On June 15, 1971, Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) received a copy of the Pentagon Papers from Ben Bagdikian, an editor at The Washington Post.
[2] Worried his home might be raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Gravel smuggled the report, which filled two large suitcases, into his Senate office, which was being guarded by disabled Vietnam veterans.
Senator Gravel intervened and asked a court to quash the subpoena, contending that forcing Rodberg to testify would violate the Speech or Debate Clause.
[5] The trial court also held that publication of the Pentagon Papers by a private press was not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.
[7] In Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), the Supreme Court held (5–4) that the privileges of the Speech or Debate Clause extend to Congressional aides.
[8] The Court refused to protect congressional aides either from prosecution for criminal conduct or from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third-party crimes.
[16] In a statement, Republican Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert stated: "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case.
Jefferson challenged the raid as a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause, and in 2007, in the case United States v. Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2113, Washington, D.C. 20515, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled, 3–0, that the FBI's search was unconstitutional and ordered the FBI to return privileged documents seized in the raid.
[17][18] While the Justice Department used special "Filter Team" procedures to review documents to determine whether they were related to legislative activity, the court found that this "would not have avoided the violation of the Speech or Debate Clause because they denied the Congressman any opportunity to identify and assert the privilege with respect to legislative materials before their compelled disclosure to Executive agents.
[22] (Wuterich was later court-martialed, and pleaded guilty to one count of negligent dereliction of duty in connection with the Haditha killings in a plea agreement with military prosecutors, following an investigation begun in March 2006.
[22][23]) In his 2006 complaint, Wuterich sued Murtha, alleging that the congressman's comments to the press that the Haditha killings constituted "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" were defamatory and an invasion of privacy.