[Dog]

Cap....there is something going on...bigger than we are being told. For this threat to be made is off the scale.

[tet68]

That's my take too.

Imagine if the Executive had threatened to withhold/veto funding from a Congressional investigation .

The furor would know no bounds.
This will get more interesting as more is learned.

[yuta250]

there is something going on...bigger than we are being told. For this threat to be made is off the scale.

Agree completely, apparently our Congress Critters are in a panic that we might want to examine their influence peddling too closely. This could get ugly.

[acsrp38]

I understand Hastert's (and Congress') point here. There is an historical point to be made. The House is the "people's house". The "executive" or the "judicial" has no right to invade or search the people, their "house" has to be jealously guarded. (Remember that now you can indict a "ham sandwich") The Brit's love of pomp and circumstance sometime serves as a good object lesson. They slam the door in the face of the King/Queen. In the time of the colonies, it was procedure to search without cause the members of the local governments. King Charles I did it to Parliament. To search a congressional office (the only government body which was originally elected directly by the people until the XVII Amendment) would be the same as spying on "the people". The precedent exists to protect the "business of the people" and not meant to put Congress above the law. The same applies to Article I, Section 6. (Felony is excluded)

I believe that Hastert was right to object to search Jefferson's office, and that the House should be informed of the evidence of "probable cause". (in the case of searching the office of a Rep, "probable cause" may need to be "SUPER DUPER probable cause") In the case of William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, it looks like that had it. /History lesson over

Since now have an honest Administration, and an honest AG office, we can presume that the evidence was overwhelming that William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, had documents or other evidence in his Congressional Office (however- I think the Congressional SGT at Arms, should have witnessed the search)

William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, CANNOT use the Constitution which protects the "people's house" from spying to hide evidence of a crime. The search in this case was justified IMHO.

However, (butt monkey alert) now that a precedent has been set, we must remember that there have been (Clinton FBI files comes to mind) Administrations in the past who would use it for purely political reasons. There will be executives in the future (heaven forbid - Hellery herself) who would trump up charges against another political party, and search offices not only for evidence of a felony but take "accidentally on purpose" political documents.

Be so careful -- very careful of how we applaud this search, in this case it was justified, but remember why Hastert would hold the "Speech and Debate" clause so jealously. The principle may be more important.

Another reason why we should work as hard as we can to make sure that we elect honest representative who will not abuse the office to hide their criminal behavior, or Presidents who will use their power merely for political gain.

Be very careful when you threaten to "vote them out" or "teach them a lesson". If you think that a RINO is bad, why vote for a lib who will be worse????

by the way -- my tag line is NOT a contradiction to the above paragraph. Osborne was lost in the gov primary. I would have supported him, or the other losing candidate over the Dem in the general election.

[Balding_Eagle]

Cap....there is something going on...bigger than we are being told. For this threat to be made is off the scale.

Gotta be.

[El Gato]

Cap....there is something going on...bigger than we are being told. For this threat to be made is off the scale.

Not really, the only powers that Congress has in influencing how the executive executes the laws it passes is the power of the purse and the power to conduct investigations. They've been known to use the power of the purse to in effect negate the laws earlier Congresses passed, without having to take the political heat for repealing or modifying those laws. Case in point: The law provides for restoration of rights after serving time, or otherwise paying the penalty, for committing a felony. One can have ones right to vote restored for example. The law provides that applications for restoration of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms be submitted to the BATFE, but Congress routinely includes in the BATFE's budget a provision forbidding the BATFE from spending any money reviewing such applications. The courts have ruled that failure to act on an application is not the same as denying it, thus foreclosing access to the courts for restoration of the right, which the law provides in the case of a denial of such an application.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[bert]

.....Cap....there is something going on.....

Think precedent......

Think unanswered subpoenas.......

Think Jay Rockefeller....