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 ...
Because they don't want their name and family dragged through the mud by socialists in the media and both political parties. Ever think of that?
Thank MSM for the lack of reporting.
It is true. 8 months the subponea was ignored.
The warrant was supervised by a Federal Judge, who apparently was tired of being ignored.
Of course. Now how do you make that go away so they will feel safe enough to run?
Apparently Hastert was very upset and went to the President. Bush sealed the records, for a cooling off period, as he said.
What bothers me is not that Bush dealed the records for 45 days, but the Republican Congressional reaction to a Dem crook being caught redhanded.
Can you imagine if this were the other way around -- a Republican being caught on video taking hundreds of thousands in bribes with the money in his freezer under a Dem controlled Congress?!
BTTT
Hey, don't hit me with facts - it is hard enough to come up with a solution.
Well, with more turnover, we would get the ones wanting to serve the country and lose the ones getting in to collect corruption funds.
Great post.
Thanks.
I think they are scared spitless that the search light of truth will find more than plenty evil dirt in their freezers, beds, offices, shorts . . .
Don't know how it could be illegal - the incumbent is sure promoting himself, the opponent also has people supporting him.
I had a history teacher once that said no matter what he would vote for the other party when one party had been in office two terms. Only way to prevent lopsided power that corrupts. Of course, no critical danger to the country like we face today.
What did the Party do? Harris is in Alan Keyes territory in Florida. Look at how well he did in Illinois. Toomey got his primary. If you can't sell your message then you don't get elected. It is that damned simple.
That is complete Horses%&t
I haven't quite got a perspective on Hastert and the ABC zinger on him about him being investigated which ABC refused to retract. Now he's indignant over non-existent rights of congresscritters to withold subpoenaed evidence in their offices?
Partisanship is surely a sub plot here, but they ALL have the right to be caught, and they're all sqwawking about that right being recognized. Political corruption is a nearly universal equal opportunity self-inflicted disease. If they're all scared, I am pleased!
Like Mike Taylor from Montana, who was running against Max Baucus for the Senate in 2002. Max Baucus' campaign somehow gets ahold of a TV commercial from the late 1970's of Mike Taylor advertising his hair salon in Denver, and in it, Taylor is wearing what would nowadays be considered fashionably gay attire, and he got branded a homosexual, and the Baucus campaign ran around Montana publically telling Taylor's wife her husband and their kids father was gay.
"Toomey got his primary. If you can't sell your message then you don't get elected. It is that damned simple."
The President and the party threw their weight behind a traitorous POS who was up against a real conservative. Why? To stay in power at all costs.
You have made your party over principle beliefs clear on many threads. Just don't make the claim that we have to support the parties traitors because that's the best candidate we have. Better candidates are often destroyed by the party whose "club" members might be threatened.
Harris has problems of her own, skeletons in the closet as it were, and it's not the GOP's fault they're in there. Toomey just couldn't get elected in the general election.
Maybe I should have worded it better; not necessarily point, but the end result of his actions was to cover up corruption.
Man accepts bribe, FBI obtains warrant and executes said warrant, Speaker of the House demands evidence be given back; the end result is an attempt to cover up corruption. If he was merely worried about procedure, he could have brought that question up without the demands.
So far we have McKinney; no charges.
Patrick Kennedy on R&R in Minnesota.
Jefferson under executive protection for 45 days.
Just peachy.
"Toomey just couldn't get elected in the general election."
Not with the good old boys and the President against him. Even then I'm not so sure.
Oh BS. What you want is political affirmative action. If your guy hasn't got the juice to slug it out and win against the odds he sure as hell is not the right guy to take down an incumbent. Stop whining.
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.