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 ...
Gee someone might abuse the FBI police powers some day. Gee using YOUR logic, we must abolish the FBI. Hmm that would go for the Army, the Border Patrol and any other coercive element in the Govt. Someone MAY some day abuse their power over those agencies. We are NOT dealing in make believe, we are dealing IN FACT.
Again, You are claiming Congress is King. NO it is NOT. It is merely the Co Equal branch of the Govt subject to checks and balances by the Judiciary and the Executive. THIS is an example of that Check in operation. NOW the "Congress is King" crowd want to manufacture spurious reason why Congress should be beyond ANY check, utterly absurd.
That's silly and you know it.
I agree. But evidently WLR thinks the founders wanted complete immunity for our elected masters representatives, which I find curious.
I don't see that it follows. They had to take care that privileged documents were not seized, since those would be intermingled in the office with any evidence of bribe taking or transfers of money. But I don't see where inquiry into legislative acts need be made. A bribe is a bribe even if the person taking the bribe never fulfills the terms of it. Thus the Congressman's voting record, and bill drafting record, which are public record anyway, need not be examined... excpet by the members of the public perhaps.
In other words, there really is nothing in the constitution that would protect a congressman from a valid search warrrant, is there. There's something in an anology. Something in the pneumbras of the constitution perhaps.
Read history
READ THE CONSTITUTION!
I haven't seen anyone here claiming that. My point was that a justified search of Jefferson's office and Hastert's objections were not mutually exclusive.
Neither the Counsel for the House nor the Sergeant at Arms have any role to play concerning a criminal investigation of an individual Member of Congress. Consider this analogy -- police have a search warrant issued for the office of a banker, concerning actions by him alone. Would the attorney for the bank, or the attorney for the landlord of the building where the bank branch is located, have a legal role to play? The answer in both cases is no.
This was a valid search. And given that the FBI spent seven months trying to get Rep. Jefferson to respond to subpoenas before they asked for and got a court order to search, no court is going to throw this out. Jefferson is dead meat.
John / Billybob
again that is silly and you know it. You also know me and that I would never even think of such a thing. Now you just want to argue. (Something about a Tar Baby?)
I have -- I also understand WHY the Founding Fathers wrote what they did.
Not as far as I know, unless he objects to the validity of the warrant, and those serving the warrant are willing to take that objection under advisement, which isn't likely if you are Mrs. Gunowner, objecting to a search warrant of your premises.
Do you have a link to a story indicating the refusal to allow the House Counsel or Sergeant at Arms to be present, and that they asked to be? Or were they just not notified of the search? Those are two very different things.
I do not like the Executive usurping the autonomy and independence of the Legislative. This is exactly what they have done in assuming the power to invade the Offices of the Legislative Branch even if in collaboration with the Judiciary.
Nonsense. This case represents no force to inhibit or influence the drafting or passage of legislation unless the member is taking bribes. Legislators have passed laws against legislators taking bribes for time immemorial.
I also think there are plenty of ways for the Enforcement folks to acquire evidence of wrongdoing or corruption of our elected officials without 'Crossing the Rubicon" rifling the files or entering the offices of our elected officials.
They got a warrant. The separation of powers was respected.
That is why our Founders put our elected officials out of reach of the Executive while they are doing their appointed jobs. A circumstance which has increasingly been encroached upon by the Executive.
The scope of which only adressed the construction of legislation. Not criminality.
I can see a future Administration invading the offices of the legislative during an impeachment proceeding or critical vote.
At which point the Legislature could add charges of abuse of power and conclude impeachment.
You are correct that THIS was a valid search. I was also making the point that Hastert was also correct, although I think his objection should have only been a "token" one.
His arrogant "above the law" refusal to turn them over made the next step necessary.
"So, in your view, congressional members have full immunity from all illegal activities of any sort while they're in office?"
Actually what I said was.
"I also think there are plenty of ways for the Enforcement folks to acquire evidence of wrongdoing or corruption of our elected officials without 'Crossing the Rubicon" rifling the files or entering the offices of our elected officials. "
So no I don' think they have should have “full or blanket immunity”.
Their offices are the peoples offices however and they are only temporary inhabitants of them.
It is our ability to communicate privately and securely with our elected officials that is at hazard here.
Our elected officials are not all crooks and their ability to work securely on our behalf far outweighs the need of Law Enforcement to enter their offices.
I did not complain or demand immunity from criminal prosecution for Congressmen Cunningham before or now Jefferson.
I am simply stating that there are sound reasons to object to the offices and records contained therein of our House and Senate not being subject to search by members of the Executive Branch.
No one has pointed out here (including myself up to this point) that there are ways thru the Speaker of the House and the House Ethics Commitee to obtain records and documents, discipline and or remove a sitting elected official .
Members of the Executive Branch entering the Offices of the Legislative Branch and removing documents is not appropriate.
Given a different Administration those documents could well have contained evidence of impeachable offenses by the Executive, Criminality of the Judiciary and the names of those providing the evidence.
Just think before you jump on this bandwagon to what degree would you trust the next Clintoon Presidency or Reno Justice Department to limit their actions if faced with exposure for High Crimes and Misdemenors, Impeachment and removal from office?
Then think Elian Gonzalez..
I think the answer is very disturbing.
W
Anyone who made such a threat from the vantage point of office in Washington, D.C. would seem to be guilty of several major crimes. Threatening a law enforcement body with retaliation must be a violation of criminal law. If successful it could be obstruction. It would also seem to be interference with the investigation of a felony. Charges should be brought regarding applicable violations.
Prohibiting searches of congressional offices is to a large extent providing immunity - particularly when the crimes in question relate to their office.
An an aside, I find it odd that you reference these offices as belonging to the people as opposed to the politician, yet in the same response argue that the any evidence of criminality can be safely hidden in "our" office.
"I am simply stating that there are sound reasons to object to the offices and records contained therein of our House and Senate being subject to search by members of the Executive Branch."
Forgive me please remove the "not". I need an editor not only a spell checker.
You know I agree everyone in government needs another branch to watch them. it is the method in this case (entering the offices of a sitting elected officials of the Legislative branch by members of the Executive) not the watching or the prosecution for crimminal condut I object to.
There were other ways to obtain those documents and everyone knew it.
They might have taken more time and some documents might have even been lost but there are greater issues at stake than obtaining a conviction of Jefferson.
W
You cannot get more "constitutional" than having the U.S. Constitution itself flat out say something in plain English.
Our Founding Fathers DID NOT put our elected officials out of reach of law enforcement while they are doing their appointed jobs in all circumstances.
In fact, our Founding Fathers specifically stated in the Constitution itself that members of Congress could not be arrested EXCEPT, among other things, in the case of FELONIES.
Section 6, Article 1, of the Constitution:
"Sec. 6. The Senators and Representatives .......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."
The Executive and Judicial branches, by the very words of the Constitution itself, have always had the power of law enforcement over Congressmembers committing felonies and this very issue was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court almost 100 years ago.
I know that's what he was referring to. Of course they can't know. But either monitoring, with a court order if was an internal call, or other simple checks, would soon show them that it was an error, and the monitoring would stop.
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.