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?
I did not know that. The way it was being discussed, I'd assumed he was because of the district he represented. Regardless, the LaCrosse Team is being railroaded because of their race and have been abandoned by their University because of the white guilt syndrome....
A black, liberal democrat from the corrupt state of Lousiana.
NO one really cares. Not from there, not from his black caucus, not from the democrat party, no one is calling for his head like they did Delay or even Lott.
Why? Liberal, Black.
No outrage because the idiot Republicans are defending him.
Shows you just how truly spineless the Republicans have become.
These folks never give up.
Like the separation of church and state, there is no such animal, but hey, what the heck. Say it often enough and we'll all swallow it.
Now can we get back to the current theme?
I think it was something about we are a nation of illegal immigrants, or something like that.
Where is the outrage? Well, duh, didn't the folks at "Human Events" notice the D after Jefferson's name? Just what is their problem?
"Nancy, sweetheart, Willy Boy is just the tip of the iceberg in the cult of corruption known as the RAT party."
===
I think you are right, but why aren't the Republicans demanding MORE investigations -- that's what the D'rats would do -- instead of jumping to the defense of this criminal?!
Under similar circumstances, or less, Duke "culture of corruption" Cunningham did resign.But the rules for Clinton were different than the rules for Nixon, and the rules for Jefferson are different than the rules for Cunningham. For the simple reason that liberals like Clinton and Jefferson agree with the negative, superficial perspective implied in the "If it bleeds, it leads," "Man Bites Dog rather than Dog Bites Man" mentality of journalism.
Anyone who does not get along and go along with journalism pays a price for it.
The $90K was found at the Congressman's D.C. area home, wrapped in $10K bundles, disguised as food, in his freezer. The money in question was money given as a cash bribe from an FBI informant a couple days prior to search of the Jefferson's home.
That was a completely different warrant, only against his residence, executed last August.
My understanding on this warrant is that the FBI had reason to believe that Jefferson was blowing off a subpoena issued against records he kept in his congressional office. When the FBI brought this up with the judge, it was the judge that suggested and issued the warrant, specifically to get those records.
Jefferson's office has stated that the records in question were handed over to the Congressional Counsel's Office, so another question would be why that office held the records back from the FBI.
What do the sheeple know today? They have been brainwashed for decades thru the abomination of a public school system & with an allout assistance from a totally corrupt news media, etc. Just read the "Communist Manifesto" That tells it all.
The outrage is at Best Buy for my Denon home theater system DVD player audio output failing just shortly after being purchased. ;^)=
No really...has anyone considered why there are no charges on the one who intiates the bribing? I would bet that is by some corporate goon who is seeking legislative, and therfore, profit motivating legislation that would otherwise be construed as a crime.
And while I am at it, does anyone for a moment believe that any one of these stupid political parties actually look out after the best interests of the American people at large? If you do, you are fooling yourself. Both parties are as corrupt as any computer virus. And the freedoms and rights of the American people are surely being eroding by the representatives of BOTH of these parties.
Where have all the cowboys gone?
Arrowhead>>>---fraud by Demonicans-->
The whole argument that you can't search an office of a member of Congress is in itself absurd. No one can use the Constitution to hide the fact they committed a felony. You cannot use the law to coverup the existance or evidence of a violation of the law.
HEAR! HERE!
Bush and the Republicans still haven't figured out, despite of ample evidence, that people like them the most, get the highest approval ratings, are are able to accomplish most, when they act "like cowboys" -- people LIKE cowboys. When Bush said he'll get Osama "dead or alive" and speaks plainly, instead of worrying about offending the Dems, that's when he had the highest approval ratings.
When Gingrich went straight to the people, that's when, after 40 years, the House changed from Dem to Republican control.
Republicans just don't know how to act like winners, like a majority.
"Where have all the cowboys gone? "
I was just making that point in my post 38.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors (sp) comes to mind.
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.