A President appointed member of the Executive Branch threatening to resign unless they can increase the power and authority of the Executive. Then the head of the Executive Branch (the President) "working to resolve the issue" is a little too self serving for my taste.
This is a big issue and very much a power play by the Executive Branch.
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.
I for one hope the House seriously fights this all the way.
They are not supposed to all be "buddies" and a working animosity and mild distrust between branches is probably a benefit to average Americans.
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.
Jefferson’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant. This is not about one elected person.
We have seen in the past how the lawyers in the enforcement community have "gamed" new laws choosing to pursue the best case (most egregious, least sympathetic defendant) first in order to secure a questionable “precedent” upon which to build future cases which are far less clear cut.
I can see a future Administration invading the offices of the legislative during an impeachment proceeding or critical vote.
(I use Clintoon as my low in moral and legal potentialities by the Executive)
Then we really would have a Constitutional Crisis.
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.
I am convinced this is a bad thing and portends ill for the future if allowed to stand.
Wm
Absolute total NONSENSE. Utter and complete manufacture DNC propaganda. A Congressperson is NOT above the Law simply by virtue of holding their job. They are still SUBJECT to law enforcement (Executive) and the Judiciary. Checks and Balances?> Heard of it?
So, in your view, congressional members have full immunity from all illegal activities of any sort while they're in office?
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.
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 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.