For accuracy, change that statement to "a warrant initiated by the executive branch employee". And the dialing of a known suspected terrorist phone number would not be grounds for that warrant to issue? 
Posted on 05/28/2006 6:35:29 AM PDT by 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)
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Since the one who contacted the President about the matter was Speaker Hastert, I suspect we have his name. The only other Congressmen who could credibly make that particular threat would be the the Chairman of the House Appropriations committee, Lewis of CA, or the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, which is Wolf of VA.
Congressman Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has oversight of the Justice department, including the FBI, has announced a hearing on the matter for next week. In that announcement he says:
"“Members of Congress must follow the law and be held accountable just like everyone else. By no means, should Rep. Jefferson’s alleged conduct be condoned, but there is a constitutional way for justice to be served. The FBI’s unprecedented Saturday night raid of Rep. Jefferson’s Capitol Hill Office raises profoundly disturbing constitutional questions that must be addressed.”
“In their wisdom, the Founders established checks and balances in our system of government to protect the ability of the People’s representatives to do their jobs free of intimidation or threats from the executive branch. Unfortunately, the FBI’s raid seriously infringed upon the Constitution’s Speech or Debate protection for the People’s representatives in a way not seen in the past 219 years and could have a chilling impact on the Legislative Branch’s ability to function. Tuesday’s hearing will focus on these constitutional issues and what remedies might be necessary"
For your consideration and amusement the Speech and Debate Clause is reproduced below. Judge for yourself (I'll help) whether the action by the FBI violated that clause.
Article I, Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They 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.
So lets see, bribery is a felony so that negates application of the first clause making them "privileged from arrest" (not that the Good Congressman was arrested you understand, although considering they found $90,000 in cash in his freezer, I can't see why not). The papers sought under the warrant had nothing to do with any Speech or Debate in either House, so the second clause doesn't apply either.
IOW, the Privileged Pachyderms are blowing smoke, from where I shall not say.
Speaking of smoke, here's what Speaker Hastert blew out:
If the information we have read about the behavior of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., seems as obvious to a jury as it does to me, he deserves to be vigorously prosecuted. I do not want to do anything that will interfere with that prosecution.
The issue that has concerned me, as Speaker, since Saturday night is not if the FBI should be able to search a member of Congress' office, but rather how to do it within the boundaries of the Constitution.
On Thursday, President Bush recognized that serious constitutional issues needed to be resolved. He wisely directed the Department of Justice to send the documents (taken from Jefferson's office last weekend) to the Solicitor General's office for safekeeping for 45 days. This was a meaningful step. The president also encouraged the Justice Department to meet with us.
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and I directed the lawyers for the House to develop reasonable protocols and procedures that will make it possible for the FBI to go into congressional offices to constitutionally-execute a search warrant.
In more than 219 years, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to use a search warrant to obtain documents from a congressional office. These issues have always been resolved without the necessity of a search warrant, and prosecutions have gone forward.
Justice Department officials now insist that this specific case required them, for the first time, to conduct a search. I regret that when they reached this conclusion, they did not work with us to figure out a way to do it consistently with the Constitution. But that is behind us now. I am confident that in the next 45 days, the lawyers will figure out how to do it right.
How about getting a warrant based "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." as the Fourth Amendment specifies? Oh wait, they did that, after the Congressman refused to honor a subpoena, and the so called Leadership, did not take up the matter, which was not exactly a secret.
So did Mueller(FBI)... as DID Porter Goss(CIA)..
For accuracy, change that statement to "a warrant initiated by the executive branch employee". And the dialing of a known suspected terrorist phone number would not be grounds for that warrant to issue?
What exactly is your argument? You can't seem to get a handle on what is being done via warrantless vs warrant searches and now you're bring Windows into it?
"I'm saying that warrants can easily be issued by mistake using the presumption of a deliberately dialed number when that was not the case."
Fine. So what is your solution? That no investigation via any method be done?
Yes, I read/heard that also.
Another thing. For Hastert & Polosi to be screaming Constitutional separation of powers is stupid. They did not scream separation of powers when the FBI got warrants and raided judges offices before. So there has been a president set.
I had no problem with the first post, maybe because I read it all...point well made.
The reference to Windows was in response to your statement that implied automatic equipment was used, so human mistakes are not a factor. Human programmers make mistakes, called bugs, and the most used software in the country is full of bugs.
If there's nothing incriminating, and Hastert is the, "Angel" he'd like us to believe, then what's the problem, Hasty-boy?
You think an innocent American will be under investigation because they received one or two misdialed calls from a known terrorist from another country?
Gonzales is selective in his application of principles as regards law enforcement. Some laws he enforces without breach, others he ignores so systematically that it is to the point of violating his oath of office. IMO, he is therefore not principled at all.
Well, no. But previously they haven't "Forted Up" in their Congressional office either. Nor refused subpoenas, nor has the "Leadership" not gotten involved in addressing the matter before it got that far. Generally these matters have traditionally been taken care of (ie. swept under the rug as much as possible, with a sacrificial lamb or two to disguise the true extent of the problem) "in house" as it were.
As Sam Clemens (Mark Twain) said, America is a nation without a distinct criminal class "with the possible exception of Congress."
Today, I would drop the word "possible" from that line.
Congress is NOT above the law...Jefferson was VIDEOTAPED taking a bribe and they got a LEGAL oder from a JUDGE to search his office AFTER he refused the subpoenas!! Good gravy, people, you actually WANT your "public SERVANTS" HA. HA, to be ABOVE the law???
Think Jack Abramoff
I think I was applying "Ridiculous" to the person who said Hastert should slam the door and then open it to them.
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.