Posted on 05/27/2006 9:10:24 PM PDT by FairOpinion
How strong is the case against Louisiana's Rep. William Jefferson?
According to numerous press accounts, after videotaping Mr. Jefferson receiving a $100,000 bribe from an FBI informant, the government executed a search warrant of his home and found $90,000 of that money hidden in his freezer. In another case, a Kentucky businessman pleaded guilty to paying Mr. Jefferson $400,000 in bribes for official favors.
Based upon such compelling evidence and Mr. Jefferson's refusal to comply with a subpoena to surrender key documents for eight months, a federal judge issued the search warrant that was executed in the congressman's Capitol Hill office last weekend. The FBI took exceptional measures to ensure that no privileged documents would be surrendered to investigators, with any close calls being made by a federal judge.
The "Speech or Debate" clause is contained in Article I, Section 6, which provides that members of Congress "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... etc."
But as the Supreme Court observed in the 1972 case of U.S. v. Brewster, the clause was never intended to immunize corrupt legislators who violate felony bribery statutes--laws that have expressly applied to members of Congress for more than 150 years. In Brewster, the court noted the clause was not written "to make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility," adding: "Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator."
Such behavior is therefore not protected by the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Yes power corrupts. Luxury corrupts. Politicians want to stay in office at any cost.
So why did 43 stick his oar in...?
And minor or supposedly corrupt figures (like Traficant). The easiest way for a Congressmen/staffer to protect himself will be to vote the way the powers to be want him him to vote.
Simple like that.
Yes.
Birds of a feather......................
I would think they are in no hurry just keep stirring the pot to get as close to the elections as they can.
Democratic culture of corruption.
Don't know - but they would be skinny cats - not the fat cats we have now like Kennedy.
Do we have a list of whom is backing jefferson?
To get into Congress you have to do so many complicated steps, collect so many funds, and do so many favors, that the chance that you can be charged with crime is close to 100% even if you an honest person.
Once executive branch has ability to freely scrutinize Congress with prosecutorial tools, the balance of power is broken. And it does not mean that the executive branch is pure as the snow.
You are naive to see it so simple.
"Harris has problems of her own, skeletons in the closet as it were..."
I keep seeing these vague references to hidden skeletons. Would you please refer me to more information about this. I'm very very tired of the insinuations and veiled accusations. I'd like to see some background on this. Thanks.
"One would think that Congress would be glad that a corrupt member has been caught red handed and is unmasked."
Funny thing is his constituency will reelect him with 90% of the vote.
Why worry about giving up your seat?
Term Limits
Look, the executive branch isn't able to simply go raid legislative offices. It first needs to obtain concurrence from the judicial branch in the form of a search warrant. In this way, there remains a balance of power.
It seems you continue to miss this point.
How many times in past US history such search took place?
For those who don't know, the "speech and debate" clause in Article I, sec. 6 reads, in full, as follows "They [legislators] 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."
As FairOpinion indicated, that provision says exactly what it sounds like (and case law e.g. United States v. Brewster consistent):
1) legislators, barring treason, felony, or breach of the peace, cannot be arrested while attending a legislative session
2) legislators may not be forced to account for what they said during a speech or debate, and neither their statements during the speech or debate nor the way they voted can be used against them.
Jefferson was not arrested while at a legislative session, nor was he asked to answer for anything he said during a legislative speech or debate. There are not even any allegations that he accepted any bribes on the floor during any speech or debate. The protections in the "Speech and Debate" clause therefore do not come within a country mile of protecting against the FBI's actions here.
I am particularly troubled by the inflammatory characterization of the FBI search as a "raid." The FBI had a warrant. When the executive branch gets a warrant, it necessarily seeks a neutral and detached assessment by the judicial branch that the proposed search is proper and consistent with the law. Of course, Congress can't make the executive branch (and implicitly President Bush) look like a dangerous, imperialistic power unless they ignore details like that. And as long as Congress is in a self-aggrandizing mood, we might as well expect next week's drama to be a legislative enactment overturning Marbury v. Madison and the concept of judicial review.
As for Congress' gripe that this search was "unprecedented," that is the among the most woefully inadequate attempts at a legal rationale I have ever heard. Even if other presidents had an unwritten "gentleman's agreement" to wink and nod at criminal behavior, so long as the evidence remained buried on Capitol Hill, this president has no obligation to follow suit. Nothing in the Constitution indicates that governmental powers are like muscles and "atrophy" from nonuse.
Despite the fact that the legal arguments that the executive branch did anything wrong are on weak legal footing, this is a fact scenario that has not arisen before. We can reasonably expect Jefferson to file a motion to suppress evidence in the event he is charged (I'm not sure if that has happened yet). It also would not be suprising if he started a lawsuit over this search. The forty-five day waiting period will allow the executive branch a reasonable amount of time to see what sort of legal challenges materialize. If the court does find that some of the documents were improperly taken (e.g. if there are copies of floor speeches) the executive branch will be able to tailor any subsequent investigation or prosecution to avoid use of those documents.
If this "wait and see" approach is what President Bush has in mind, then that is a reasonable strategy. By minimizing the risk that any protected documents will be used against Jefferson, the chance of tainted evidence poisoning the entire proceedings diminishes. Obviously, if Jefferson is convicted of wrongdoing, we want that conviction to stand, not to be overturned on a technicality.
How much differntly would this story have been handled by the media if Congressman Jefferson had been a white Republican?
Irrelevant to the case at hand. Either there is a separation of powers issue, or there isn't. Whether or not precedent exists has no bearing on this situation.
It has bearing! If over 200 years of American republic such searches were never or seldom conducted (while there were many cases of more severe corruption) it means that a fundamental change of the political system is happening before our eyes.
The New Deal was unprecedented too. Do we really want to go there?
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.