Posted on 05/26/2006 12:37:21 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
The only "constitutional confrontation" is in Frist's head.
Why?
There have been many congressmen under investigation in that time.
I agree that the 45 day period is good to sort out the procedures.
There seems to be some confusion among lawmakers on Capitol Hill (as well as some journalists) about whether the search of Rep. William Jefferson's office raises serious separation of powers issues. What is being overlooked in the argument is the extraordinary care the Justice Department has taken to address those issues.
First, it should be said that prosecutors seem to have Jefferson dead to rights. They have — and have had since late last summer — more than enough evidence to justify a search of his office. In the last months, they have apparently tried other, more standard, means to try to get Jefferson to comply with requests to turn over the evidence, to no avail. There is even, in the 95-page search warrant request, a section headlined GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO EXHAUST ALL LESSER INTRUSIVE APPROACHES TO OBTAINING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS LOCATED IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON. It is followed by several redacted paragraphs in which prosecutors apparently describe their attempts to get Jefferson to turn over information.
And then there is this:
Then the warrant describes a set of extraordinary procedures involving not only prosecutors but also the Court, by which Congressional privileges will be respected:The government has exhausted all other reasonable methods to obtain these records in a timely manner short of requesting this search warrant. A member of Congressman Jefferson's staff has indicated to law enforcement agents that records relevant to the investigation remain in Congressman Jefferson's Capitol Hill office, which the government has been unable to obtain to date. Left with no other method, the government is proceeding in this fashion.
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, or any other pertinent privilege, the physical search of the office will be conducted by special agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have had no substantive role in the investigation.The non-case agents will remove from the office those paper records determined to be responsive [to a detailed list of things to be search for included at the end of the warrant request]…Other than as required to determine responsiveness, the non-case agents will not disclose to anyone any politically sensitive and non-responsive items inadvertently seen by the non-case agents during the course of the search of the office and will attest in writing to their compliance with this procedure.
Before giving any paper records seized from the office to the prosecution team, the non-case agents will deliver the seized paper records to the designated Filter Team….Prior to their appointment, the Filter Team will have had no role or connection to the investigation in this matter and their subsequent roles in the investigation will be confined to their duties and responsibilities in connection with these special procedures.
The Filter Team will review the paper records seized from the office to validate that they are responsive…Any paper records seized from the office that are determined by the Filter Team to be unresponsive…will be promptly returned to the office…
Paper records validated by the Filter Team as responsive…will undergo a second level of review by the Filter Team. The Filter Team will review the responsive records to determine if they may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege or any other pertinent privilege…
For those paper records determined by the Filter Team as potentially within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the Filter Team shall provide a log of those potentially privileged paper records to counsel for Congressman Jefferson. The log shall identify the record by date, recipient, sender and subject matter….The Filter Team shall not provide the log or copies of the potentially privileged paper records to the prosecution team, unless otherwise ordered by the Court…
The Filter Team shall then request the District Court to review the potentially privileged paper records in order for the Court to name a final determination whether they contain privileged information, unless counsel for Congressman Jefferson consents to the production to the prosecution team of certain of the potentially privileged paper records.
The warrant application goes on to describe a similar method of dealing with electronic records. Given the careful methods outlined in the warrant application, and given the apparently unusual situation presented by the Jefferson case, it seems hard to deny that the Justice Department, working with the Court, has taken sufficient steps to respect congressional privileges.
By what right does Hastert think he can dictate to the executive branch in the exercise of its duty to carry out the law?
Even Executive "filter teams".
Scr*w separation of powers,i'm all for catching criminals no matter what method is used.They certainly had probable cause because of the video tape and cash hidden in his freezor!This type of action would help us get to the bottom of things a lot quicker.
Who says he's dictating?
Even though you make sense.
Would democraps have come to the aid if this had been a republican?This is what i dislike about the republicans,a gift horse looks them in the mouth a they just pis* away an opportunity to nail a democrap.
Maybe dictating is a bit strong. Let me try it again. What right does he have to establish guidelines about the FBI review of these documents? They were obtained under a lawful warrant with all kinds of protections built in. On the other hand, maybe it is a way for Hastert to save face.
please cite where and lets discuss
I guess I am in the minority here but I share some of the concerns of what happen. In the future I am sure some process can worked out. I think that if the reports are true that this hasnt happen in the history of the Republic, that something that should be mediatated on a tad. I have to think what would be the response if a "Kerry" justice department had raided Tom Delay's office. THere are perhaps a few people that for legitimate and legal reason who would write Delay for instance that would not want their correspondance read by people other than his staff. Particullay a justice dept under control of an Executive that might be hostile to them.
During the Civil War Lincoln in order to save the Union did many things under his "inherent powers" as he called them that were a tad injurious to civil liberties, and the Seperation of powers.. I have to imagine that even in those days if Lincoln had not ordered raids on certain Congressional offices thats something to consider.
Rather, they are WORKING TOGETHER to figure out how this is going to be handled in the future. What in the world is wrong with that?
Better yet here's a short thread with good comments from all sides: Invitation to an FR Constitutional Debate: Is Hastert right re the FBI searching Jefferson's office?
Gonzales should arrest Frist for conspiring to commit Treason by going with Reid and Kennedy to turn our country over to Mexico.
Oh, brother.
When they let me negotiate how a search warrant on my home will be conducted, beyond protections already provided in the law for all, then I won't have a problem with it. Until then, I view it as congress believing it is entitled to "special" treatment.
Where were all these Republicans when this was happening to Cunningham? Did they let him go down because he wasn't "black?" I can't understand this fiasco at all. Of course, I'm one of those morons who believes law enforcement should be able to do whatever it takes to put a criminal in jail. It's a geezer thing.
The Speaker of the House has an obligation to speak up to ensure that procedures are conducted properly.
It is not as a private citizen that he is acting...it is on behalf of the people's House. Future generations won't look on him to kindly if a future Janet Reno feels free to bust into any Congressperson's office willy nilly.
If it turns out he is wrong (and I don't think he will be for reasons that Mr. Smith above states) so be it. But the analogy to a private citizen (who also has a right to take it to court if necessary...or also change things through the political process) is erroneous.
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.