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.
Should rename the place the Congressional SAFE House Building
Hey, why not just give all the Congress Critters diplomatic immunity?
Hastert's probably afraid he's next, so he can't use the freezer idea...
Like I said in the post, and it is not going to happen. Americans have become too weak-willed. The willing are far outnumbered by those unwilling.
Where does it say it unconstitutional to do this in the constitution?
I did not say "responsible", but rather "responsive". Being responsive means being at least minimally accessible. We all know he doesn't read the emails anyway. Why not let the staff he has as Speaker, summarize the out of district inputs just as his personal staff as a House member do for the in district stuff.
To my way of thinking that sort of thing comes with job as Speaker.
Didn't you mean to reply to post#44?
Those elitists breathe rarified air and are above the law. If you don't believe it, "SCREW YOU!" they say.
"Justice Department officials said the decision to search Jefferson’s office was made in part because he refused to comply with a subpoena for documents last summer. Jefferson reported the subpoena to the House on Sept. 15, 2005."
This is why they did what they did.
Deny, Delay, Stall & Divert
Those are long-time Rat tactics and not the name of a high-powered DC law firm. ;-)
yeah I withdrew that statement after I was educated. Sorry.
I've seen this kind of remark only, what, a zillion times now. Congress wants Congress to be in charge of policing Congressional offices.
lol
This may be of interest to you:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/why.php
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Mark Twain
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress.
Mark Twain
To compare Congress to drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors.
Ronald Reagan
The issue is not about corruption. It is about the Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine. Newt Gingrich slammed the Justice Department for an egregious violation of this doctrine: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0506/052206cdpm1.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201080_pf.html
The actions by the FBI and Justice Department is unprecedented in the 219-year history of the U.S. government. It was exactly this kind of abuse of the colonial legislatures by King George's stooges that partly led to a revolution in 1776.
Between the three branches of government, there is a long established procedure for obtaining documents in a criminal probe: the subpeona. Has anyone ever heard of Congress sending its police agents to the White House or Supreme Court with a warrant to conduct a search? When the Executive Branch sends its police into the House of Representatives with a warrant to conduct a search by its police agents, the long-term repercussions could be detrimental to the Republic.
They got a warrant, they didn't need a subpeona. If a judge had an issue with this, he would have denied it. Congress is not above the law, nor is it somehow immune to the same process or procedures as everyone else, as much as that may bother them.
Has anyone ever heard of Congress sending its police agents to the White House or Supreme Court with a warrant to conduct a search?
It has never been done, but over the years, the topic has come up numerious times, from Nixon to Clinton and on.
When the Executive Branch sends its police into the House of Representatives with a warrant to conduct a search by its police agents, the long-term repercussions could be detrimental to the Republic.
It could also be quite beneficial to the Republic, if congress remembers, its place of business, is no more immune to search and warrants when it breaks the law, then my office and me.
If I break the law and hide evidence at my office, the cops can get a warrant and search for it, and they can do exact same thing to a member of congress.
There was also no violation of the debate clause....unless you want to reinterpret it to mean something else.
I thought they went with the warrant first, apparently they went with it last.
Thank you for pointing out that Jefferson refused to comply with a previously submitted subpoena. Nevertheless, the historic procedure is to route the subpoena through the Clerk of the House/Sergeant at Arms and a vote by the House whether to honor the subpoena. Was the subpoena routed directly to Jefferson or his lawyer? In any case, the FBI raid is now precedent. If the case goes to SCOTUS, it would be interesting to see how the court rules. A thread with some informative posts:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3929
Potomac Fever: most virulent infectious disease in history.
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.