Threats Followed FBI Search of Congressman's Office

AP via Fox News ^ | Saturday, May 27, 2006 | Fox News

[MNJohnnie]

WASHINGTON — The constitutional showdown that followed the FBI's search of a congressman's office came down to this: The House threatened budgetary retaliation against the Justice Department. Justice officials raised the prospect of resigning.

That scenario, as described Saturday by a senior administration official, set the stage for President Bush's intervention into the fight over the FBI's search of the office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., an eight-term lawmaker being investigated on bribery allegations.

During contentious conversations between the Department of Justice and the House, top law enforcement officials indicated that they'd rather quit than return documents FBI agents, armed with a warrant, seized in an overnight search of Jefferson's office, the administration official said.

Until last Saturday night, no such warrant had ever been used to search a lawmaker's office in the 219-year history of the Congress. FBI agents carted away records in their pursuit of evidence that Jefferson accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for helping set up business deals in Africa.

After the raid, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill, lodged a protest directly with Bush, demanding that the FBI return the materials. Bush struck a compromise Thursday, ordering that the documents be sealed for 45 days until congressional leaders and the Justice Department agree on what to do with them.

(Story continues below)

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The fact that William Jefferson (Democrat, Louisiana) was working his shady deal with Nigeria brings two words to my mind:

That was Niger, not Nigeria.

[B Knotts]

Yes, I think that the FBI could have executed the search warrant in conjuction with the Capitol Police after having informed the House leadership, and all would have been well. Somebody, it seems, wants to push this issue.

[Joe 6-pack]

1500 km shared border...they are the same hole.

[randog]

Congress is screaming about "separation of powers" and then they threaten to cut funding for the judicial branch?

Kick 'em all out--rotten to the core.

[cake_crumb]

"That was Niger, not Nigeria."

Regardless in the actual STOU address the president said "uranium from Africa". The idea still should make us go "hmmm"

Joe Wilson's area of expertise and the continent his consulting firm does business for: Africa.

Mary McCarthy's civialian consulting job, and her area of personal expertise? Africa.

Are of bogus claim the president said 16 words that he did not say in th SOTU address and sorce of phony Wilson/Plame allegations which strengthened the antiwar crowd's arguments against the president's foreign policy - and country that French forgery referred to? Africa.

Hmmmmmmmm....

[marajade]

"Well, suffice to say that in the long run, that may not be such a good idea."

The FBI tried unsuccessfully for months from obtaining what they wanted from Jefferson voluntarily. And now we have to set up protocols for the FBI to execute a search warrant on a member of congress. That's just plain crazy and they, Congress, are putting themselves above the law of the everyday average Joe citizen.

[randog]

It's the biggest disconnect I've ever seen between Republicans and their constituency and it will destroy the country, imo.

I don't think it's just republicans--it's the entire Washington establishment, and it's downright frightening. I have to wonder what country they're governing, because it certainly isn't the one I live in.

[Unicorn]

BTTT

[NittanyLion]

Yes, I think that the FBI could have executed the search warrant in conjuction with the Capitol Police after having informed the House leadership, and all would have been well. Somebody, it seems, wants to push this issue.

Given Congress' initial reaction, it seems likely they'd have refused to cooperate with the search. Then the FBI would've been fighting a battle just to search the office, instead of one over whether they get to use the proceeds of the search. Better to have the evidence in hand than trying to beg the imperial kings of congress for permission while Jefferson's busy running the shredder.

[gaspar]

You have confused Nigeria with Niger.

[Fudd Fan]

BINGO.

[yuta250]

Well, most of Congress received such donations.

True, and their sticking up for Jefferson indicates that they are perfectly willing to raise this bogus constitutional issue as a way of preserving the status quo. Lavish donations from special interest groups to see their pet legislation enacted are the life blood of Congress, and Hastert comes off as somebody intent on preserving this tradition, hardly a noble cause in my opinion.

[acsrp38]

I understand Hastert's (and Congress') point here. There is an historical point to be made. The House is the "people's house". The "executive" or the "judicial" has no right to invade or search the people, their "house" has to be jealously guarded. (Remember that now you can indict a "ham sandwich") The Brit's love of pomp and circumstance sometime serves as a good object lesson. They slam the door in the face of the King/Queen. In the time of the colonies, it was procedure to search without cause the members of the local governments. King Charles I did it to Parliament. To search a congressional office (the only government body which was originally elected directly by the people until the XVII Amendment) would be the same as spying on "the people". The precedent exists to protect the "business of the people" and not meant to put Congress above the law. The same applies to Article I, Section 6. (Felony is excluded)

I believe that Hastert was right to object to search Jefferson's office, and that the House should be informed of the evidence of "probable cause". (in the case of searching the office of a Rep, "probable cause" may need to be "SUPER DUPER probable cause") In the case of William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, it looks like that had it. /History lesson over

Since now have an honest Administration, and an honest AG office, we can presume that the evidence was overwhelming that William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, had documents or other evidence in his Congressional Office (however- I think the Congressional SGT at Arms, should have witnessed the search)

William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, CANNOT use the Constitution which protects the "people's house" from spying to hide evidence of a crime. The search in this case was justified IMHO.

However, (butt monkey alert) now that a precedent has been set, we must remember that there have been (Clinton FBI files comes to mind) Administrations in the past who would use it for purely political reasons. There will be executives in the future (heaven forbid - Hellery herself) who would trump up charges against another political party, and search offices not only for evidence of a felony but take "accidentally on purpose" political documents.

Be so careful -- very careful of how we applaud this search, in this case it was justified, but remember why Hastert would hold the "Speech and Debate" clause so jealously. The principle may be more important.

Another reason why we should work as hard as we can to make sure that we elect honest representative who will not abuse the office to hide their criminal behavior, or Presidents who will use their power merely for political gain.

Be very careful when you threaten to "vote them out" or "teach them a lesson". If you think that a RINO is bad, why vote for a lib who will be worse????

by the way -- my tag line is NOT a contradiction to the above paragraph. Osborne was lost in the gov primary. I would have supported him, or the other losing candidate over the Dem in the general election.

[MizSterious]

Yes, but they were perfectly content to have their offices searched when someone reported hearing gunshots.

[B Knotts]

That's just plain crazy and they, Congress, are putting themselves above the law of the everyday average Joe citizen.

It may seem so at first glance, and it may well be true, but I think if you think about it long enough, you'll realize why it must be this way.

And, yes, I know they had long tried to get the materials from Jefferson, and that he would not hand them over. So, go around him to Hastert. I think that's all the Speaker is saying.

[bandleader]

I'm tired of hearing William Jefferson,D/Louisiana referred to as"A Lawmaker"!In point of fact,he's a"Law BREAKER"!!!

[TADSLOS]

I don't think it's just republicans--it's the entire Washington establishment, and it's downright frightening. I have to wonder what country they're governing, because it certainly isn't the one I live in.

My sentiments also. If D.C. were to sink into the Potomac under its own largesse tomorrow, would we be affected more negatively or more positively by the event? I'm convinced it would be the latter.

[Fudd Fan]

Thank you for the attempt to insert a small note of sanity in a Free Republic thread

B Knotts does that a lot. Such voices of reason can't afford to be silenced here these days.

[Joe 6-pack]

See my #103.

[B Knotts]

There is an historical point to be made. The House is the "people's house". The "executive" or the "judicial" has no right to invade or search the people, their "house" has to be jealously guarded. (Remember that now you can indict a "ham sandwich") The Brit's love of pomp and circumstance sometime serves as a good object lesson. They slam the door in the face of the King/Queen. In the time of the colonies, it was procedure to search without cause the members of the local governments. King Charles I did it to Parliament. To search a congressional office (the only government body which was originally elected directly by the people until the XVII Amendment) would be the same as spying on "the people". The precedent exists to protect the "business of the people" and not meant to put Congress above the law.

Precisely!

Thanks for posting this good explanation of the issues at hand.