It is possible that noncommunicative conduct can constitute "speech or debate" that is protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.

Cf. Rowland v. American General Finance, Inc., 340 F.3d 187, 194-195 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding, in plaintiff employee's sexual discrimination action against defendant employer, that the trial court erroneously admitted the Terry complaint letter....Document must have been prepared in the normal course of business.

United States v. Peneaux, 432 F.3d 882, 892 (8th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission of the victim child's prior out-of-court statements pursuant to Rule 807 because "[t]he government provided the requisite....A statement not specifically covered by Federal Rule of Evidence 803 or 804 or by comparable State rules, but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

United States v. Swan, 486 F.3d 260, 264-265 (7th Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's admission of agent's testimony as to attorney's statement as an admission of a party by an agent because "the government....A statement is imputed to a principal or to an employer and is treated as the principal's or employer's vicarious admission (which, like other admissions is exempt from the hearsay rule) if the principal or employer is a party, the statement is offered against the principal or party, the statement is a statement by the party's agent or employee about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or the employee's employment, and the statement is made during the principal-agent or employer-employee relationship.