The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (which consists of the Speaker, the Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Majority and Minority Whips) has filed an amicus brief in the Renzi case. BLAG argues that the Department of Justice committed “clear violations of the Speech or Debate Clause” in connection with the wiretap of Congressman Renzi’s cell phone and in presenting evidence to the original grand jury that indicted Renzi (a new grand jury has since issued a superseding indictment).
As a consequence of these violations, BLAG contends that the court should “suppress all evidence secured as a direct or indirect result of the wiretap.” It also maintains that the court should dismiss those portions of the superseding indictment (Counts 1-27 and portions of Count 42) which relate to Congressman Renzi’s involvement with private parties regarding legislative land exchanges “unless the Court, after a thorough review of all materials presented to the second grand jury, determines that the Department managed to extract completely all Speech or Debate material and all information derived from its earlier violations from its presentation to the second grand jury.”
In my next post I will analyze the House’s arguments relating to the presentation of evidence to the grand jury.