Projecting a motive that doesn't exist is known as a strawman.
“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.
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.
As if Nancy Pelosi would have authorized an investigation of Mr. Jefferson.
No dice.
Jefferson’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant. This is not about one elected person. “
I don't care about that. 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.
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?
Cunningham's home was searched.
The objection is to members of the Executive entering and seizing documents from the Offices of our Legislative Branch period.
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.
Speaker Hastert (no friend politically of Jefferson that I know of) is not either.
His objection is essentially the same as mine.
No doubt, the extreme likelihood of skeletons in the closet being as it is. It rings awfully hollow.
I do considerable research on corruption in government. Consider this example, or this one. Corruption has been rampant since before the ink was dry on the Constitution. Anything that makes legislators who have been selling us out for two centuries fear the retribution of the law could do nothing but please me.
The real fear you haven't expressed is what might happen if the executive fraudulently concocts documents upon which to build a case. The fact is, there isn't anything to preclude that now.
To pretend I am defending Jefferson or any individual elected official or trying to protect them somehow from prosecution is not correct and you know it.
Show me where I said that you were.
That it has not happened before in 216 years should give conservatives pause. Why is it happening now?
First of all, I seriously doubt this is a fact. Second, if it isn't, it's high time.
Is Jefferson the first suspected crook in the House or Senate or first one prosecuted?. I think not.
As I said, we are WAY overdue for a major housecleaning in Congress.
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