Posted on 05/28/2006 2:23:49 PM PDT by FairOpinion
The New York Times has a cover story today highlighting the great divide between House GOPers and the Bush White House over the FBI’s search of Democrat Rep. William Jefferson’s (La.) Capitol Hill office last weekend.
Nevermind that the search found cash wrapped in foil and hidden in the congressman’s freezer. Nevermind that at least two associates of the Democrat lawmaker have pled guilty to bribing the congressman. Nevermind that the FBI had a warrant.
Where is the outrage?
I understand the Republicans’ being upset over the search of a congressional office by the Justice Department. There are plausible arguments, on "separation of powers" grounds, to be made, but, seriously, people ought to be a little more ticked that it is looking increasingly likely that Jefferson was at least influenced inappropriately.
The New York Times doesn’t seem to think so. In their 1,000+ word cover story, there was no actual condemnation of the actions for which Jefferson is being investigated.
In fact, Times reporter Carl Hulse seems more concerned about hyping the GOP infighting with the Bush Administration, hitting congressional Republicans over the White House’s actions, and reminding readers of Republican-related corruption than pointing the finger at a Democrat who is -- at best -- perceived by many analysts (left and right) to be tainted by scandal.
Hulse opens his column by claiming that the yes-men in the GOP were finally tired of grabbing their ankles for Bush’s abuse of power. Well, that’s not exactly what Hulse wrote, but it’s close. Here’s the actual opening paragraph:
After years of quietly acceding to the Bush administration's assertions of executive power, the Republican-led Congress hit a limit this weekend.
The Times notes that Majority Leader John Boehner (R.-Ohio) believes the issue could wind up at the Supreme Court.
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House majority leader, predicted that the separation-of-powers conflict would go to the Supreme Court. "I have to believe at the end of the day it is going to end up across the street," Mr. Boehner told reporters gathered in his conference room, which looks out on the Capitol plaza and the court building.
A court challenge would place all three branches of government in the fray over whether the obscure "speech and debate" clause of the Constitution, which offers some legal immunity for lawmakers in the conduct of their official duties, could be interpreted to prohibit a search by the executive branch on Congressional property.
What would the case be called, Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, et al v. Bush?
Of course, Hulse was careful to point out how this incident not only fit a pattern set by the White House but almost certainly can be traced back to the evil Dick Cheney:
Lawmakers and outside analysts said that while the execution of a warrant on a Congressional office might be surprising -- this appears to be the first time it has happened -- it fit the Bush administration's pattern of asserting broad executive authority, sometimes at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches.
Pursuing a course advocated by Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration has sought to establish primacy on domestic and foreign policy, not infrequently keeping much of Congress out of the loop unless forced to consult.
I wonder if the Carlyle Group might somehow have also been involved.
One of the really obscene parts of this story that misses the point of the story (that point being William Jefferson) is that Hulse felt he had to make up the “real reason” Republicans have a problem with this search: Republicans are corrupt.
Republicans may have a potential self-interest beyond defending the institutional prerogatives of the legislative branch. With some of the party's own lawmakers and aides under scrutiny in corruption inquiries tied to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the former lawmaker Randy Cunningham, Republicans would no doubt like to head off the possibility of embarrassing searches of their members' offices.
Yes, if the FBI searched a Republican congressman’s office, they would surely find a link to Jack Abramoff, to the real story behind 9/11, and to the JFK assassination. And surely Democrats would be up in arms that an innocent-until-proven-guilty Republican had his office searched by FBI agents bearing a search warrant. Certainly, the outrage of such a search is what would lead on the cover of the New York Times just days after the search.
Hulse goes on to add, essentially, that not only do Republicans not object to the search on the “separation of powers” argument (note their “real reason” above), but also their making a scene because they want to get away from Bush’s low poll numbers.
There is no sign that Congressional Republicans' discontent over this particular matter may spread into a more general challenge to the administration's expansive view of executive authority. But the friction has underscored the growing willingness of Republicans on Capitol Hill to distance themselves from the administration at a time when Mr. Bush's poll numbers are touching new lows, prompting the White House to try to repair relations with Congress.
But what is really outrageous is that Republicans admit that their anger over what could be serious corruption on the part of Jefferson does not compete with their concern that a congressman’s office was searched in the investigation of a crime.
Members of Congress are mindful that much of the public is not familiar with the speech and debate clause, which, among other things, requires that lawmakers be "privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same." Many people may wonder why a Congressional office cannot be searched in a criminal case and what members of Congress are complaining about.
To many lawmakers, that is secondary to the larger separation-of-powers principle they see at risk.
"I clearly have serious concerns about what happened," Mr. Boehner said, "and whether the people at the Justice Department have looked at the Constitution."
What if Jefferson were being investigated for a more “serious” crime? Would a murder or rape or espionage investigation be OK? If so, why not corruption or bribery investigations?
Indeed, where is the outrage? Why aren't people demanding that he resign???
Anyone else have a hard time not saying "Clinton" after saying "William Jefferson?" I sure do. Maybe it's because Clinton was the first Black President.
There is another article which very clearly explains the legality of the search.
Congress Isn't Above the Law. And bribery isn't "speech or debate."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1639582/posts
"Based upon such compelling evidence and Mr. Jefferson's refusal to comply with a subpoena to surrender key documents for eight months, a federal judge issued the search warrant that was executed in the congressman's Capitol Hill office last weekend. The FBI took exceptional measures to ensure that no privileged documents would be surrendered to investigators, with any close calls being made by a federal judge.
The "Speech or Debate" clause is contained in Article I, Section 6, which provides 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." The provision was designed to protect legislators from civil law suits and unwarranted harassment by the executive branch, such as charges of defamation stemming from criticisms of the president during congressional debate. Put simply, only Congress can inquire into the motives or content of votes, speeches or other official legislative acts.
But as the Supreme Court observed in the 1972 case of U.S. v. Brewster, the clause was never intended to immunize corrupt legislators who violate felony bribery statutes--laws that have expressly applied to members of Congress for more than 150 years. In Brewster, the court noted the clause was not written "to make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility," adding: "Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator."
Such behavior is therefore not protected by the Constitution. The purpose of the Speech or Debate Clause was to protect the integrity of the legislative process, and the court noted that bribery, "perhaps even more than Executive power," would "gravely undermine legislative integrity and defeat the right of the public to honest representation."
Why not visit everyone's office over a three day weekend. :-)
?
You seems to have missed that the FBI has OVERWHELMING evidence, PROBABLY cause, they got a legal warrant. And did you know that Jefferson was served with a subpoena, which he ignored for 8 months -- it was after all that, when his office was searched, WITH a warrant.
"According to numerous press accounts, after videotaping Mr. Jefferson receiving a $100,000 bribe from an FBI informant, the government executed a search warrant of his home and found $90,000 of that money hidden in his freezer. In another case, a Kentucky businessman pleaded guilty to paying Mr. Jefferson $400,000 in bribes for official favors; and one of the congressman's key staff members has already entered a guilty plea to aiding and abetting the bribery of a public official.
Based upon such compelling evidence and Mr. Jefferson's refusal to comply with a subpoena to surrender key documents for eight months, a federal judge issued the search warrant that was executed in the congressman's Capitol Hill office last weekend."
CONGRESS ISN'T ABOVE THE LAW
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008439
New DNC spokeswoman: Emily Litella.
I don't understand. It seems that if a congress critter broke the law, the outrage lies this person's feet.
No wonder Republicans are starting to lose faith in the people they sent to Capital Hill.
Why, don't you know that Democrats are innocent? Those who are members of the CBC are particularly innocent of everything.
Wasn't there a "shootist" in that joint Friday and there were cops running around all over that place looking for him? LOL!
Where's the rage over Bill Campbell, Former Atlanta Mayor (only got convicted of Income Tax evasion and not for the vast sums he took in bribes)?
Where's the rage over the Duke LaCrosse players being railroaded by a black DA?
Where's the rage over prosecutions on Hate Crimes for whites-on-blacks only?
The rest will fill a book, but it's pointless. It's a horse of a different color that apparently can't do wrong. We've come to accept that kind of behavior because of white guilt for past sins.
Keep in mind that to criticize William Jefferson (D - La) opens one to be labeled a racist. That and one must remember that he is a member in good standing of the RAT party, hence the hands off treatment from those dinsaurs in the msm.
Well, William Jefferson Clinton must've made off with Outrage earlier, along with making out with her.
Nevermind that the search found cash wrapped in foil and hidden in the congressman’s freezer.
I don't think this is quite true, is it? I thought the cash was in his DC home.
Where's the outrage? Right here, me. So what, big deal, who cares?
I am beside myself over the administration and the party failure to make the Dog nmad liberals squeal like the pigs that they are. Hell, the GOP sounds more like leftists than the conservative party.
GWB can know that he is doing right when he is being denounced on all issues by the left. The dorsally moist need to fly South for ever or languish in jail. Leftist-scofflaws must join them.
Nevermind that the search found cash wrapped in foil and hidden in the congressman’s freezer.
I don't think this is quite true, is it? I thought the cash was in his DC home.
====
It didn't say it was in his freezer in his office, just "congressman's freezer" -- his freezer at home is still "the congressman's freezer". And not to mention that they videotaped him accepting a $100K bribe in cash.
I don't think the office search found the money in the freezer, that was in his house.
CBS expressed a little bit of outrage, but called Jefferson a REPUBLICAN representative.
He's a STINKING RAT...ENUFF said! RAT CRIMINALS slide while the pubs usually are BURNED AT THE STAKE!...Ask DeLay!
I see your point.
But one correction:
"Where's the rage over the Duke LaCrosse players being railroaded by a black DA?"
The DA is NOT black.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060518/480/30546545c78a4415a02c6ab13b999ccc
Where are those people who demanded Republicans resign? I hope somebody in the media will pose that question to them.
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.