Jefferson sought in the form of cash payments, stock, and a percentage of revenues from iGate, a telecommunications firm in Louisville, Kentucky, that were paid to ANJ, a Jefferson family-controlled company.  In addition, Rep. Jefferson used his congressional staff to plan trips to Africa for the purpose of promoting iGate’s business ventures and used congressional letterhead for similar purposes.  In addition, Rep. Jefferson offered a bribe to a Nigerian official in Potomac, Maryland, in exchange for using his position to benefit a Nigerian joint venture.  Rep. Jefferson placed $90,000 of the $100,000 intended as the front-end bribe to the Nigerian official in the freezer of his Washington, D.C. home, separated into $10,000 increments.  This money was later recovered by FBI agents during a raid of Rep. Jefferson’s residence.  

Rep. Jefferson has been charged with conspiracy, racketeering, bribery, honest services fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

 

Looks like ex-Rep. William Jefferson has exhausted his appeals.  The Supreme Court rejected his argument today.  So, it's on to the trial -- finally:

The U.S. Supreme Court refused today to consider former Rep. William Jefferson's plea to throw out most of the criminal charges against him - setting the stage for a June 2 trial in Alexandria, Va.

The High Court's decision, which was expected, came without comment.

Jefferson, a New Orleans Democrat, had asked the Supreme Court to reconsider a ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court rejected Jefferson's argument that 14 of the 16 charges against him should be dropped because the grand jury that indicted him heard testimony about his congressional duties in violation of the Constitution's Speech or Debate clause.

The 4th Circuit concurred with the trial judge in the case, T.S. Ellis III, that any discussion about his congressional activities was not central to the government's case.

"We are satisfied that the district court, in conducting the pretrial proceedings, accorded Congressman Jefferson every substantive and procedural protection to which he was entitled," the 4th Circuit ruled.

Roll Call reports that the United States Supreme Court will decide soon whether to hear an appeal from former Representative William Jefferson:

The Supreme Court on Thursday is scheduled to consider whether it will revisit constitutional Speech or Debate Clause protections under an appeal from ex-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).

The court could announce as early as Monday whether it will accept the case for its 2009-2010 session, which begins in October. Alternately, the court could delay its Thursday discussion of the case — although it would not cite a specific reason — and reschedule its conference for a later date.

Should the Supreme Court decide to take up the case, it would all but certainly have an impact on Speech or Debate protections and could affect future indictments against Members of Congress, or even establish new precedents for submitting evidence to grand juries.

“The Jefferson case is like a legal hurricane that spins off tornadoes of novel issues,” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Our own legal expert, Melanie Sloan, thinks it is unlikely the Supreme Court will take the case:

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and a former assistant U.S. attorney, predicted the court is unlikely to accept the appeal because Jefferson does not demonstrate a stark contrast in circuit court decisions on Speech or Debate protections.

“The Supreme Court generally likes to hear conflicts between the circuits,” Sloan said.

In its November 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Jefferson’s appeal but did not rule directly on whether Speech or Debate violations existed, stating it was “barred ... from looking behind an indictment to assess whether the grand jury had considered privileged legislative materials.”

CREW has also been very clear on our view of using the Speech or Debate Clause as a defense to criminal action by members of Congress.  When the Fourth Circuit denied Jefferson's appeal last November, Melanie Sloan said:

While the Constitution protects members of Congress from having evidence of their legislative actions used against them, the Speech or Debate Clause was never intended to allow members of Congress to evade prosecution for criminal acts. The Constitution also entitles a criminal defendant to a speedy trial and we are looking forward to seeing Rep. Jefferson receive one.

The ramifications of the dismissal of the case against Senator Ted Stevens continue to reverberate.  Unfortunately, it extends beyond the Stevens case:

While the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the Stevens trial are limited to his case alone, the damage to the Department of Justice Public Integrity Section may make judges more willing to listen to defense attorneys who challenge evidence. Jurors may also be more willing to listen to claims of innocence by politicians under scrutiny, experts say.

Some Department of Justice watchers predict there will be staff changes in the leadership of the Public Integrity Section — moves that could slow down criminal investigations into other lawmakers.

Among the pending cases are charges against former Reps. William Jefferson (D-La.) and Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), who have been indicted on a host of corruption charges, including bribery and fraud. Former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) has been implicated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, and Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska), John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.) have found themselves drawn into other criminal probes by the Justice Department, although no charges have been filed in those cases.

Melanie Sloan, as usual, succinctly summed up the situation:

“This sordid mess reflects equally poorly on the Public Integrity Section and Sen. Stevens, but in the end it is the public that has lost the most: a corrupt politician has escaped punishment and future prosecutions of politicians have been jeopardized,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. (emphasis added)

We have closely followed the career of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA).  He has appeared in our report on the most corrupt members of Congress for the past three years.  We were disappointed when Jefferson was reelected in 2006 despite the ongoing corruption investigation.  And, as predicted then, Jefferson was indicted.  

Yesterday, to the surprise of most, Jefferson lost:

Indicted U.S. Rep. William Jefferson suffered what may be the final blow of his storied political career in the most improbable way Saturday, when an untested Republican opponent took advantage of Louisiana's new federal voting rules -- and an election delay caused by Hurricane Gustav -- to unseat the nine-term Democrat.

With the upset victory, Anh "Joseph" Cao, a eastern New Orleans attorney who fled war-ravaged Saigon as a child, becomes the first Vietnamese-American in Congress. He will represent a district that was specifically drawn to give African-Americans an electoral advantage and one in which two of every three voters are registered Democrats.

Earlier today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the indictment of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), clearing the way for the case to go to trial. Rep. Jefferson had sought dismissal of the indictment on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which prohibits the use of legislative material against a member of Congress. The Court of Appeals rejected Rep. Jefferson’s argument, finding that the government can prosecute the case without referencing constitutionally protected legislative material.  The Court's decision can be found here.

CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan made this statement:

While the Constitution protects members of Congress from having evidence of their legislative actions used against them, the Speech or Debate Clause was never intended to allow members of Congress to evade prosecution for criminal acts. The Constitution also entitles a criminal defendant to a speedy trial and we are looking forward to seeing Rep. Jefferson receive one.

More from Politico:

The ruling could allow Jefferson's corruption trial, being held in Alexandria, Va., to move forward, although Jefferson could further delay those proceedings by appealing today's decision. Jefferson was indicted on June 4, 2007, on 16 counts of bribery, fraud and racketeering related to hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes paid to him and family members for help on African telecom contracts. Jefferson has denied the allegations.

Another hurdle is overcome in the legal process, which should eventually result in a trial for Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA)

A federal judge rejected Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) request to suppress evidence gathered during an FBI search of his Louisiana home in 2005.

Judge T.S. Ellis III determined that FBI agents did not abuse Jefferson’s rights during the raid because he was not arrested or held in custody. Jefferson could have terminated the interview he had with the agents at any time and could have left the house immediately when the agents started searching his home, according to the judge.