Opinion ID: 588163
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Speech or Debate Clause and Related Claims

Text: 33 Before trial, Swindall moved to have the indictment dismissed because, inter alia, he was questioned by the Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) before the grand jury in violation of the Speech or Debate Clause. 5 In the grand jury proceeding, the AUSA sought to establish, by questioning Swindall, that because of his memberships on the House Banking and Judiciary Committees, Swindall had knowledge of the money-laundering and transaction-structuring statutes. 6 The government later used the inference that Swindall knew the contents of the statutes to show that the Congressman (1) lied when he told the grand jury that he was not convinced of the criminality of the proposed transactions and (2) had a motive to lie when he stated that he could not recall whether conduct violating the statutes had been discussed. 34 Examples of the AUSA's questioning of Swindall included the following: 35 Mr. Swindall, particularly being a member of the Banking Committee, I'm sure you're aware of the recent amendments to Title 31 which have to do with the structuring violations ... which deal with the specific issue of people structuring financial transactions underneath ten thousand dollars so they can--they [can] avoid those sorts of things. 36