The affidavit is the closest we've come to to a statement of the FBI's case against Jefferson.

The fact that they decided to search his Rayburn Building office, despite having already amassed a wealth of incriminating evidence (including the notorious freezer cash), rather suggests a certain level of anxiety about securing a conviction.

The basic story put forward in the affidavit, indeed, leaves large questions unanswered.

The narrative begins on p13 with a paragraph on the background to the business. The key player not identified by name is Cooperative Witness 1 (or CW-1 for short):

JUNE 2004 - CW-1 SEEKS INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES

13.    CW-1 has founded and operates an educational technology philanthropic foundation, located in McLean, Virginia, whose mission is to provide technology to public schools nationwide. To help finance this philanthropy, CW-1 hired Brett Pfeffer, a former aide to Congressman Jefferson, to seek out various investment opportunities on CW-1's behalf.

Now, the Feds have gone to the trouble of providing CW-1 with anonymity and then pin him (or her) down to such a narrowly specified organization in a town of less than 40,000 people - what's up with that? Is this a treatment for Police Academy 12?

I'd infer that everyone in official Washington who's interested knows who this person is. And no one's saying?

Now, we're told that this foundation is a piece of philanthropy by CW-1. Implying he (let's assume he's a he) is rolling in it, and has parted with some of his wealth to found - the foundation.

But, it seems, he wants to make an investment to finance the foundation. Something very odd there: finance implies getting money in; investment, paying money out.

So - the only logical explanation is that CW-1 is looking to invest to use the profits he makes on the investment to finance his foundation.

Pass that.

So he hires the services not of an investment bank but of a guy named Pfeffer who used to be one of Jefferson's staffers.

How did this hiring come about? What relevant qualifications and expertise does Pfeffer have? How, if at all, did the fact of Pfeffer having worked for Jefferson affect the decision to hire him? No answer. But -

So far, so - well, plausible, just.

In June 2004, Pfeffer introduced Congressman Jefferson to CW-1 over lunch in New Orleans, Louisiana. At that meeting, Jefferson described a telecommunications company called iGate, and the fact that iGate needed an investor for a business venture it was attempting to secure in Nigeria. Jefferson described the opportunity as "a deal you can't refuse." Later, after Jefferson left the meeting, Pfeffer told CW-1 that if Jefferson helped them to secure a good business opportunity, then Jefferson would expect to get something out of it.

Jesus H Christ!

How cheesy-TV-movie can you get? You hire a guy to find you investment opportunities, and, next thing he's introducing you to his ex-boss, who knows another guy who just so happens to be able to offer a deal you can't refuse.In Nigeria?!

When we get to the deal itself - we're in Mel Brooks territory.

In essence, so far as I understand it (!), there was a piece of intellectual property (which enabled data, video and voice connections over copper wire) owned by Bell Labs and licensed to iGate; the deal was for CW-1 to 'buy' the IP from iGate to supply it to a venture in Nigeria which would then supply it to the Nigerian government for a project to construct the backbone of a national telecoms system in the country.

At least, with a real estate scam, the scammer can take you out to the property and show it to you. He may not own it, it may have some sort of vast encumbrance, or zoning problem or whatever. But at least the land itself is in plain sight.

With IP, no such comfort. You'd need wall-to-wall specialist lawyers to establish what rights actually existed, who owned them (or owned a license to use them, more likely), what conditions were attached, how the deal should be structured to minimise liabilities and taxes, how you could be assured of getting paid your due, etc, etc.

But you, the investor, would also need the expertise to understand the deal, to brief all those expensive lawyers, to evaluate their advice.

As a deal to produce profits to finance an educational technology nonprofit in Virginia, it makes much less than no sense at all. (Go further down the affidavit, and it gets even worse!)

The whole thing is fishy. What's going on, I wonder?