Posted on 05/28/2006 9:01:54 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - In a break with his counterparts in the House, the Senate's leader said Sunday the FBI was within its right to search the office of a congressman accused of bribery.
"No House member, no senator, nobody in government should be above the law of the land, period," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said.
Frist, R-Tenn., was responding to the search conducted May 20-21 in the office of Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record), D-La. FBI agents carted away computer and other records in their pursuit of evidence that Jefferson accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for helping set up business deals in Africa.
It was the first time that a warrant had been used to search a lawmaker's office in the history of the Congress.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California responded with a rare joint statement, protesting that the FBI had not notified them and that the search violated the Constitution's separation of power protections.
Frist said he examined the provision closely and talked the issue over with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He concluded that the FBI acted appropriately.
"I don't think it abused separation of powers," Frist said on "Fox News Sunday.
"I think there's allegations of criminal activity, and the American people need to have the law enforced."
Hastert complained directly to President Bush and demanded that the FBI return the materials. Bush struck a compromise Thursday, ordering that the documents be sealed for 45 days until congressional leaders and the Justice Department agree on what to do with them — a move that Frist said he supported "to let things settle down."
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said there needs to be "hard look" at whether the FBI violated the Constitution. But he said the FBI has raided judge's chambers before, so there is precedent for crossing branches of government for searches.
He also said he wasn't sure the "speech and debate" protections in Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution were violated, as some of have argued.
That section states that members of Congress "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."
"I'm not sure that you can stretch it to apply to this situation," Durbin said. "In the next several weeks, we ought to take a hard look at it. I'm not going to rule it in or out at this moment."
A 'pubbie with a backbone?
Maybe the 'pubbie leadership took a peek at PA's primary election results and found that voters have an aversion to those who have a notion they're above the law.
Frist may have seen the diaper brigades lurking 'round Pennsylvania Avenue.
I got news for you Dickie boy, there has already been several hard looks at this type of action by the courts, at least two rulings state the senate and reps are not above the law and the debate clause doesn't protect them from search and prosecution in the event of a felony.
Why everyone is not aware of that I can guess, in the case of politicians it is pretend ignorance, in the case of citizens it is a simple lack of knowledge.
Too often, it goes unnoticed that the Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government. The gov't sometimes acts like it is the reverse equation.
The citizenry does not exist to serve the government.
The Founders intended to protect the people's rights by limiting the powers of government. Any action which is intended to protect the people's interests from an errant government---and corrupt legislators like Jefferson---is in keeping with Constitutional imperatives, and is to be applauded.
(That the Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government goes unnoticed..........and untaught. Unfortunately, liberal thought police have indoctrinated generations with Marxist/Socialist agit-prop so that many see the gov't as the solution to problems, and work to grant gov't more and more power over the lives of the citizenry. For example, we see in the Senate immigration bill what happens when an arrogant gov't gets too much power.
If Pelosi Inc are correct any CongressCritter/Senator could commit murder in their official office, hide the body in their office and be protected from a search of the crime scene.
Hasert is making a disgrace of himself and conservative/Republican principles with his stand on this issue. I'm glad a high-level member of the party is speaking out against this.
Nobody, even an elected official, should be above the law.
The judicial just assumed that power!
The Constitution does not say the 3 branched are co-equal; only that there are checks and balances. Congress is covered under Article I, demonstrating that it is the primary branch (more equal than others - Animal Farm, Orwell).
Sort of like the "wall of separation" between church and state. It does not exist in the Constitution.
Wonder whether that means that he finally heard the thunderous howls of derision aimed at the Congress from outside of the Beltway... Now if he could only hear (and act on) that same derision on the topic of the Senate's abominable immigration bill, there might be a glimmer of hope...
Politics. Hastert and the boys are upset and will be even more negative towards any of Bush's desires, especially immigration related, if they are forced to hand over the documents. I mean they even threatened to cut the FBI's budget (a first for congress, actually cutting something)
On other hand, Gonzales, the head of the FBI, and the second in command at the DOJ have all threatened to quit if the documents are returned to the congress.
The 45 day cooling down period is to provide room for Hastert and Gonzales to find a solution acceptable to each. In essence, giving some fig leaf to Hastert.
I stand corrected. Well, I was a product of Public Edumacation
The 45-day cooling off period also gets into the SUMMER Session where CONGRESS goes on Vacation until Labor Day!
I wonder how this plays into the scheme of things.
Just noticed - AP report by Nedra Pickler.
The whole story is probably not being told.
FREE REPUBLIC should have an AP or REPORTER Alert so we can be more careful in reading the reporting.
Is this not a felony investigation?
THat's a double whammy,, ap and nedra pickler
yep. any other government official down the ladder would have been taken to the cleaners already
Bingo. I was cursing so loudly when Frist gave this mealy-mouthed, two-faced litany of meaningless platitudes on Tuesday that the cat is still hiding under the couch.
BLITZER: ...This is the first time this has ever happened in U.S. history. What do you think was going on? What do you think of this?
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: Wolf, I have cautioned our leadership about getting too far out in front. I think the American people need to know, first and foremost, that no congressmen, no senator is above the law of the land. And the law needs to be enforced and needs to be enforced aggressively.
On the other hand, I think it is very important for us to take the time, not with a knee jerk reaction, but to go back and look at the separation of powers, the so-called speech and debate clause that is in the Constitution itself.
"On the other hand"!? What is "the other hand"!?" "On the other hand, we can't be too anxious to investigate felonies..."!? "On the other hand, we have to allow crooked Congressmen to hide evidence in their offices, and know that they can..."!? STFU! Then we have his invocation of "this speech and debate clause that is in the Constitution itself..." Oh excuuuuuuse ME! for thinking that bribery is not a form of speech or debate! Because it's right there, "in the Constitution itself..."! STFU!
What we've done on the Senate side is to ask our rules committee to go back and look to see whether or not there is any precedent. And so far, they haven't been able to come up with any. And then to ask our legal counsel, both inside and outside, to advise us as to whether there should be protocols, all the time recognizing that no member of the Senate or the House is above the law.
So what if there is a precedent!? "Protocols"!? For what, getting it down on paper how many days he should have had to launder the money from his bribes? STFU with your damn Rules of Order hair-splitting! He was caught on tape with marked bills! WTF are you standing for here!?
BLITZER: Yesterday, when you issued a statement, you sounded pretty upset about it. Are you changing your mind?
FRIST: No. I think my statement yesterday reflected exactly what I am, and that is concerned. When we talk about constitutional issues, when we talk about law enforcement, when we talk about the rule of law, there shouldn't be a knee jerk statement or knee jerk reaction without very careful thought, very deliberate thought, the input of constitutional scholars, especially when there is no precedent in the past.
Precedent again! SO! WHAT!
So yes, I'm concerned, because it does involve the Constitution, it does involve the law. So I pretty much stick with yesterday's statement. We will be spending a lot of time over the next several days and probably the next several weeks seeing whether or not a protocol should be developed consistent with that Constitution, consistent with the separation of powers, and consistent with the law of the land.
It's amazing how Frist has some common sense when it comes to raiding Jefforson's office but has no such common sense when it comes to illegal immigration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.