No, because they misdialed a number belonging to a known suspected terrorist.
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 ...
This has nothing to do with defending an elected official. This is about inventing constitutional rights that the Constitution specifically states do not exist in case of a felony.
“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.
What "Rubicon"? There is no "Rubicon".
Roman Republican law specifically stated that the Commander of a provincial military command could not bring his Legions across the provincial border into Roman territory and that border, in the case of Caesar, was the Rubicon.
That was the Roman Republican law.
By contrast, the U.S. Constitution specifically states that, in the case of a felony, a Congressman has no right to immunity from law enforcement.
That is U.S. Constitutional law.
Further I pointed out that there are ways to obtain documents from the offices of the House Thru the Speaker and the House Ethics committee.
"Ummmm.....Mr. Speaker, could you please provide us the documents that outline how many bribes Representative Scumbag received over the past 6 years? And don't forget the $90,000 in cash behind the frozen waffles in the freezer."
This whole affair has been going on for some 7 months since the Justice Department requested the documents. So beyond a power play what was the reason the Justice department felt compelled to break a 216 year old precedent?
Yes, it was going on for 7 months during which, besides stashing tens of thousands of dollars in bribe money in his freezer behind the Bryers ice cream and the frozen waffles, the Congressman was thumbing his nose at lawful subpoenas.
Come on please be serious, where you can educate me, show me I am wrong I lose nothing but gain understanding so I appreciate you efforts. This from my perspective for now still remains a power play plain and simple.
You are wrong because you are inventing constitutional rights where no such rights exist.
As the Brewster decision said, the Constitution does not ""make members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility."
The objection is to members of the Executive entering and seizing documents from the Offices of our Legislative Branch period.
The wording of Article 1, Section 6 states that a Congressmember is not immune from arrest traveling to and from a legislative session and even during a Legislative session in the case of a felony.
To claim that searches of his Congressional office are not allowed has no basis in the Constitution.
I am not claiming individual House Members have blanket immunity from arrest or should have. Speaker Hastert (no friend politically of Jefferson that I know of) is not either. His objection is essentially the same as mine.
His objection and your objection have no basis under the Constitution.
Congress may claim that they have a Constitutional right to use their offices as criminal sanctuaries that are safe havens from lawful subpoenas but the Constitution says no such thing.
It is the entering and seizure of documents by the Executive Branch from the offices of the Legislative Branch that is at issue and all it portends that I have constantly objected to here.
Show us the clause in the U.S. Constitution that puts Congressmen above the law and gives them the right to ignore subpoenas and use their offices as sanctuaries for criminal evidence.
There is no such clause in the Constitution. There is only the clause that strips Congressmen of special treatment if a felony is involved.
I will readily agree their offices are not sacrosanct either nor should their offices serve as a place to hide evidence of wrongdoing. However I have articulated some very good reasons this search and seizure should not have happened. That it has not happened before in 216 years should give conservatives pause. Why is it happening now? Is Jefferson the first suspected crook in the House or Senate or first one prosecuted?. I think not.
How many others ignored a lawful subpoena for 7 months?
Nobody is above the law and Congressmen have now been made aware of that fact.
"And I'm saying that if known suspected terrorists' numbers dialed from American soil are not investigated, the program has no value at all."
Known or suspected terrorists numbers that are dialed frm American soil can and probably are investigated. The difference is that these require a warrant.
"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."
If a call is dialed wrong, that in and of itself is not probable cause. Without probable cause, the judge should not be issuing a warrant.
"You know I agree everyone in government needs another branch to watch them."
You are not for small government are you?
"it is the method in this case (entering the offices of a sitting elected officials of the Legislative branch by members of the Executive)"
So, if a Congressman took another Congressman, or a member of the public hostage in the office of the Congressman, the executive branch (law enforcement) can not enter the Congressman's office.
"There were other ways to obtain those documents and everyone knew it."
And the Congressman in question (Jefferson) refused, and everyone else did nothing.
"They might have taken more time and some documents might have even been lost"
Obstruction of Justice is fine with you also, I see.
"but there are greater issues at stake than obtaining a conviction of Jefferson."
Like what?
No, that's not correct. The Speech and Debate clause is the clause following the semicolon, and no more than that. Look at Brewster, for instance:
Before a trial date was set, the appellee moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground of immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause, Art. I, 6, of the Constitution, which provides: "[F]or any Speech or Debate in either House, they [Senators or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place."Since no one is questioning anything Rep. Jefferson said in a speech or a debate,
"Speech or debate" encompasses more than spoken words. It includes any act generally done in the course of the process of enacting legislation. The privilege protects legislators from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for actual performance of legislative acts.
I assumed that references to the Speech and Debate Clause, as both Pelosi and Hastert said in their statement (reported by CNN) that Saturday's FBI search violated the principle of separation of powers and the speech or debate clause in Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution referred to both provisions (formal grammatical clauses as indicated by that semi-colon as you indicate) of the second sentence of Art. 1 Section 6.
Nope. They're talking only about the clause after the semicolon. Note that their statement refers to the "absolute privilege and immunity that members of Congress enjoy under the speech or debate clause of Article 1, Section 6." There is no "absolute privilege and immunity" in Article 1, Section 6 other than in the final clause, the Speech and Debate clause. I guess the reason they're also yapping about separation of powers is because violation of the S&D privilege is a violation of the independence of the legislative branch; and a violation of the independence of the legislative branch *is* a violation of the separation of powers principle.
But if they were only referring to the second clause of that second sentence, then I'd say that the Speech and Debate clause is not applicable to this case, and thus bringing it up, is a red herring.
The S&D clause limits the type of evidence that can be used against Jefferson *and* it limits *how* evidence can be collected. Meaning, the executive branch can't just waltz into Jefferson's office--warrant or not--and walk off with his computer (which no doubt contains privileged info) and/or legislative documents of any sort. So, no, it's not a red herring. Here, read this. It explains a lot, imo.
The Supreme Court stated in Brewster that: "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 . . . Nor is inquiry into a legislative act or the motivation for a legislative act necessary to a prosecution under this statute or this indictment. When a bribe is taken, it does not matter whether the promise for which the bribe was given was for the performance of a legislative act as here or, as in Johnson, for use of a Congressman's influence with the Executive Branch."
True, but I think you're reading more into that than what it actually says. Brewster was claiming that he couldn't be prosecuted for bribery because such a prosecution would entail an inquiry into his legislative acts and/or his motives for such acts. The Court disagreed with him--not because his legislative acts weren't privileged--but because no inquiry into those legislative acts was *necessary* for the prosecution. The crime of bribery is completed at the time that the bribe is accepted. Whether the congressman later lived up to his part of the illegal bargain by performing some legislative act is immaterial to the charge. That's all the Court's saying there.
Since I was addressing both you and Polybus and you thanked him for the reference material regarding Immunity of our Representatives while dismissing my posting as "rediculous" I am projecting nothing nor using a straw man. It is reasonable to conclude you believed I was defending the elected official if you do not then good.
The House Ethics committee is comprised of more than Just Ms. Pelosi and if it is broken it needs to be fixed. Not just dismissed out of hand because we don't like the results of it. At some point we may be on the other end of this issue as the minority party, we have been in the past.
"I regard the checks and balances in current law as sufficient. I want crooked representatives from EITHER party in jail for the rest of their unnatural lives."
We agree if they are crooks they should be prosecuted. What you are refering to as checks and balances has a third factor you are not addressing. This is the Legislative Body one of the three key parts of our representative form of Government and the only one who holds the purse strings. Allowing the other two to ride roughshod over it will not serve the interests of the people in the long run at all. Intimidation and threats, witch hunts and fishing expeditions are really the more likely outcome. This is the stuff of future staged media events.
I am glad you mentioned Cunningham he was successfully prosecuted (Like many others) without a search warrant being exicuted for his Congressional Offices.
"As far as I am concerned, the check on executive power is the felony of abuse of power, which in this case would be searching and reading documents outside the scope permitted by the warrant. That means there are TWO branches necessarily involved, and NOT a simple execution of search by the executive, as you state. The checks and balances thus remain intact. Further, if the warrant is cooked up, the legislative branch has the power to impeach the judge. Thus the legislative check is on BOTH of the other two branches when a such a warrant is executed.
That's plenty of protection against abuse."
We disagree in part.
Had Clintoon's Reno Justice Department showed up and began exicuting search warrants of it critics in order to muddy the waters regarding impeachment it is hard to say how things would have turned out.
"which in this case would be searching and reading documents outside the scope permitted by the warrant."
Here we agree again. However it is my understanding that it did not happen that way. Neither the House Master at Arms nor any legal council from the House was allowed to be present and view the documents taken or reviewed.
If this is correct my concerns are still valid and reflect yours.
That could have easily been a Reno Justice Department Conducting a raid on it's critics and political opponents. With no witnesses to their actions.
"Further, if the warrant is cooked up, the legislative branch has the power to impeach the judge."
A Judge relys upon the prosecutor to provide the facts in order to issue a warrant he may be misdirected or misinformed quite easily. It has been said more than once a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. A preemptory strike by an abusive Executive controlled Justice department and the damage would already be done before the Legislative Body would even realize it or could react to it.
I read your two pieces referenced. We agree in large part.
We agree elected officials should be prosecuted for corruption. We disagree over the search and seizure of documents from legislative offices. I just do not think this is a sound precedent and you do.
I initially thought I could support some sort of compromise where those exicuting such a warrant would have legal representatives of the House or Senate review their search warrant and directly supervise any search insuring no other documents beyond the ones listed and agreed to are even viewed by members of the Justice Department.
Then I was reminded of how many times we have been told regarding law enforcement.. "at some point you just have to trust those charged with doing the job to do it properly"
How much more so should this hold true for our elected representatives. We must trust them also to do their job properly. Catching the occasion crook really needs to be subordinated to that. If the crime is treason, espionage something along those lines. You could convince me that a process could be found to conduct an effective investigation. Just plain old crookery doesn't merit the same approach in my mind. Let evidence of that be developed and obtained elsewhere as has been done successfully many times in the past.
I said:
"Speaker Hastert (no friend politically of Jefferson that I know of) is not either.
His objection is essentially the same as mine."
Your reply.
"No doubt, the extreme likelihood of skeletons in the closet being as it is. It rings awfully hollow."
By implication you sugested Speark Hastert's objections were based upon concerns for himself and not the defense of the institution.
Do you have evidence of that or are you just fishing yourself? Let's be honest you were fishing and expressing you disgust and frustration at the Institution. I understand it. It seems like they are all crooks at times and we want it to be different..better. What further proof of my point do you need that this process can get out of hand even with the best intentions and most honorable folks. Now put it in the hands of a crooked Executive and you have a recipe for disaster. Thats my point.
W
You (as are many others here) are confusing the Privilege from Arrest clause with the Speech and Debate clause. The first clause includes the felony exception; the second clause doesn't. Search and seizure of legislative materials is absolutely forbidden by the Speech and Debate clause. That doesn't mean Jefferson can't be arrested and prosecuted for bribery though.
it's properly referred to as "Black-Mail", and is used frequently to force individual states to toe the Federal line.
Remember the national 55 MPH speed limit?
.08 alcohol DUI level?
Seat-belt laws?
There are many more examples.
Congress has been corrupted and abusing power it does not legitimately have for a long time.
That they would use it to insulate themselves from the laws the rest of us have to follow is nothing new, remember "Congressional Immunity"?
"Another Jefferson associate, a Louisville, Ky., telecommunications executive named Vernon Jackson, has pleaded guilty to paying more than $400,000 in bribes to Jefferson in exchange for his assistance securing business deals in Nigeria and other African nations."
Looks like this may be just the tip of an iceberg (excuse the pun, $90k in freezer)
No, because they misdialed a number belonging to a known suspected terrorist.
Certainly. No different.
The pattern being someone has called the number of a known suspected terrorist. One time is enough. Five seconds is enough time to pass coded information. If the program is to work at all, the presumption has to be the number was dialed deliberately.
The momentum of debate has shifted from the guilt or innocence of William Jefferson to the propriety of the FBI search.
Top officials have threatened to resign, the evidence so necessary for prosecution has been impounded for (at least) another 45 days following eight months of bureaucratic dithering and Republicans are now offered the choice of closing ranks behind a bad precedent or to engage in civil war with their own President.
As Freeper Billbears once observed: "Reaganism, this ain't"
Best regards,
Yes, they require a warrant. The type of judge who issues no-knock warrants on the mere sayso of a crack addled criminal informant will issue one on the mere fact that the number of someone who is in contact with a known suspected terrorist was called.
I wouldn't if I were that employee. It could lead to severe disciplinary action. I would seek a warrant.
Bush, Hastert, Delay, and probably 80% of the rest of them, Democrats and Republicans alike, are scared to death of what may be in the files. Also, they are shaken because their congressional offices are no longer a safe place to hide documents. Just when I am proud of the house on immigration, they disgust me with corruption.
Never thought of that. You have a great theory there.
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.