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)

[marajade]

"So, go around him to Hastert."

Well considering his reaction, maybe the FBI was right to do what they did. Execute a warrant on Jefferson just like they would you or I.

[Fudd Fan]

OMG those implication scenarios are frightening. And unfortunately, totally plausible.

Sorry Mr. Franklin, I'm afraid we couldn't keep the republic.

[acsrp38]

IOW, Congress is above the laws it writes.

see post #113 or learn a little history.

The FBI had probable cause for the search, Hastert was also right. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[SE Mom]

Isn't THAT the truth? And to think...years ago I thought McCain was a stand-up guy. Just shows- my mind can be changed:)

[Copernicus]

Oddly enough, to most of us on this thread - judging by most of the posts

So you choose to invoke the democracy argument, also known as mob rule. If the vast overwhelming majority of members in a lynch mob support a lynching then it must be okay.

We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, with due process and separation of powers designed to trump the passions of the moment.

President Bush impounded the seized papers because he understood the checks and balances involved were both credible and real.

With their misplaced prosecutorial overzealousness the Justice Department has now compromised a perfectly legitimate investigation and allowed yet another DemocRAT to escape the consequence of his mischief and mayhem.

A good time was had by all.

Best regards

[Polybius]

In 1972 there was a court ruling(because of a similar case) that specifically states that the congress can be searched and the debate clause is not an immunity clause. If this has never happened before why is there a court ruling that speicfically addresses the problem?

Here is other case law that shoots down the "we Congresscritters are constitutionally above criminal law" argument:

Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 446 (1908)..............The constitutional question relied on thus arose: On February 11, 1905, Williamson, plaintiff in error, while a member of the House of Representatives of the United States, was indicted, with two other persons, for alleged violations of U. S. Rev. Stat. 5440, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3676, in conspiring to commit the crime of subornation of perjury in proceedings for the purchase of public land under the authority of the law commonly known as the timber and stone act. The defendants were ound guilty in the month of September, 1905. On October 14, 1905, when the court was about to pronounce sentence, Williamson-whose term of office as a member of the House of Representatives did not expire until March 4, 1907-protested against the court passing sentence upon him, and especially to any sentence of imprisonment, on the ground that thereby [207 U.S. 425, 433] he would be deprived of his constitutional right to go to, attend at, and return from the ensuing session of Congress. The objection was overruled, and Williamson was sentenced to pay a fine and to imprisonment for ten months. Exceptions were taken both to the overruling of the preliminary objection and to the sentence of imprisonment. Upon these exceptions, assignments of error are based, which, it is asserted, present a question as to the scope and meaning of that portion of article 1, 6, clause 1, of the Constitution, relating to the privilege of senators and representatives from arrest during their attendance on the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same. .....................Mr. Justice Harlan is of opinion that no substantial error was committed, and the judgment should be affirmed.

[acsrp38]

Thank you.

The FBI was right, Hastert was right. Both were doing their duty

[don-o]

Hasert can assert the protection. The SCOTUS can (and will) deny it.

[browardchad]

spin that thing!!

Every spin deserves an equal but opposite counter-spin. (Laws of Political Physics, 1st Ed.) ;-)

[Pride in the USA]

"The new talks are aimed at establishing guidelines for any future searches that might stem from federal investigations, including a widening Capitol Hill influence-peddling probe centered on convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff."

Here is the real fear on Capitol Hill as those involved in the Abramoff scandal realize that they are most likely next. No one is above the law and this search and seizure was totally legal.

[MHGinTN]

You are seeing in action the very reason President Bush likes Alberto Gonzalez so much ... he is a man of principles first.

[yuta250]

The "executive" or the "judicial" has no right to invade or search the people, their "house" has to be jealously guarded.

Up and until 'probable cause' that a felony has been committed and that evidence exists on their property whereupon it can searched after the appropriate search warrant is issued by a judge as was done in this case. Nice history lesson though, too bad it ignores the available legal proceedures we already have in place that would permit such a search under the specific circumstances of this case.

[MNJohnnie]

Curious how there is a "Balance of power" issue here but supposedly any and everything a President does has to be done with Congressional over site and approval. Seems some people are willing to grant Congress a great deal of special privileges. I don't think most here would agree with those opinions. Congress is the servant, not the master, of the People.

This is another example of the fundamentally out of control egos we have in Congress this day. Like most incompetents they have very high self esteem and have shown virtually no performance on their part to justify that arrogance

[MHGinTN]

"There could easily be an innocent American in contact with a Muslim abroad and warrantless wiretapping going on." I don't think you've quite caught the gist of how the NSA system works: only numbers are compared at first. If a number of a known terrorist connection shows up/creates a 'hit', then a court issues warrants for actual 'listening in or monitoring. Frankly, any Moslem whose number creates a hit with any terrorist connection, I want that one and every family member way out to great, great aunts and uncles monitored.

[acsrp38]

You obviously did not read the entire post. You just picked out the sentence you wanted to jump on.

I said that in this case there was probable cause.


The FBI was justified in searching, Hastert was also right.

Both sides can abuse laws. Do you think a Janet Reno or a Bill/Hill would have any reservations now not to search the office of DeLay??? Be careful.

[MNJohnnie]

A Court issued Search Warrant was executed in this case Congress is claiming it is superior to both the Executive and and a Judicially authorized search.

[MNJohnnie]

If they had a court issued search warrant then Janet Reno and Bill Clinton would have every right to search De Lays office. Congress is claiming EVEN then, they have no right to search a Congress critters office.

[acsrp38]

NO!!! The search was justified, Hastert was right. Again, the two are NOT mutually exclusive.

[marajade]

"Do you think a Janet Reno or a Bill/Hill would have any reservations now not to search the office of DeLay???"

If the FBI has a signed search warrant to search DeLay's office what is the problem here?

BTW, its not DeLay's office, it is OUR office.