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.
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.