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.
I think they did uphold their oath.......didn't they just execute the part about protecting the United States from enimies both foreign and DOMESTIC?
“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.
__________________________
Am I totally missing the point here? They are saying their offices are off limits for investigations unless they clear it? How on earth are they interpreting it this way?
What exactly is the Speech and Debate clause anyway?
You can darned well betcha that if this raid had been on a Republican, no one would be complaining.
You can darned well betcha that if this raid had been on a Republican, no one would be complaining.
I believe that is called an "oxymoron".
What does Hastert have to hide? All the facts are clear, the Rat was caught,
not a debatable issue. Hastert must be covering here for something else.
If this is the case they can hide anything they want in their offices on Cap Hill....
Suppose that some Dem Congressman was selling drugs out of his office to the Dem Staffers. Would he not be subject to a search of his office? Would it take "an act of Congress" to see if he had drugs in his office? What if the Dems were the majority - would they move an inch? I don't think so.
Methinks this is simply a question of law and breaking the law and not separation of powers. OTOH, I'm betting that the Supremes will get to decide that issue because this guy is going to go kicking and screaming to court asking them to throw out any evidence they gathered from his office. And he will probably call that idiot Hastert as a witness.
I'm so sick of this crap that I don't care if democrats take the house and senate. At least we will be watching people who know how to play politics.
Well .. just because congress doesn't think it's liable .. doesn't mean it is.
It would be the wiser course to not do so. Don't confirm the perception of the voters that you truly do believe yourselves to be above the law because of your "special" status. Or you could dig an even deeper hole.
The whole thing is stupid. They issued search warrants last August on his homes, which he fought in court (fought to keep them sealed). It's not like he hasn't had more thn enough time to clean out his files in his office.
Self post for this: This may explain why those missing FBI files turned up with Hillary's fingerprints all over them; if they had been Bill's it could be construed as a separation of powers violation.
interesting article.
And that should be protected...however, there apparently was pretty strong probable cause, and the clause in question is not a shield against legitimate prosecution for crimes not related to speech. If it WERE related to speech, then the law itself would be unconstitutional.
U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 6.
Doesn't say anything about a privilege against having your office searched, pursuant to warrant, in the case of a suspected felony.
There is no legitimate constitutional issue here, and the Congresscritters know it.
Does Congress have the power to order searches of the White House?
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.