Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hastert tells President Bush FBI raid was unconstitutional
The Hill ^ | 5/24/06 | Patrick O'Connor

Posted on 05/23/2006 5:57:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) told President Bush yesterday that he is concerned the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) congressional office over the weekend was a direct violation of the Constitution.

Hastert raised concerns that the FBI’s unannounced seizure of congressional documents during a raid of Jefferson’s Rayburn office Saturday night violated the separation of powers between the two branches of government as they are defined by the Constitution.

“The Speaker spoke candidly with the president about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s raid over the weekend,” Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said yesterday in confirming his boss’s remarks.

Hastert told reporters yesterday that he understands the reasons for the investigation but objected to the manner in which the raid was conducted.

“My opinion is they took the wrong path,” Hastert said. “They need to back up, and we need to go from there.”

Republican objections are independent of any facts in the corruption probe against Jefferson. Their complaints pertain solely to constitutional questions about the raid itself.

The issue is not clear-cut for both parties. Republicans have repeatedly cited the Jefferson probe as an example of Democratic malfeasance in the face of charges about their own “culture of corruption.” On the Democratic side of the aisle, the investigation itself undermines the effectiveness of their efforts to tar Republicans with the corruption issue.

Jefferson is being investigated to see if he influenced legislation in exchange for a number of elaborate, illegal payment schemes, including a single cash payment of $100,000, most of which was discovered in his freezer during a later raid of his home.

Calling the Saturday-night raid an “invasion of the legislative branch,” House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) predicted the case would eventually be resolved in the Supreme Court and hinted that Congress would take further action. The majority leader said Hastert would take the lead on the issue because he is the chief constitutional officer in the House.

“I am sure there will be a lot more said about this,” Boehner said.

The Jefferson raid is the most recent flare-up between Congress and the White House. In a statement distributed Monday night, Hastert made it clear that he was not given a heads-up about the FBI’s raid on Jefferson’s office.

In the Speaker’s lengthy statement, Hastert complained that the seizure of legislative papers, no matter how innocuous, was a violation of the “the principles of Separation of Powers, the independence of the Legislative Branch, and the protections afforded by the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution.”

Hastert also singled out Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in that statement: “It would appear that the Attorney General himself was aware that Separation of Powers concerns existed … because in seeking the warrant the FBI suggested to the judge procedures it would follow to deal with Constitutionally protected materials.”

During a news conference with reporters, Gonzales defended the FBI raid but said he and leaders on the Hill are involved in private discussions about “what can be done to alleviate” lawmakers’ concerns.

“I obviously — personally, and the Department collectively — we have a great deal of respect for the Congress as a coequal branch of government, as a separate and independent branch of government, and [we’re] obviously sensitive to their concerns,” he said.

He noted that discussion to try to address lawmakers’ concerns began Monday evening and continued yesterday.

“We respectfully, of course, disagree with the characterization by some,” Gonzales said. “We believe … we have been very careful, very thorough in our pursuit of criminal wrongdoing, and that’s what’s going on here. We have an obligation to the American people to pursue the evidence where it exists.”

Congress has both investigative and budgetary oversight of the executive branch, but there was no word as of press time about oversight hearings into the raid or its constitutionality.

Democrats were supportive of Hastert’s criticism and appear to support the Speaker in pursuing further action.

“No member of Congress is above the law,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters yesterday. “I am concerned about the unprecedented exercising of authority over a separate branch of government and the execution of a search warrant without any communication with the leadership of this House.”

Hoyer said he agrees with Hastert’s concerns and was less than defensive of Jefferson.

“The institution has a right to protect itself against the executive branch going into our offices and violating what is the Speech and Debate Clause that essentially says, ‘That’s none of your business, executive branch,’” Hoyer said.

During his own briefing, Boehner joked with reporters that he was withholding his own strong reservations about the raid because of a staff request that he do so.

“I would like to say more, but I have been advised by my advisers that I shouldn’t,” Boehner said.

But after repeated questions, the majority leader expressed his full reservations about the Justice Department’s action.

“When I raise my right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, I mean it,” Boehner said, referring to the oath members take at the beginning of each Congress. “[Justice Department employees] take the same oath, so somebody better start reading the Constitution down there.”

Leaders in both parties have said this is the first time in the 219-year history of the United States that the Justice Department has taken these actions.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Illinois; US: Louisiana; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: 109th; congressabovethelaw; congressionalasshats; elitistpukes; fbiraid; hastert; presidentbush; reactionaryfools; sheesh; sorryfordoingmyjob; speakerpelosi; tells; unconstitutional; williamjefferson; wtfishethinking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 381-385 next last
To: mojo114

Put the number in for the County Jail,or Library or Dick Durbin's number LOL! They do not check these things out it is too much work and they are limited in staff. Try to pick a number that is not obviously a business instead of a residence. You know like a Business may have a number like 433-4000. If they do check it is probably just done randomly.


241 posted on 05/23/2006 7:38:32 PM PDT by samantha (cheer up, the adults are in charge! Soldier in Bucket Brigade Reporting for Duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom
Yes, I referred to your post earlier- sorry I didn't ping you. It was a very reasonable effort to respect the privileges of the House and uet conduct the search for the evidence which was hidden amongst legitimate, privileged papers.

But the "filter" team did examine papers that were constitutionally privileged and that is Hastert's good cause for complaint.

I wouldn't be surprised if the judge who issued the warrant finds his air conditioning bill for this summer mysteriously excised from the budget LOL!

242 posted on 05/23/2006 7:38:40 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Please explain--


243 posted on 05/23/2006 7:38:50 PM PDT by mojo114
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
Who the heck else is supposed to investigate criminality within the legislative branch, the legislature itself?"

Why not? That's how it works in the executive branch.

244 posted on 05/23/2006 7:38:50 PM PDT by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"he is concerned the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) congressional office over the weekend was a direct violation of the Constitution"

Who cares? Don't they understand it's a living breathing flexible document. /sarc

245 posted on 05/23/2006 7:39:30 PM PDT by patriot_wes (Law of Unintended Consequences; Infant Baptism = an unbelieving, unsaved church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

With enemies like these...why are we fighting in Iraq? What are they (congress) trying to hide? This is very strange.


246 posted on 05/23/2006 7:39:47 PM PDT by Bobbisox (WHAT CAN WE DO - THIS IS CRIMINAL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I have told the RNC, RNSC, etc. to check their records of my past support and then to forgetaboudit.


247 posted on 05/23/2006 7:40:41 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Memo to GOP: Don't ask me for any more money until you secure our Southern border.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
In other words .. all congress people are above the law ..?? I don't think so!

Technically, they are. Legislation does not pertain to the business of congress. They can pay below minimum wage, etc.
N.B. this does not pertain to personal conduct, just as an organization, congress is exempt from most statutes.
248 posted on 05/23/2006 7:40:57 PM PDT by dyed_in_the_wool ("O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends" - Koran 5.51)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

No problem:)

I understand your point- yet given the resistance by Jefferson- what alternatives did the feds have? I'm not a legal scholar- but it seems they could NOT have crossed one more t or dotted another i??

I'm not being sarcastic- seriously- what was the alternative?


249 posted on 05/23/2006 7:41:52 PM PDT by SE Mom (God Bless those who serve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: clawrence3

IF so .. they pulled a wrong angle to use


250 posted on 05/23/2006 7:43:53 PM PDT by Mo1 (DEMOCRATS: A CULTURE OF TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Then democraps just won back the congress for all I care. Thanks Dennis. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


251 posted on 05/23/2006 7:44:10 PM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

They're scared shitless because they're all corrupt.


252 posted on 05/23/2006 7:44:17 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher

So apparently, the Executive Branch can order searches on the Legislative Branch but only the Executive Branch can order searches on the Executive Branch? Equal branches of government...

---

The Judicial is a lynchpin in the process between all branches. It will initiate investigative efforts and work accordingly under the law.

The actions that can be initiated and taken are a bit different or so they would seem depending in who is bugging who, but should in either case faciliate a fair and legal dealing with those who have violated statutes.


I pinged a legal constitutional folk earlier re: the scenario presented here. waiting for reply. I won't pretend to be expert as to constuitutional law other that I spell it. ;-)


253 posted on 05/23/2006 7:44:33 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi - "The Road to Peace in the Middle East runs thru Damascus.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
http://corner.nationalreview.com/


Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Re: Jefferson Getting Fair Treatment [Andy McCarthy]

My only slight departure from Byron's assessment is the observation that Jefferson is not just getting fair treatment; he is getting extraordinary treatment.  Suggestions to the contrary are ridiculous, and the claim that there is a separation-of-powers problem here is frivolous.  The congressmen and others making it are conducting themselves abysmally.  At a time when Americans' regard for congress is at an all-time low, why would anyone want to get behind such low-life criminality?

The Constitution defines the immunity of members of Congress in the speech and debate clause (Art. I, 6), providing that members "shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."  (Italics mine.)
That's it. They can be investigated and prosecuted just like anyone else, with two exceptions: (a) they presumptively may not be placed under arrest during a session of congress — although arrest is perfectly proper if a felony (or treason or breach of the peace) is involved; and (b) the evidence used to prosecute them cannot include anything contained in a speech or debate during a session. So the privilege against arrest is limited, and the privilege against being investigated is non-existent (anyone out there remember Abscam?).

As Byron relates, the executive branch has apparently made use of an extraordinary Chinese Wall procedure here, having agents unrelated to the investigation conduct the search of Jefferson's office "to ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege[.]"

That is kit-gloves overkill in the extreme.  The speech and debate privilege means statments and materials from speeches or debates when congress is in session cannot be used as evidence in court against a member of congress.  It does not mean that such statements and materials cannot properly be seen or heard by the investigators, or that if they are seen or heard the investigation is somehow tainted. 

Most speech and debate in congress is public — the whole idea of the constitutional protection is to make certain that, since speech will be seen and heard, members will not shy away from saying what they honestly think out of fear of prosecution.

There is no such thing as a "politically sensitive" items privilege.  Congressmen, moreover, have no more right to privacy in items that are beyond the scope of a search warrant than you and I do.  There was no need to go these absurd lengths for Jefferson. 

Yes, there is something offensive about this episode.  But it is not the investigation.  It is the audacity of public servants to claim a license to betray their public trust with impunity. 

 

Posted at 10:02 PM

254 posted on 05/23/2006 7:48:40 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Despot of the Delta

They are not going after Congress,the idiot was caught on tape taking a bribe. They tried to get him to turn over papers, he did not. Just make like he is not a high and mighty member of Congress and imagine he is a Owner of a Crooked Car dealership. Would you object if his office was raided by the Police and D.A.'s Office? I don't think so. He is a normal(strike that) American Human Being and therefore subject to the same laws as you or I. He has not even been arrested yet.


255 posted on 05/23/2006 7:51:54 PM PDT by samantha (cheer up, the adults are in charge! Soldier in Bucket Brigade Reporting for Duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: A Citizen Reporter

The FBI is the executive branch.


256 posted on 05/23/2006 7:53:08 PM PDT by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
The White House claims "executive privilege" all the time when Congress asks for records.

Actually, no they don't "all the time." They seem to reserve it for instances in which the Executive is relying on others for information and cosultation, which they want to be freely offered. I have not seen the Executive successfully argue against a valid subpoena for discoverable evidence, i.e. the Nixon tapes. This Administration has never even tried such a thing.

257 posted on 05/23/2006 7:53:17 PM PDT by Bahbah (“KERRY LIED!! SCHOLARLY ATTRIBUTION DIED!!!”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Just when I think GOP leadership can't get any worse......

I suppose they'll ask for a congressional investigation, or a special committee, or sumpin' else just to keep the FBI raid in the headlines.

I wonder how many bullets are left in that rifle the Republican leaders have been using for five years to shoot themselves in the foot PR-wise.

Leni

258 posted on 05/23/2006 7:55:09 PM PDT by MinuteGal (FReeps Ahoy 4 cruisers are home! Check the cruise thread for photos. Hit red "4" on Home Page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

Hastert is an incompetent; has been; will be forever. Let him go away. Let some more adequate person replace him.


259 posted on 05/23/2006 7:55:20 PM PDT by mathurine (ua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher

I do not agree with much of what you have opined, but that quote was the best one I have heard in weeks. LOL! Slowly descending into hell....


260 posted on 05/23/2006 7:55:23 PM PDT by samantha (cheer up, the adults are in charge! Soldier in Bucket Brigade Reporting for Duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 381-385 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson