Blurring the law solely for self preservation is a questionable ploy when the Renzi defense, and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, call on the Constitution for protection.  It is disrespectful to the Constitution and the individuals it protects when it is desperately misinterpreted, especially by those in a privileged, enumerated position.  The "Speech or Debate Clause" the defense team raises does not universally prohibit review of legislative work as they seem to suggest, it prohibits interference of such work.  If they want the evidence suppressed, they should rely on judiciary ruling that it was improperly attained, etc. - which has already been the role of the SCOTUS.  It seems like they know this strategy will fail and are irresponsibly cherry picking their next move.
This blanket defense of entitled immunity smells awfully like the President's office claim of Executive Privilege when trying to act in virtual secrecy and invisibility.  Outside of the obvious security and privacy needs, neither the President or Congresspersons are immune to review.  This is not for their protection against each other, but for our protection against them.  Demanding protection against review or investigation because of their title or position, greater than that of any private citizen, is a privilege of the aristocracy.  I think we dealt with this already.  People ferrying their name with this privileged claim should see that superiority via intellectualization still carries a representative, democratic offense.  It is not quite, "Do you know who I am?!" but it reads that same.