Give us their name.
Clear case of obstruction of justice, intimidation and extortion
Since the one who contacted the President about the matter was Speaker Hastert, I suspect we have his name. The only other Congressmen who could credibly make that particular threat would be the the Chairman of the House Appropriations committee, Lewis of CA, or the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, which is Wolf of VA.
Congressman Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has oversight of the Justice department, including the FBI, has announced a hearing on the matter for next week. In that announcement he says:
"“Members of Congress must follow the law and be held accountable just like everyone else. By no means, should Rep. Jefferson’s alleged conduct be condoned, but there is a constitutional way for justice to be served. The FBI’s unprecedented Saturday night raid of Rep. Jefferson’s Capitol Hill Office raises profoundly disturbing constitutional questions that must be addressed.”
“In their wisdom, the Founders established checks and balances in our system of government to protect the ability of the People’s representatives to do their jobs free of intimidation or threats from the executive branch. Unfortunately, the FBI’s raid seriously infringed upon the Constitution’s Speech or Debate protection for the People’s representatives in a way not seen in the past 219 years and could have a chilling impact on the Legislative Branch’s ability to function. Tuesday’s hearing will focus on these constitutional issues and what remedies might be necessary"
For your consideration and amusement the Speech and Debate Clause is reproduced below. Judge for yourself (I'll help) whether the action by the FBI violated that clause.
Article I, Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They 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.
So lets see, bribery is a felony so that negates application of the first clause making them "privileged from arrest" (not that the Good Congressman was arrested you understand, although considering they found $90,000 in cash in his freezer, I can't see why not). The papers sought under the warrant had nothing to do with any Speech or Debate in either House, so the second clause doesn't apply either.
IOW, the Privileged Pachyderms are blowing smoke, from where I shall not say.
Speaking of smoke, here's what Speaker Hastert blew out:
If the information we have read about the behavior of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., seems as obvious to a jury as it does to me, he deserves to be vigorously prosecuted. I do not want to do anything that will interfere with that prosecution.
The issue that has concerned me, as Speaker, since Saturday night is not if the FBI should be able to search a member of Congress' office, but rather how to do it within the boundaries of the Constitution.
On Thursday, President Bush recognized that serious constitutional issues needed to be resolved. He wisely directed the Department of Justice to send the documents (taken from Jefferson's office last weekend) to the Solicitor General's office for safekeeping for 45 days. This was a meaningful step. The president also encouraged the Justice Department to meet with us.
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and I directed the lawyers for the House to develop reasonable protocols and procedures that will make it possible for the FBI to go into congressional offices to constitutionally-execute a search warrant.
In more than 219 years, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to use a search warrant to obtain documents from a congressional office. These issues have always been resolved without the necessity of a search warrant, and prosecutions have gone forward.
Justice Department officials now insist that this specific case required them, for the first time, to conduct a search. I regret that when they reached this conclusion, they did not work with us to figure out a way to do it consistently with the Constitution. But that is behind us now. I am confident that in the next 45 days, the lawyers will figure out how to do it right.
How about getting a warrant based "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." as the Fourth Amendment specifies? Oh wait, they did that, after the Congressman refused to honor a subpoena, and the so called Leadership, did not take up the matter, which was not exactly a secret.